Bilingual Education

     The two authors, Rodriguez and Collier, make different arguments about the topic of educating English language learners. Rodriquez argues that learning English creates individuality in the public world and if his teachers did not push him to learn English so much he would have delayed it and not have realized that he had the right to speak a public language. On the other hand, Collier argues that both languages should be appreciated in education and used to benefit the child's education.

    The first point I would like to make is that somewhere in the middle of these two perspectives is the perspective of Delpit. In the beginning of Rodriguez's article he says "I considered Spanish to be a private language. What I needed to learn in school was that I had the right- and the obligation- to speak the public language of los gringos." This reminded me much of how Delpit discussed that she did not need her kids to be taught how to be black, she needed her kids to be taught how to survive a white mans world. Collier on the other hand states that "the classroom becomes the ideal setting to affirm the importance of home dialect and its appropriate use within the community in which it is spoken while at the same time students are taught the standard variety." This relates directly to the end of the Delpit reading where she discusses the classroom teacher that taught their students to appreciate both their native language and formal English. Although Delpit mainly discussed issues of race in education, similar views can be seen such as the previous two examples in both articles.

    My next point is that while both articles show different perspectives on this topic, I think they are both looking out for the best interest of the students. Rodriguez, from the point of view of a bilingual learner, felt that it was in his best interest to be pushed to primarily use English; even though admitedely he lost some of his private individuality. Collier on the other hand seems to value and want to protect the private individuality and claims that teaching both actually helps English language learners in the long run. I would like to point out that by following Rodriguez's perspective we are forcing assimilation into society and stressing how important it is but it is also trying to ensure that the child is successful in a world where you are seen as inferior if you do not speak English. By following Collier's ideology we are pushing to make a change against the norm of English being the superior language by instead educating students on the importance of multiple languages. As a music teacher, it is hard for me to form an opinion on which is the right choice or if one is more effective than the other. The amount of language I teach to students is limited since music draws from many languages and in some way is a language of its own. I will say that to me, Collier's argument feels like the right thing, but as a teacher I think I would want so badly for my students to succeed in the public world that I may attempt to drive English instruction as much as possible. I would also like to relate this to my experiences with my students. I have a fourth grade boy who spoke Arabic when he moved to the US last year during third grade. His classroom teacher sat him next to the chattiest English speaker and gave him lots of English instruction and this year his English is amazing and his confidence has grown so much in school and with his peers. On the other hand, there is a group of five Spanish speaking fifth grade girls who have been in the US for a range of 2-4 years. None of them can speak, read or write in English because there is one girl in their friend group who is bilingual and translates the questions and readings for them. So they answer any questions in Spanish whether it be verbal or written. Now they are clearly intelligent because they understand what they are learning but now they are going into middle school with no English knowledge and eventually they will fall behind even if it takes when they have to apply for college or a job. This limits the opportunities they have in this country. Since the teacher has allowed this and not pushed enough for them to learn English, I fear for their future. My main point is, there has to be a middle ground for students to be pushed to learn English and see the importance of it while still appreciating their own home language.

    Finally, I would like to make the point that I believe the biggest barrier in educating language to English language learners is the stigma that is associated with non-English speakers. If the stigma were significantly reduced or abolished I think our students would be much more successful. I am basing this on the combination of the articles where Rodriguez states he lost a sense of personal individuality by gaining his English proficiency and Collier who stresses the importance of learning both languages. This relates to how many other countries successfully educate bilingual students so by the time they graduate they are proficient in their native language and English. This is executed in other countries much better than it is in America and I believe the reason for this is the lack of stigma against their native language. Even though other countries may be making the choice to do so because they recognize that English is becoming a dominant language and it is much easier to be successful knowing English, they also don't diminish the worth of their native language and I think we need to adopt this point of view. Especially since in my eyes, knowing two languages is much more impressive than knowing one so why wouldn't you want to teach students two if possible? If you have the time, I recommend reading this article that discusses bilingual education in Europe.

Unmasking Patriarchy

    The authors of "Unmasking Patriarchy: Analyzing texts to identify oppression with high school students", Fayette Colon and Frankee Grove, argue that educating students on the cycle of gender oppression is the key to unmasking the patriarchy.

    "As (a teacher) often told students, to dismantle oppressive systems we need to name the oppression." This quote directly relates to Johnson's stance from a previous article that was read for class. The reason why I bring up this quote is because I agree completely and I think that by educating students on oppression in all forms we are taking an important first step. However, I cannot express enough how frustrating it is as a woman to repeatedly take classes about being an educator and to learn about fighting racism over and over again and to be given so many resources and perspectives on how to start making changes but not once have I been given an article about gender oppression. Now this is not to diminish the severity of racism in our country by any means because it is an extremely pressing matter that we should work on fighting every day. However, as a woman it is disappointing that the extent of any discussions I have had on sexism has had to do with the pay difference and gender stereotypes but not once have we gone in depth about how to work towards fighting it. I would actually argue that gender oppression is much more internalized within our society than any type of oppression because it standard across all cultures and countries. There was a point that was made (possibly in an article that was read for this class) that said black africans will never experience the same racism as black African Americans but I can pretty much guarantee that they will experience similar sexism and gender oppression. Even in my precollege education women's history month is not taken nearly as seriously as black history month. In black history month you are seen as racist if you do not incorporate black history into your lessons no matter what class you are in but during women's history month it is seen as a time to "celebrate women" rather than a time to educate on the oppression that we face. I bring all of this up to say that although we need to name it, naming it is not enough. 

    "When other girls call her a 'ho,' that is internalized oppression...The girls have been oppressed and then they internalized that and projected it onto other women." This quote immediately made me think of the Four I's video from the beginning of the semester. I think this is an important quote to bring up because I think that gender stereotypes and impression are much more internalized than any other type of oppression which is some ways could make it stronger since it's more hidden it's harder to identify and fight. Women have grown to hate other women and men will judge everything a woman does. We don't talk enough about the fact that when a woman is seen as too intelligent she is a show off, if she chooses to be a stay at home mom she's not doing enough, if a woman shows too much skin she's a slut but if she doesn't show enough she's a prude. Gender stereotypes also exist and effect men but women simply cannot win because both genders are attacking women and I may even go as far to say that women attack women more. If you have the time and have yet to see it, I highly suggest watching this monologue from the Barbie Movie. Even I have strong internalized oppression and if I were educated more on the oppression cycle I think I would have been more prepared to stand up for myself in the real world and to try to fight that oppression. But as a result of this lack of education when a professor decided to cross a line with me and multiple other women in a class two years ago I questioned what people would say about me. Was I asking for him to put his hands on my waist because I was wearing leggings and a crop top? Was it too tempting for him? If I was uncomfortable why didn't I just tell him? Did he really cross a line if it wasn't below my waist or on my chest? I almost did not stand up for myself because I knew people would ask these questions and I would be lying if I said I did not question the same things even though myself and other women documented for over twenty years had been made uncomfortable by this man but no one felt that they could do anything about it.

       Finally, the article brings up the discussion of Latino machismo, which is the Latin cultural belief that males should be the dominant gender. This made me think about how I have a large percentage of students who are Latino and this may be something that is believed in their household. I also have many Muslim and Islamic students who believe that women are the inferior gender (which one student has said to my face). I would like to pose a question for anyone to answer if you have any advice on how to address this in education. It feels like a tough subject area since it is a cultural belief. I do not want to tell a student that their culture is sexist and wrong but I also want to create a healthy classroom environment when gender equality is required. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

The Silenced Dialogue

   

    Lisa Delpit argues that one of the main problems in education is black educators and students being left out of the educational dialogue. Delpit draws attention to the fact that white educators listen but do not hear what black educators are actually saying. She continues by saying that it is important to educate black students like they are black rather than teaching them like white students.

    The first point I wanted to bring up is this quote: "A related phenomenon is that...seem to act under the assumption that to make any rules or expectations explicit is to act against liberal principles, to limit the freedom and autonomy of those subjected to the explicitness." If I'm being honest, I was very confused reading this section. I read over it multiple times and even called my mom to see if she could explain it to me. This is the first reading in my entire college education career that has really challenged me to think. I didn't understand how the liberal perspective could be hindering education when most of education takes a more liberal path and I always just assumed it was for the best. Delpit clarifies in this quote that she is defining liberals as those who seek to "maximize individual freedom and autonomy" and because of this definition I think I finally came to an understanding. I believe the point that is being made is that by trying to allow students to have freedom and autonomy in their education by tecahing implicitly rather than explicitly we are actually doing a disservice to many students, especially non-white students. The reason why I wanted to use this as my talking point is I'm hoping that if anyone chooses to comment that they may be able to weigh in on this matter and inform me as to whether or not I am on the right track in terms of this specific section.

    The next point I would like to bring up is to further the discussion of implicit versus explicit teaching. Delpit points to the difference in verbal directives given by middle class "townspeople" teachers who may say things like "Is this where the scissors belong?" or "you want to do your best work today." In fact, I was actually taught to speak to students like this during my undergraduate program and mostly still talk to my students like this. I would further say that when non-educators think of someone with a teacher voice or how they talk that is what they would typically think of. Delpit continues to compare this to how black teachers are more likely to say "put those scissors on that shelf" and "put your name on the papers and make sure to get the right answer for each question." When I tell you that this revelation had me talking about this to anyone who would listen I am not exaggerating. I never thought about how being more explicit with my verbal directives could create a better outcome in my classroom. Delpit goes on to discuss how students of color expect authority figures to show their authority rather than to just claim their authority and that extends to their home life as well. As of last week I have started to be more explicit with my verbal directives and I have to say it has made a noticeable difference in the responses of my students. During instruction, teaching implicitly only demonstrates the power that teachers hold over their students. When a teacher is teaching implicitly they are withholding their knowledge from their students. Teachers should instead explicitly gives their students the steps they need to take to succeed. In the same stance as Johnson, Delpit states that to act as if this power "does not exist is to ensure that the power status quo remains the same."

    Finally, there is the debate of language that is brought up. My whole life my dad always talked about how black language was improper and "how could anyone expect to be taken seriously when they talk like that?" As much as I have never held that same point of view, I know that he is not the only American to see it this way. But I would like to point out people from the south have their own accent, slang, and terminology and we do not criticize white southern people for their dialect in the same way society does to black people which should immediately tell you that is not about language but rather race. The example of the teacher that puts on the board the students heritage language and the equivalent of the same statements in standard or formal English. This is a great thing for students because it prepares them for what colleges and jobs may expect of them but also teaches them to appreciate their language just the way it is. Even though I recognize how expecting students to be proficient in formal English as the dominant form of English contributes to the privilege and oppression cycle "there is a political power game that is being played" (Delpit pg. 40) and we need to teach these students to survive a white mans world. I recommend reading this article by Dillin Randolph about black English in the classroom especially if you teach a high percentage of black students like I do.