Just a word on whom Carol's piece is for....perhaps it's true that this
specific piece is written not-for-teachers. I've known Carol since the 80s
when we were grad students at the U. of Chicago in the same program. She
has an immense dedication to the teaching of young people of color,
particularly African American youth. As part of this project, she often
presents to audiences of teachers. I suspect that her position at
Northwestern requires her to position her writing in research
journals. But on the whole, she shares her work for an appropriate variety
of audiences, whether this individual article reaches everyone or not.
I had the honor of introducing Carol for an invited talk at the NCTE
conference a few years ago, as follows:
Introduction to Carol Lee
It’s customary to make an introduction for a session such as this
one by reviewing the distinguished speaker’s many contributions to the
field: a catalogue of publications, a list of committees served on or
chaired, a rundown of awards received, and on and on, sometimes well into
the speaker’s designated time. I’d like to take a somewhat different
approach, under the assumption that if you’re here to hear Carol speak, you
know something of her professional record and don’t need for me to recount
it for you.
I’d prefer instead to take a few minutes to talk about why, of all
the people in NCTE and AERA who conduct literacy research, Carol’s work is
unique and most deserving of special attention. As you probably know,
Carol’s research has focused on the discourse features of African American
English and the potential that exists for building bridges from home- and
community-based social and interactive practices to the more formal
knowledge that leads to success in school and in many social institutions
beyond school. What I would like to talk about in introducing Carol is not
just the products of this work--her publications and other public
achievements--but what I see as a unique human commitment that is integral
to her scholarly contributions.
Carol’s work has taken place principally in public schools on the
far South Side of Chicago. Chicago public schools, depending on whom you
speak with, are either the nation’s worst or the nation’s most innovative
and dynamic. They are certainly diverse, including nationally known magnet
schools and comprehensive neighborhood schools. These neighborhood
schools, for the most part, serve students who either can’t gain admission
to the system’s more exclusive schools or whose lives have limited their
access to the choices that the system provides them. Very few of us at
this conference have ever been to these neighborhoods, which tend to be
poor, insular, prone to gang activity, and overwhelmingly populated by
racial minorities. In particular, few of us have tried to study teaching
and learning in urban neighborhood schools. As a result, they have been
grossly underrepresented in any knowledge base that we have about
schooling. Knowledge about them, then, comes from whatever perceptions
develop from standardized test scores (often low), crime stories on the
news, apocryphal tales told by politicians, and other inevitably negative
sources. Simply by situating her research in schools to which few of us
have access, Carol has become a pioneer in educational research.
But just being somewhere doesn’t necessarily accomplish
anything. It’s what Carol does in her work that’s so remarkable. I wish
to address her unique contributions on two levels. The first is in Carol’s
insightful understanding of the metaphorical richness of what’s called
African American English. Some in our society, and in our profession, have
argued that those whose speech varies from a perceived norm are deficient
in their cognition, morality, knowledge, and potential for productive
engagement with society. Carol has aggressively contested these beliefs by
documenting the figurative qualities of African American English and in the
speech genres through which its speakers find expression. She has traced a
relationship between these speech practices and the literary devices
employed by both African American authors and others, including
Shakespeare, who employ devices such as signifying, which I’m sure she’ll
allude to in her talk.
Through this emphasis she has made two critical arguments. One is that the
merits of African American literature ought to be reconsidered according to
criteria that acknowledge and respect its unique literary characteristics,
thus challenging those who claim that a diversified curriculum is
necessarily a weakened curriculum. The second is that she has argued
powerfully and persuasively that African American students, rather than
lacking cultural capital as is assumed in deficit-minded conceptions of
schooling, come to school with tremendous cultural resources that teachers
consistently do not recognize or build upon. Her research demonstrates
clearly that, in schools that many have given up on, students can be taught
to recognize their own linguistic resources and the relevance of those
resources to the literacies emphasized in school. Observers of urban
school systems typically view these schools and their students as
godforsaken. Carol has shown that with a culturally appropriate
intervention, these students can develop into skilled readers of complex
literature whose reading is informed by meta-linguistic knowledge, cultural
knowledge, and literary knowledge.
The second aspect of Carol’s work that I want to emphasize also
distinguishes her from most people doing educational research. Carol’s
research is marked by an extraordinary commitment to making substantive and
significant changes in the lives of the people involved in her studies. I
would say that this commitment supercedes other demands of being a
researcher that usually mitigate the degree to which one can care about and
become involved with those at the research site. Although I’ve never asked
her, I would say that she finds it much more important to change the lives
of urban minority students and teachers than to write an article about the
changes she’s effected. I don’t make this statement to diss Carol’s
scholarship, which I’ve referenced often in my own work, but to emphasize
the way in which her work as a researcher is predicated on making a
contribution to the quality of the lives of those she works with. As much
as I respect Carol’s published research, I think that my highest regard for
her comes from her priorities and her humane and ethical involvement with
students and teachers--and, beyond that, with the professional community
with whom she shares her work. Carol teaches many of the classes that
serve as her research sites and works with faculty members to rethink their
teaching based on a better understanding of students’ linguistic
resources. My admiration for this commitment is unbounded. From my
friendship with Carol over the last ten years or so, I think that I’ve
become a better scholar and, I hope, a better person.
At 05:33 PM 11/16/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Phillip,
>
>Here is a penny's worth. Your comments made me want to go back to Lee's
>article to confirm just who her research work is really for. As you point
>out, she does not begin with the perspective of being a teacher. In my
>opinion, she begins from the point of view of students, and in particular,
>students living in poverty and students of color. Below are some quotes
>from Lee on this. I like her focus both on students and the question of
>resources. At the same time, your stress on the importance of closely
>involving teachers in research and implementation is very important, and I
>heartily agree.
>
>- Steve
>
>
>Philip writes:
>Her research work is clearly not for teachers, even though it is teachers
>who in the final result would be the implementers of such a project. I
>also wonder if Lee’s piece is even for teachers in teacher education. For
>if this project that Lee’s proposing is so valuable, where is the call and
>recognition for such a project to be implemented in our community
>colleges, four year colleges and universities?
>
>
>from Lee's article:
>page 43
>... in light of political inequities, this article emphasizes the
>importance of attending to the cultural worlds of students who have been
>traditionally underserved by public education and have been largely denied
>access to new computer-based technologies being developed to support
>complex problem solving.
>
>page 58
>We know there are serious issues of equity in terms of computer uses in
>schools serving students of color and students living in poverty. Such
>students are more likely to have less access to high-end hardware and are
>more likely to use computers for low-level tasks. Yet, to assume that the
>many sophisticated constructivist, knowledge-rich, computer-based tools
>currently being used in schools are culturally neutral may steer us to
>miss important basic questions.
>
>... the methods by which we evaluate how such computer-based tools are
>appropriated and their impact on learning, on the whole, do not take into
>consideration differential effects for groups that differ by ethnicity,
>race, language use, or class. It is quite possible that the tremendous
>funding being invested in the development of such computer-based tools in
>education may be simply reinforcing current inequities in opportunities to
>learn, unintentionally widening the achievement gap.
>
><end>
>
>
>At 03:01 PM 11/14/03 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Dear fellow xmca-ers -
>>
>>i'm responding in particular to Bill's posting, and in general to Luiz,
>>Eugene, Peter and others interested.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@attbi.com]
>>Sent: Thu 11/13/2003 9:12 AM
>>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>Cc:
>>Subject: Carol Lee's article
>>
>>First, I think Carol makes an important contribution to the various
>>fields of
>>educational design and further presents all educators with challenges.
>>
>>and Bill continued -
>>
>>I think in part, the implication of Carol's work for me is that this
>>melee of
>>triangles penetrating into the classroom needs to somehow be accounted for
>>in the design (and application) of technologies, and lets not forget, in the
>>way people are taught and learn to use the technologies, including "teacher
>>development". That doing so is *cumbersome* is a critque challenged by
>>Carol, but perhaps not fully enough. Placing culture at the center is
>>definitely a hopeful strategy I've heard echoed here on xmca.
>>
>>I'd like to expand on Bill's points by first re-emphasizing that Lee's
>>article presents all educators with challenges.
>>
>>There are some other points I’d like to make as well about the Carol Lee
>>article. With all of the major points I was never in disagreement. Yes,
>>technology, as with any other cultural artifact in a public school,
>>should be child friendly supportive nurturing culturally flexible. At
>>the same time, public schools are not just for children. Public schools
>>are also for the parents as well as the other adults and institutions,
>>religious and commercial and political. There is no stable consensus
>>about what constitutes an appropriate education for children and as a
>>result schools as institutions and teachers personally are caught up in
>>multiple figured worlds (Holland, et. al., 1998). As noted in Peter’s
>>article “Rethinking Rhizomes …”coauthoring research with teachers “has
>>increased our sympathy for their situations and forced us into taking as
>>much of an emic, or insider’s, perspective on their work as we can muster
>>given that we are inherently outsiders to their teaching.”
>>Lee’s work is an unacknowledged outsider’s view of teaching. As such, it
>>is really then a performance piece for fellow researchers in
>>education. By performance, I mean that it is a method of defining,
>>redefining, and maintaining her figured world identity as a researcher in
>>education (McAloon, Singer, Butler are only three of many who work with
>>the notion of performance as a way of constructing cultural identity and
>>social selves). Her research work is clearly not for teachers, even
>>though it is teachers who in the final result would be the implementers
>>of such a project. I also wonder if Lee’s piece is even for teachers in
>>teacher education. For if this project that Lee’s proposing is so
>>valuable, where is the call and recognition for such a project to be
>>implemented in our community colleges, four year colleges and
>>universities? Those of you who are teachers in higher education, when
>>you consider Lee’s suggestions for implementing more culturally friendly
>>technology and programs, what do you see in your classroom? Short of
>>sending the students to the computer lab.
>>I think that if researchers in education really want to see changes in
>>the classroom that then need to be working in the classroom,
>>collaboratively researching with the classroom teachers, coauthoring
>>their work with those teachers, and figuring out as well how to implement
>>the implications of the research in their own professional site of education.
>>
>>
>>My four bits worth.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Phillip
>>
>>Phillip White
>> University of Colorado at Denver
>>School of Education
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST