Week 6- "Aria" and "Teaching Multilingual Children"

 2/25/2024

“Aria” and “Teaching Multilingual Children”-- Notes and other thoughts

Going into these readings, I believe this is the first time we’ve had two readings assigned with conflicting viewpoints. I am wondering what side of the spectrum I will fall on after digesting these readings– or perhaps both have something important to say.

In “Aria”, author Richard Rodriguez argues both for and against the assimilation of MLL students into English speaking. Reflecting on his own experience, while switching his primary language spoken at home to English helped him gain confidence in public situations, he found that his home and family life suffered as a result. In his head, English was far more impersonal than speaking to his family in Spanish.

“...they do not realize that while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated into a public society, such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality” (p. 39).

While more comfortable in public environments dominated by English speaking, Richard has lost a personal part of himself and a connection to his Spanish heritage as a result. I think this is indicative of the struggle of MLL students– assimilation makes the act of living in the US far easier, but how much is lost in translation? 

Should English be completely enforced, or should there be something more freeform in the way we speak in school settings? Spanish is quickly becoming a very dominant language in the US; English is dominant culturally, but perhaps it’s only a matter of time before there is far more widespread adoption of Spanish.

On the other side of the spectrum, “Teaching Multilingual Children” author Virginia Collier affirms the importance of both teaching English, while reaffirming the value of differing linguistic and cultural values.

“For younger children, it is recommended that the teacher’s focus be on the message– which is the child’s focus– rather than on the form of the message” (p. 224)

I think this is another quote that is indicative of the struggle of MLL students– such young students are still in the process of learning, and this is further complicated by understanding the language and form in which the information is being delivered. Should the focus, then, be on the learning material itself first before the delivery of the form?

“The critical distinction to maintain is between how children acquire the capacity to converse casually in a second language, and how they learn to become proficient students using a second language. These are two entirely different processes” (p. 225)

Collier further postulates that academic language further complicates things, especially as something that doesn’t come naturally to English speaking students as well.

The two readings are stacked against each other– while Rodriguez notes that he lost a sense of himself in detaching himself from his first language, his progress in English dramatically increased as a result. On the other hand, Collier points out that eliminating the first language completely is ultimately too damaging, and that there must be an understanding of the value of multiple languages and cultures in a single class room.

I think Rodriguez is speaking from a personal point of view, and from what I gather he regrets the elimination of his first language in his home life. I think this only further strengthens Collier’s points. While difficult, it is possible to have it both ways– learning a second language for public use while maintaining important cultural values. I am interested in hearing about what the rest of the class has to say about this.

This isn't exactly the most serious or meaningful clip, but I was reminded of this Family Guy joke that I think points out the use of a second language in a public setting in an absurd way.

Week 5- “Love for Syria- Tackling World Crises with Small Children”

 2/19/2024

“Love for Syria- Tackling World Crises with Small Children” Notes and other thoughts

https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/love-for-syria/

Linked above is the article that I chose from the “Rethinking Schools” website. I stumbled on it after browsing for a half hour or so. On the surface, I was interested in what the article had to say about teaching difficult concepts to young children, like war and conflict. But I was also thinking about how the kids that I teach do not have such a grasp. I have never once heard them talk about any of the emergent conflicts of the past few years, whether it be Ukraine or Palestine. It isn’t technically relevant to them– but I wonder if they would be more attuned to talking about it if such concepts were introduced at a younger age, in an environment where it is safe to experience feelings and thoughts. A lot of American schools seem to skirt around these ideas of war and conflict (I wonder why… maybe America’s responsibility in many of them). In any case, this is why I gravitated towards this particular topic.

In the article, teacher and author Cami Touloukian experiences a moment in which her student-teacher shares her emotions about the conflict in Syria, and the children in the classroom are empathetic to her. This inspires Touloukian to begin developing a lesson discussing the conflict with her 1st and 2nd graders, and questioning the ethics and logic of discussing these topics with children. 

“But I also worried that if I dug too much into the topic of war and refugees, parents in our mostly white, privileged community would be upset”

Again the topic of race and privilege becomes apparent, which I think was inevitable. Those with privilege are not privy to– or perhaps don’t want to think about– the struggles of those who do not have their status or privilege. I question, what kind of parental outcry would you get teaching this to a classroom one day? Would it depend where the school is situated? Would anyone care?

“I couldn’t help but wonder though, was it so bad to feel sadness about what was happening in Syria? After all, it is sad. And perhaps tapping into our feelings is exactly what needs to happen more often at home and at school. If we don’t feel anything, if we are oblivious or numb, then we won’t do anything to make a difference”

This quote resonates with me. It is the argument both FOR and AGAINST teaching war and conflict to young kids. Parents do not want their kids to feel upset or sad, which is understandable. But as Touloukian points out, this pure emotion is exactly what helps develop empathy and understanding. Experiencing that would allow kids to grow, and gain a more mature perspective. Empathy is the thing that is lacking in many kids– eventually gained, but even the middle schoolers I teach often lack empathy and foresight. We would be better off introducing these concepts to younger children– would it fast track this empathy?

“At first, we simply had to create an alternate plan for Madeline, as her mom insisted that she did not want her to be a part of this unit. However, as time passed and feelings calmed, her mom began to develop a better understanding of what we were teaching and Madeline began to join in more”

While most parents were supportive of teaching the topic, one parent created resistance with Touloukian, arguing that the topic of war wasn’t appropriate for children. However, in the emails sent out, it created a positive discussion amongst parents, who shared their support with refugees from the conflict. And I think this experience she’s describing is indicative, how a hotly contested topic opens the door for greater visibility and understanding of the issues. So long as the environment is civil and professional, people are able to talk to each other at a human level, at an empathetic level. So much of the politics and rhetoric of today is so aggressive in its “us vs them” mentality, we forget that there can actually be rational discussion created between opposing parties. I believe this is all the more reason why Touloukian is on to something with this practice– discussion is always good, even if there is disagreement.

“As our unit came to an end, the children asked what they could do to help. Now that they understood a little better, they wanted to give back and they wanted to make a positive impact on the world”

Touloukian argues that teaching concepts of war, conflict, and refugees to small children is incredibly helpful– it promotes an understanding of struggle outside of our own world views, and creates empathy in young children– something that is otherwise somewhat difficult to instill. It promoted her students to take action and talk about it with their peers as well.

I couldn’t agree more with her sentiment– the experiment clearly worked. I think having these discussions, for however much they are emotionally draining or upsetting, is important. It creates empathy and understanding, on top of self awareness. So much of today’s youth lead incredibly incurious lives, accepting things as they are. But I believe teaching that there are unpleasant things in the world, unpleasant things to experience, creates and gives students and kids much needed perspective.

It all reminds me again of the on-going conflict between schools and parents. What the parent believes to be right to teach to their children. As hopeful as this article is, it was written in 2017. In today’s political climate, is it impossible to have these discussions of race, conflict, and strife without severe backlash? How can we change the minds of not only children, but their parents as well?

Week 4- "The Silenced Dialogue"

 2/20/2024

On “The Silenced Dialogue”-- Notes and other thoughts

As I am reading these opening pages, speaking on when black students and teachers tried to discuss the matter of education with their white contemporaries, it dawned on me that I have seen similar behaviors exhibited by my fellow teachers. The stubbornness and know-it-all attitude.

I wrote about it in my blog post last week, when we had a seminar about race in the classroom. The teachers all ignored and scoffed at the materials in the discussion. They believe they know what is best for all– even in spite of the fact that their own personal experiences as white teachers do not reflect the experiences and needs of colored students and teachers. I question what motivates this behavior, exactly? Why is it so hard to accept that the United States is an environment in which many different races and cultures experience the same system in unequal ways? Is it hard to accept there is disparity? And how can they comment on this in a position of privilege? 

It all relates to what we’ve been discussing, about being color-blind, and how being in privileged positions and experiences blinds white people to oppression.

“It becomes futile because they think they know everything about everybody. What you have to say about your life, your children, doesn’t mean anything” (p. 22)

“To provide schooling for everyone’s children that reflects liberal, middle-class values and aspirations is to ensure the maintenance of the status quo, to ensure that power, the culture of power, remains in the hands of those who already have it” (p. 28)

“And I do not advocate that it is the school’s job to attempt to change the homes of poor and nonwhite children to match the homes of those in the culture of power. That may indeed be a form of cultural genocide” (p. 30)

The above quote reminded me, again, of the aforementioned racial seminar at my school. One teacher whom I was sitting next to argued that it is not our jobs to adapt to the culture of immigrant students, but rather immigrants must assimilate with American culture instead. Definitely made the rest of the meeting very awkward, it was a disgusting thing to say. But again, it is relevant to the quote. I question, as educators we hold positions of power over our students, including displaying our culture, but many teachers refuse to acknowledge this position of power. How can we create dialogues that advocate the acceptance of different cultures and ideas? How can we change the minds of our fellow educators?

“We must keep the perspective that people are experts on their own lives” (p. 47)

In “The Silenced Dialogue”, author Lisa Delpit argues that there is a great communication disparity between white teachers and teachers of color– that there is a “silenced dialogue” as a result of privileged white teachers, unable to budge from their positions, and the frustration of colored teachers, who are upset that their peers refuse to listen. Delpit argues that, to acknowledge this silence, there must be an established understanding of “the culture of power”-- how privileged groups hold positions of power in educational institutions, and how these institutions are designed with the privileged culture in mind. Such institutions must be changed and designed to be accommodating to all cultures, including those not in the position of “cultural power”. Delpit also argues that there must be advocacy for both teaching leadership and student empowerment in the classroom.

I am looking forward to the class discussion on this– there are a lot of ideas and materials in this reading that I think are interesting, but I am having trouble digesting it all at once. I think a class discussion to break down all the integral ideas here will further improve my understanding, more specifically with the differing teaching styles and methodologies demonstrated, and how they are reflective of differing cultural attitudes.

The final quote I referenced definitely resonated with me— I wanted to see if there were any pictures or articles relating to it. It seems as though many people share this same line of thinking. We are the experts of our own experiences– we cannot make assumptions of the lives of others based on our own. Those differing experiences must be heard.

Week 3- “Colorblindness is the New Racism” and “Color Blind or Color Brave?”

On “Colorblindness is the New Racism”-- notes and other thoughts

Before reading these– I had some thoughts on color blindness as a concept. If one suggests they are racially colorblind– that is, they claim to treat all races equally– what is this an admission of exactly? As Luna Malbroux pointed out in “The Four I’s of Oppression”, this statement is not relevant to the workings of systemic oppression. I believe that, more than anything, it is only an admission that the individual is not personally responsible for racism, or that they themselves are not racist. It is a passing of blame, of responsibility. It ignores the fact that in spite of this perception, the individual (assuming they’re white, which…they probably are) is still benefiting from the oppressive system, even if they are not conscious of it. 

Likewise, I believe a claim such as colorblindness is more often than not an outright lie– consciously or subconsciously, we register different groups differently than others. Ending racism and oppression is not just about claiming there are no differences between us– it is about accepting differences. That different cultures, different races, different ways of living, are ok, and that it is ok to not conform to a particular norm. Acceptance, I personally believe, is the name of the game here.

Authors Armstrong and Wildman make an interesting point early on– individuals can claim colorblindness, because they themselves do not have to think in terms of racial difference or disparity. These individuals may be thinking of the disadvantages that other races have within the system, but they are unaware of how whites may be benefitting from said system, and how these benefits are unfair.

Again they touch on another concept we have discussed– the multifaceted nature of oppression– how one individual may be oppressed in one way, but benefit from the system in another.

“As long as educators, particularly legal educators, and students fail to question the dynamics of whiteness and privilege in antidiscrimination law, the legal system will reinscribe that privilege and perpetuate discrimination” (p. 65).

“Society purports to prize colorblindness, and that dictate makes it hard to “see race” in public discussion” (p. 66)

“Color insight does not provide a magic wand that dispenses with racism, but it does offer a vocabulary and some significant points of entry for deeper conversations” (p. 76)

Armstrong and Wildman argue that color blindness only serves to obfuscate the role that “whiteness” and other dominant social ideologies play in upholding system oppression. The authors also argue that valuing colorblindness creates a difficult situation in which racial injustice cannot be properly discussed. An incomplete understanding of white privilege only serves to further harm the oppressed, and a failure to discuss racial discrimination only continues to perpetuate it. To further the end of racial injustice, safe environments for discussing race, such as in the classroom, must be created. Color insight over color blindness.

____________________________

On “Colorblind or Colorbrave?” – notes and other thoughts

I have actually watched this one before– it was played at a staff meeting at our school this year. The subject of the meeting was acknowledging racial disparity in the classroom. It was an incredibly awkward experience– a room of middle aged white people just taking the info being dispensed through one ear and out the other. It was strange seeing the absolute stubbornness of my peers, about a topic I thought they would be more sensitive to, teaching in a heavily colored community such as Cranston. Nobody really took it seriously. I had expected more from them, but just as the Colorblindness reading stated, race is an uncomfortable topic that most people opt to tiptoe around. The video was played more or less without context; I wonder if it would have gone better if there was first a level of understanding on how they as white teachers benefited from white privilege, before watching the video.

“Now, race is one of those topics in America that makes people extraordinarily uncomfortable. You bring it up at a dinner party or in a workplace environment, it is literally the conversational equivalent of touching the third rail”

“There was a corporate study that said that, instead of avoid race, smart corporations actually deal with it head on”

“Invite people who don’t look like you, don’t think like you, don’t act like you, don’t come from where you come from, and you might find that they will challenge your assumptions and make you grow as a person”

Melody Hobson argues that rather than being colorblind, we must be color brave– acknowledging differences is the only way to confront systemic oppression. Tackling the problem head on is the only way things can change for the better, rather than skirting around the issue because it makes us uncomfortable.

_________________________________________

I found this cartoon that kind of encapsulates some ideas in these materials– to many individuals, race is not seen as a problem, but that is only because said individuals are not on the receiving end of systemic racial oppression.

Week 2- The Four I's of Oppression

Week 2- 2/4/24 (late, oops) 

On “The Four I’s of Oppression”-- Notes and other thoughts

Luna Malbroux’s discussion on the ideological element is fascinating to me, as she makes a great point that many roots of racism/sexism/etc. are instilled in us by these systems and stereotypes that we grow up alongside. It shapes the way we navigate the world.

Microaggressions are still a concept I am trying to handle. I have heard the term many times, but the way she explained it made sense to me. It is a backhanded compliment in a way. I think most of the time, people do not mean such comments in this way, but it is the way that systems have normalized certain stereotypes and expectations onto others that seep in.

In what other ways might our expectations of other individuals/races influence the way we treat others? A microaggression might emerge from something like a compliment, but what other ways can it appear?

Institutional oppression in my opinion may be the most difficult I of oppression to tackle. At a governing level, so deeply entrenched in laws and the way neighborhoods are divided, how do we as humans try to reverse this, even as upper class citizens and those in power stand to retain these oppressions and societal norms?

Dominant narrative is a societal norm. I would personally like to learn more about this concept. In what ways is our society glorifying certain groups? How much is intentional? Malbroux’s words remind me that social issues and the subject of oppression remain difficult to navigate and comprehend for the average individual.

Internalized oppression– yet another thing shaped by surrounding ideology. It’s a subconscious shaping, but still all too prevalent. When the culture surrounding us is oppressive, it instills in us these same ideologies. I had written earlier that perhaps institutional oppression may be the most difficult to tackle, but I think internalized may take that title.

Conclusion

Malbroux argues that the four I’s of oppression– ideological, interpersonal, institutional, and internalized– are all key elements that uphold systemic and cultural oppression. No one individual element shares the entire blame, but rather each I coalesces to create dominant ideologies and rigid social structures that limit individuals who do not fall in line with American ideologies and dominant narratives.

I am writing this blog a bit late (sorry again Lesley), but our previous class really helped frame what exactly are the dominant social ideologies in the United States (SCWAAMP). So much of American culture, I came to realize, really is framed around an “us vs. them” type scenario– you are with us or one of us, or you aren’t. And this same framework helps fuel much of the four Is discussed by Malbroux– a clear defining line, created by long standing systemic oppression, between what is socially acceptable and what is not. It almost predetermines what people should think and feel, and that’s horrible.

Typing it out, “us vs. them” reminded me of the Pink Floyd song “Us and Them”. The song I think touches on some similar elements discussed– a predetermined way of thinking or acting, decided by those with higher authority over common individuals. How this same system, likewise, encourages us to enforce these norms, and not question them. In the song, soldiers fight a war which they don’t understand who they are fighting, and why. They are only told that they are “other”, they are different. And I think this same line of thinking is exactly what causes systemic oppression to continue cycling.