The idea of a community of learners silencing people is interesting to ponder.
It reminds me of Van Galen's work and that of others in the book, Caring in an
Unjust World. I hadn't realized myself until recently that the "caring"
literature must be differentiated by those research pieces that only discuss
positive realtionships and those that go beyond to pedagocial caring which
empowers teachers and students with the cultural tools to have more choice in
their lives.
In my own practices, I am conscious of the power of revolt and how I can and
do manipulate it.
Ilda
nate wrote:
> Eugene,
>
> Your comment reminded me of what Vygotsky said of teaching literature. It
> was something to the fact that if we want children to appreciate literature
> to worst thing we can do is explicit teach it. If school is as much about
> resistance as it is about appropriation/internalization then what we teach
> is also about what a child resists or appropriates. Some of the literature
> I have been reading questions some of the more contextual-local approaches
> for its lack of resistance. At a certain level I like resistance which is
> part of my attraction to the Vygotsky sig. In a more contextual -
> community of learners approach the insider/outsider is more difficult to
> distinguish which in turn makes resistance less likely. Don't get me wrong
> I like the more contextualist-local approach as in COL but it does bring up
> the question if its assimilation that works.
>
> This is a tension for me, are we in valuing everyday knowledge, children's
> interests etc. giving them ownership in their education or are exploiting
> those interests, knowledges etc. in order to make appropriation,
> internalization more likely. This was one of my fears in reading Wertsch's
> book, which I liked very much, appropriation being translated as a version
> of internalization that works. Is the attack on internalization an attack
> on the concept of assimilation or just they didn't do it very well. For
> me, its not that a more local COL is a bad approach but rather a possible
> side effect is resistance being less likely. At one level, there is a
> level of resistance teacher-student, middleclass-lower-class, etc. that is
> important to resolve as a teacher, but on the other hand resistance has its
> good side, doesn't it?
>
> Nate
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: some joint activity re contextless reading?
>
> > Hi Ilda and everybody--
> >
> > Ilda, reading your description of the situation in Massachusetts, I could
> > not keep myself from a comment on the policy matter:
> >
> > >Here in Massachusetts, teachers were also
> > > mandated to use whole language.
> >
> > "Mandated whole language approach" sounds for me as a contradiction in
> terms
> > like "mandated love."
> >
> > I'm not a specialist in language art but as a parent of a child in an US
> > public school, I prefer good old phonics approach (or whatever it is
> called)
> > when kids memorized rules. Why? I prefer that my son hates grammar and
> > phonics rules than The Diary of Anna Frank (as it is now after going to
> > California school with "mandated whole language approach.")
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ilda Carreiro King <kingil who-is-at bc.edu>
> > To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 11:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: some joint activity re contextless reading?
> >
> >
> > > Ken,
> > > I find this interchange somewhat ironic. I would think you would be
> > > sensitive to superficial representations of methodologies given what
> > > happened to whole language. Here in Massachusetts, teachers were also
> > > mandated to use whole language but at the city or town level since we
> do
> > not
> > > have centralized state control of education in Massachusetts. They
> were
> > > sometimes given a book to read or a one day to one week summer workshop
> to
> > > attend.
> > >
> > > Primarily what I experienced as a consultant was the same horror you
> are
> > > envisioning with phonics mandates. School boards were thrilled because
> > they
> > > could stop buying expensive basals with supporting workbooks and saved
> a
> > lot
> > > of money by buying the teachers 5 Big Books for the year- no
> exaggeration-
> > > and they could share them among all first grade teachers since the kids
> > > didn't need them! And I remember lots of circles of 20 children choral
> > > reading after the teacher holding the Big Book. And I got lots of
> > teachers
> > > telling parents that one day, their child would read- don't worry- it
> > would
> > > just happen. Just like one day they talked. I think you would be as
> > > appalled as I was at viewing this as what whole language was all about.
> > >
> > > What teachers told me and I observed was that no training or
> understanding
> > > went with this mandate. Their books and materials needed to be put
> away
> > or
> > > taken away and they were supposed to improvise on creativity. Most
> were
> > > embarrassed to take out a basal, even if it contained a good story, or
> a
> > > phonics worksheet, even if the child expressed a request to learn about
> a
> > > phonogram. It was the same disaster I have seen whenever any one
> system
> > of
> > > reading instruction is mandated.
> > >
> > > What I learned was that teachers need in-classroom, ongoing support to
> > adopt
> > > new practices and that mandating a teacher to use one thing doesn't
> work
> > for
> > > kids or teachers.
> > >
> > > I have taught kids reading successfully for over 25 years. I have been
> > > fortunate to have supervised experiences with flexible instructors who
> > > taught me to put the learner first and learn many techniques.
> > >
> > > I share your outrage at mandating anything but agree to disagree about
> > > phonics.
> > >
> > > Ilda
> > >
> > >
> >