Dear Gordon et al,
On labeling. I agree that labels-as-stereotypes are unproductive. Yet
identifying students by certain political-diversity variables is useful
in finding patterns of who we are serving well in our present system and
which groups we are systematically failing to serve.
It is clear that political-diversity variables of race, English language
learner status, low-SES, special needs, migrant status, neglected and
delinquent status, etc. continue to be potent predictors of systematic
failure to serve these same large groups of students who differ from
dominant, white, native English-speaking, middle class and higher SES
learners.
In terms of exposing those systematic failures, it seems to me the
"labels" continue to be useful; without them we cannot meaningfully
disaggregate data and understand the differential effects of the
system. In fact, we may need even greater granularity to expose
systemic failures. We know for instance that the "myth of the model
minority" Asian learner rests on aggregate numbers that hide the
differences between wealthy Asian immigrants with high levels of
individual and family educational attainment and other immigrant or
refugee Asian groups who come from lower-SES and prior educational
attainment circumstances.
The issue is to understand how/when the labels are useful and when not.
Even a relatively friendly term like English language learner (better
than the official label of "Limited English Proficient") elides the
reality that these are, perhaps more accurately, "potentially bilingual"
learners (and might be recognized as such except for the relative
strength of regressive English-only educational politics).
Just as Nate and Eric would like to see special education students; I'm
interested in seeing English language learners, understanding the way in
which their "dialogue" is facilitated (for example, are they permitted
to engage in appropriate dialogic inquiry in non-English primary
languages and also to develop English language proficiencies through
meaningful inquiry activities?).
The classroom video archives are virtually silent on issues of
differentiated instruction relative to first, second, third, etc.,
language development for speakers of languages other than English. And
a political climate in which the former Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Languages Affairs has been re-named to the Office of
English Language Acquisition does not help matters. ;-)
I think there can be both more and less to "labels" than meet the eye
(or make it into classroom videos and research ;-)), imho.
In Peace,
K.
One then has to ask
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST