Teaching Discourse in School: Narrowing the Gap

To attain education requires collaboration between seven entities: The District, The School, The Community, The Teachers, The Student, The Parents, and the Peers.

The teacher is the glue between them all.  Teachers can have influence over school policies decisions, and certainly the atmosphere at school.  When opposition or recommendations are needed, teachers can influence the district.  Teachers are responsible for reigning in peers to behave and work well together and learn together. Teachers are also responsible for keeping lines of communication with parents open, and for trying to keep parents involved.  Teachers are needed to make community ties, organize community projects, bring members of the community in to the schools and reach out to the students.  Teachers have the opportunity to teach students day in and day out for one hundred eighty days a year. 

To be successful, first in education, then in the professional world, one must be literate.  What exactly constitutes literacy? The topic is one of great debate.  To be academically literate, I believe one must be able to read and write at a grade-appropriate level.  Being socially literate is something far more complex. Gee tackles this complexity in his essays Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy? And Gee says that Discourse in his terms cannot be taught in a classroom. “If you have no access to the social practice, you don’t get in the Discourse, you don’t have it. You cannot overtly teach anyone a Discourse, in a classroom or anywhere else” (Gee, 527). Gee asserts that there are many Discourses, many are divided up by social class, and if one is part of one Discourse, they cannot to use a different one.  He compared it to second language acquisition, which is extremely impossible to master without immersion (sink or swim) into the whole culture. 

Gee’s entire outlook is quite dismal.  His exclusionary beliefs keep our society stratified.  It makes “climbing the social ladder” virtually impossible. If his assertions were true, that literacy cannot be taught overtly by a teacher, why would students of lower socioeconomic status even attend school? Why would students whose parents speak AAVE even attend school?  Should schools be separated? Channeled based on the type of Discourse one has? Should certain jobs only be for certain Discourses?  Certainly someone who is speaking anything other than Standard English would not be an attorney standing in front of a court of law arguing a case (successfully).  If Gee’s theory were true, thousands of families would be pouring false hopes and dreams into their children; telling them they could be anything they wanted to be, when in actuality they are limited by their Discourse, and there is nothing that can be done. “Beyond changing the social structure, is there much hope? No, there is not.” (Gee, 531).

Gee even claims that teachers whose sole job is to teach Discourse (ESL, English teachers, language teachers, composition teachers, and others) are wasting their time, and fail at their jobs (because it is impossible).  There is however, another side of this story.

Lisa Delpit argues that literacy can in fact, be taught. She refutes Gee’s claims in her essay, The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse. Delpit does not dance around the issue; she states that it does take both dedicated students and exceptional teachers to make this learning possible. “...these teachers put in overtime to ensure that the students were able to live up to their expectations” (Delpit, 549).  

Often, students do not succeed simply because the teacher sets the tools in front of them. “There can be no doubt that in many classrooms students of color do reject literacy, for they feel that literate discourses reject them” (Delpit, 550).  It is a teacher’s responsibility to make the material come to life for students.  Teachers have to make the students want to learn.  Delpit provides an example on page 550, “The renowned African-American sociologist E. Franklin Frazier also successfully acquired a discourse into which he was not born. Born in poverty to unschooled parents, Frazier learned to want to learn from his teachers and from his self-taught father.” If teachers show the benefits of learning, and present learning in a welcoming atmosphere, students will be excited about it. If a minority student doesn’t feel content is accepting to who they are, they will not learn it.  

Teachers possess great power over student attitudes. “Perhaps more significant than what they taught is what they believed. As Trent says, “They held visions of us that we could not imagine for ourselves.  And they held those visions even when they themselves were denied entry into the larger white world. They were determined that, despite all odds, we would achieve.” ” (Delpit 549).

That the teachers held their students to a high standard and believed in them is a probable reason for the students’ success. The phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy works either for or against teachers.  If a teacher pre-judges their student and believes they can’t learn or perform, the teacher will give up on, or give less effort to that student. The student (even subconsciously) will pick up on the cues from the teacher, and will in turn perform poorly. Conversely, if a teacher believes in their student (regardless of any disadvantages supplied by the students home life or past performance), and continues to hold that student to high expectations, the student will again, pick up on the cues from the teacher and perform well.

This phenomenon supports the idea that it is a teacher that is the glue between all parts that come together to educate a student. Teachers show up every day and supply the tools students need to learn.  The dedication level and attitude of the teacher makes all of the difference. With literacy at the foundation of education, and the gap in achievement widening, if teachers really can make a difference, as Delpit has proposed, why is this not occurring? The achievement gap speaks to the difference in performance of minority students and those of low socioeconomic status versus their white, middle-class counterparts.

The students are not performing well due to several factors.  Some of these factors have to do expressly with their home lives.  Additionally, their Primary Discourses are often not Standard English.  This gives the students many disadvantages upon entering the school building each day. 

It is a given that teachers cannot make up for all deficits at home.  Schools today are understaffed and underfunded.  Teachers are under paid, overworked, and overwhelmed. Class sizes are too large.  Teaches cannot devote large amounts of time to specific students.  They can however, do the best they can.  Teachers can and should notice issues specific students are having and attempt to address them.

In the quoted text, teachers did individualize their teaching.  They taught students the basics of grammar they should have already known.  They even spent time working on hygiene issues like trimming fingernails.  This goes above and beyond a teachers written job description.  However, it doesn’t go above and beyond the conceptual job description.  A teacher’s job is to teach: to assist learning. 

These students who are struggling are doing so often times because their basic needs are not being met.  It is an assumption, but I’m sure it is awfully difficult to focus on grammar, spelling, reading, writing, etc. if one hasn’t eaten in 2 days, or one doesn’t know where their mother is, or one doesn’t have a winter coat and they had to walk to school.

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, there are five levels of needs: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Education and learning fit in somewhere in the esteem category.  Children cannot focus on learning if they are starving, if they feel they are in danger, or if their parents are fighting all of the time and no one pays attention to them.

I believe that schools can help if a student wants to come each day and put forth effort.  Schools can be stable. They can provide food, a safe area, and a teacher can provide caring attention.  With the right atmosphere, these struggling students can learn.  The biggest variable is the effort of the teacher.  The student’s effort hinges on the quality of the teacher. 

Delpit explains several efforts teachers can put forth to help students acquire literacy. “First, teachers must acknowledge and validate students’ home language without using it to limit students’’ potential” (Delpit, 553).  If teachers show they understand that a student’s Primary Discourse is part of what makes them who they are, and respect it, it will make the student feel comfortable.  Teachers (especially in urban areas) should explain when it is appropriate to speak and write in any way they choose, and when and why it is appropriate to use Standard English. If teachers make the classroom as comfortable as possible for students of many different backgrounds and languages, it will entice learning.  Teachers should embrace diversity by having students learn about one another.  All students of every back ground have something positive to offer the classroom.  It is the teacher’s job to identify opportunities to unite the classroom, believe in every student, and make the extra effort to help struggling students.

If the teachers are going the extra mile, and truly believe in their students, they can learn various literate discourses and become successful in the demanding society of today.

Discourse in school: Teaching to both sides of the Gap.

I have read in this class several essays exploring the issue of attaining literacy. I have discussed in great depth what literacy means to me. I am training to become an educator.  I am signing up to hold, if even for a small time, children’s futures in my hand. I believe being literate in a range of areas is the foundation for success in life.  I mean this not only in the work place and of course in school, but I am also suggesting it is crucial in any interpersonal relationship. 

Academically, being literate is reading and writing the dominant language at a proficient level. Social literacy is far more complex. Gee tackles this complexity in his essays Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy? And Gee says that Discourse in his terms cannot be taught in a classroom.

In my own fascination with relationships and relationship psychology, I read The 5 Love Languages by Dr. Gary Chapman, and discovered that relating to and understanding one individual is a type of literacy. This social literacy is far different from learning how to read and construct sentences. 

Lisa Delpit argues that literacy can be taught. She refutes Gee’s claims in her essay, The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse. Delpit does not dance around the issue, she states that it does take both dedicated students and exceptional teachers to make this learning possible. “...these teachers put in overtime to ensure that the students were able to live up to their expectations” (Delpit, 549).

As a future teacher, Delpit’s essay is inspirational. The following passage specifically refutes the implacable claims of Gee.

[Both (two successful African-American men) attributed their ability to transcend the circumstances into which they were born directly to their teachers. ¹ First, their teachers successfully taught what Gee calls the “superficial features” of middle-class discourse—grammar, style, mechanics—features that Gee claims are particularly resistant to classroom instructions. ² And the students successfully learned them. ³

These teachers also successfully taught the more subtle aspects of dominant discourse. ⁴ According to both Trent and Cunningham, their teachers insisted that students be able to speak and write eloquently, maintain neatness, think carefully, exude character, and conduct themselves with decorum. ⁵ They even found ways to mediate class differences by attending to the hygiene of students who needed such attention—washing faces, cutting fingernails, and handing out deodorant. ⁶

Perhaps more significant than what they taught is what they believed. ⁷ As Trent says, “They held visions of us that we could not imagine for ourselves. ⁸ And they held those visions even when they themselves were denied entry into the larger white world. ⁹ They were determined that, despite all odds, we would achieve.¹⁰” (Delpit 549).]

 As I read it, it was if I could hear a voice whispering, “Yes! It is possible! You can do it!” That the teachers held their students to a high standard and believed in them is a probable reason for the students’ success. The phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy works either for or against teachers.  If a teacher pre-judges their student and believes they can’t learn or perform, the teacher will give up on, or give less effort to that student. The student (even subconsciously) will pick up on the cues from the teacher, and will in turn perform poorly. Conversely, if a teacher believes in their student (regardless of any disadvantages supplied by the students home life or past performance), and continues to hold that student to high expectations, the student will again, pick up on the cues from the teacher and perform well.

It is based on this phenomenon that I believe that teachers have a huge influence on the outcome of their students.  Teachers show up every day and supply the tools students need to learn.  The dedication and attitude of the teacher makes all of the difference.

With literacy at the foundation of education, and the gap in achievement widening, if teachers really can make a difference, as Delpit has proposed, why is this not occurring? The achievement gap speaks to the difference in performance of minority students and those of low socioeconomic status versus their white, middle-class counterparts.

The students are not performing well due to several factors.  Some of these factors have to do expressly with their home lives.  Additionally, their Primary Discourses are often not Standard English.  This gives the students many disadvantages upon entering the school building each day. 

It is a given that teachers cannot make up for all deficits at home.  Schools today are understaffed and underfunded.  Teachers are under paid, overworked, and overwhelmed. Class sizes are too large.  Teaches cannot devote large amounts of time to specific students.  They can however, do the best they can.  Teachers can and should notice issues specific students are having and attempt to address them.

In the quoted text, teachers did individualize their teaching.  They taught students the basics of grammar they should have already known.  They even spent time working on hygiene issues like trimming fingernails.  This goes above and beyond a teachers written job description.  However, it doesn’t go above and beyond the conceptual job description.  A teacher’s job is to teach: to assist learning. 

These students who are struggling are doing so often times because their basic needs are not being met.  It is an assumption, but I’m sure it is awfully difficult to focus on grammar, spelling, reading, writing, etc. if one hasn’t eaten in 2 days, or one doesn’t know where their mother is, or one doesn’t have a winter coat and they had to walk to school.

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, there are five levels of needs: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Education and learning fit in somewhere in the esteem category.  Children cannot focus on learning if they are starving, if they feel they are in danger, or if their parents are fighting all of the time and no one pays attention to them.

School can help if a student wants to come each day and put forth effort.  Schools can be stable. They can provide food, a safe area, and a teacher can provide caring attention.  With the right atmosphere, these struggling students can learn.  The biggest variable is the effort of the teacher. 

What I am aiming to explore is once the teacher is on board and is ready willing and able to put forth the needed effort, how do they do it? What strategies can teachers implore to motivate their students and teach a difficult topic? If a teacher isn’t teaching both sides of the gap, how is that issue addressed or corrected? Are we teaching our teachers correctly?

___________________________________________________________________________

 Discussion post 9:

[Can educators effectively teach literacy in the classroom?  I would like to explore in greater depth what Gee says cannot occur.  I would also like to take a look at diverse classrooms and how the linguistic diversity can be embraced.  Students will come into the classroom speaking and using their own Primary Discourse regardless if it is standard English or not.  Those differences both challenge and enrich the classroom as long as the instructor is prepared.  What strategies and techniques can successful teachers use to teach discourses (literacy) in the classroom?]

Literacy brought to you by....EVERYONE? EVERYTHING?

[“Sponsors are any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress or withhold literacy—and gain advantage by it in some way. Just as the ages of radio and television accustom us to have programs brought to us by various commercial sponsors, it is useful to think about whom or what underwrites occasions of literacy learning and use. Although the interests of the sponsor and the sponsored do not have to coverage and in fact my conflict sponsors nevertheless set the terms for access to literacy and wield powerful incentives for compliance and loyalty. Sponsors are a tangible reminder that literacy learning throughout history has always required permission, sanction, assistance, coercion, or at minimum contact with existing trade routes. Sponsors are delivery systems for the economies of literacy, the means by which these forces present themselves to—and through—individual learners. They also represent the causes into which people’s literacy usually gets recruited.”(Brandt,556).]

After reading the essay, it seems that Brandt thinks of literacy as a product that is distributed to consumers by way of sponsors. These sponsors can be just about anything that teaches or withholds literacy and gain something from their sponsorship in some way.

My literacy has been sponsored by many influential people my whole life.  If I begin to think back, I would say that the first sponsors of my literacy were my big sister Michelle and my maternal grandmother. I know that most people would list their parents as sponsors of their literacy and as being their first teachers in life, however I have almost felt that my parents were anti-sponsors of literacy. By Brandt’s definition however, my parents are in-fact sponsors. My grandmother began to teach me sounds and words starting as soon as I was born.  She continued to teach me how to speak, then how to read, how to be imaginative, how to act out stories and communicate.  My sister was also influential, being a teacher herself, she often would correct any grammar mistakes I made and explain why it was incorrect. 

I mentioned that I think my parents were sponsors of literacy in an anti-literate way.  This is not something that was obvious to me growing up; however visiting my parents now shows me ways in which my literacy was suppressed. I will not assert that education is the only pathway to literacy. That being said, my parents are minimally educated. They do not speak grammatically correct. As I was growing up, they did not invest in teaching me. They did not sit with me and work with me to learn my sounds, my words, or books.  As I got older, my parents did not really invest in my education. I do not hold this against them or blame them in any way. They didn’t really have the time or resources to do so. I can remember by the time I was in 4^th grade, the curriculum was already beyond what my parents could help me with.  They were also very busy with their jobs. I remember being home by myself often. 

My dad taught me to be literate in his way. Because of my father, I am very literate in farming.  I can discuss things in terms of acres, head of livestock, and many other things.  I also give directions by landmarks thanks to my dad.  For example, “Old man Bill lives about 14 miles away. Take this road until you come to a big red barn, take a left and go until you pass three silos, and it will be the fourth house on the right by the pond.  On the way you will pass Tobin’s, Johnson’s, and Anding’s. Bill has 350 acres and about 2500 head of hogs.” That is something not everyone could follow, but none of this helped me advance in school. None of this helped me get friends.

I consider other sponsors of my literacy to be television shows such as Sesame Street.  Shows like that were influential in teaching me sounds and words.  Books have always been a huge sponsor of my literacy and continue to be now.  Books keep my mind sharp and are always taking me on an adventure, often increasing my vocabulary and expanding my imagination.

Brandt’s definition says that sponsors of literacy gain advantage by it in some way.  In terms of my literacy, my close personal sponsors gained personal happiness and satisfaction in personal achievement by teaching me and helping me to learn. Others who helped me along the way were teachers, and although good teachers will take a personal investment in teaching others, the real reason they are doing it is because it is their job. The bottom line is that they will receive a paycheck for the work that they do.

In discussing this topic with my husband, and thinking of books as a sponsor of our literacy, he thought perhaps that it was the author of the books that was the actual sponsor. I argued with that idea, saying that the book was the direct sponsor. It is the tangible object which I am holding and am connecting. The author is the indirect sponsor by way of creating the book. The author is the sponsor that is profiting from me using their book.

If we zoom out a ways from the close up of a book, our society as a whole is a sponsor of literacy.  Our society profits off of a population of literate people.  Literate people become avid consumers in our society. As a literate consumer, I buy into the latest electronics, television programs, books, music etc.  I am constantly searching for more things to stimulate my mind.

If we go back to the first posting of this class, we were asked to list the ways in which we think ourselves to be literate.  Upon listing texting, (Sponsors: phone companies, phone makers, app makers); cooking, (Sponsors: food stores, cook book writers, book distributors, baking supply distributors). There are limitless things people can claim literacy in, and each item will come with a list of sponsors who have a stake in people wanting to become literate in their products.

Almost everything we do or see somehow sponsors our literacy. We never stop learning or evolving. Advertisements on billboards we see will teach us something new or alter our perspective in some way.  There is no way to have a complete list of all of our sponsors of literacy. There would just be too many. I think I have a concept of the most influential, but certainly not a complete list.

It is really those first personal sponsors who get us ready to accept all of the other sponsors in our lives.  Without a basic understanding of a language, we would not be able to be the consumers our societies need to be profitable.  Literacy is the baseline for society. I really wonder if our society could function without literacy. What would illiteracy really look like if we consider it to be so inclusive? If literacy is so much more than simply reading and writing, what does being illiterate look like? Brandt says that literacy is sponsored by all of these things around us, including people, and Gee says that literacy is an all-encompassing social act, literacy really is everything. It is all around us.  I really, really wonder if it is all of this, can any person really be illiterate? Doesn’t it just become a “more-literate”/ “less-literate scale”? How do we measure such a thing?  The more I read, and the more I consider literacy, the more complicated and messy it becomes.

Teaching Literacy

How do we teach literacy? It is not a subject in school (to my knowledge). I haven't heard anyone say, "I've got literacy fourth period". So how does one learn it? Gee asserts that it cannot be learned, but only acquired.  I want to take a further look at this. 

Literacy needs to be acquired in bits and pieces over time. In school through classes and books we learn the elements of literacy. Generally one learns in a natural building block progression.
1. Alphabet
2. Words
3. Reading
4. Writing
5. Grammar

We begin teaching children the alphabet in early childhood, some even from the day of birth.  Children then learn phonics--sounds that make up words, and then words. Words make up sentences which make up books that children learn how to read. Alongside reading is writing. Children learn to write the alphabet, then words, then sentences, and pretty soon, they are learning grammar.
Grammar are the rules words and sentences follow in our language.

All of this learning says nothing of the socialization aspect that Gee discussed.  How do we know how to behave in relation to one another?  Can these rules be learned?

One thing is for certain, we are facing an achievement problem in our country's schools, primarily in urban areas.  White and middle class students are doing much better in school, and are graduating at much higher rates than their lower class and minority classmates.  These students simply aren't performing well.  Are our schools failing our students? Is this the fault of the faculty? Or is this the result of a less than desired home life?

If it can be assumed that students are performing poorly because they are having literacy issues-understanding the language being used (whether that be the language of science, mathematics, or another subject), then the source of the problem needs to be identified.

First off, I believe that children will do well if they can. It is hardwired into us to perform, to do well, to achieve, so when one has the resources and abilities, they will do well. That being said, there are two options. 

1. The teachers are poor.  This could be because they don't care or because they themselves are poorly educated and unprepared to teach.
(Students could learn the elements of literacy if the teachers were able to teach them.)

2. The parents are poor. This could be because they don't care or because they themselves are uneducated, overwhelmed, and unprepared to parent. The social surroundings do not foster learning and the atmosphere in which these children are immersed is one of slang, swearing, and improper grammar. 
(Children would learn the foundation of literacy if the parents themselves were literate and showed their children how to read, write, and interact by doing it themselves.)

I am sure that some teachers are just bad.  It will happen that some teachers just don't have the passion and just don't care about all of their students, especially the student's who cause trouble.  However, I think that a majority of teachers out there do care and are committed to their students. Face it, teaching isn't an easy job. It can be exceptionally rewarding, but it is rarely financially rewarding.  People do not enter the workforce as a teacher to be 'rolling in the money'.  It is a job of hard work, passion and dedication. 

Does that mean that all parents of poorly performing students are to blame? No. Furthermore, does that mean that after all I do agree with Gee? Literacy for all practical purposes needs to be acquired? Not necessarily.

I've come to believe that in the area of literacy, in any subject area is a partnership. Children are born into this world and it is the responsibility of parents to guide their child through the world and give them the greatest chance of success that they know how.  If all works out in this area, the child will show up at school with a head start. 

These children will be faster to read well, write well, and will already have many of the tools for the "identity kits" that Gee discusses to be able to act appropriately in a variety of social settings. 

The children who for whatever reason show up at school and do not already have these skills should be treated as a blank slate rather than as behind or disadvantaged. 

Perhaps there should not be expectations placed on these youngsters before school begins (usually age 5).  Basics of literacy and social expectations should and could be taught by teachers, but it seems to be the expectation that those skills are learned at home before school even begins.

I do not know how to achieve this, but the clear solution not only to literacy issues in general, but to the entire achievement gap is to strengthen the partnership between parents and teachers. Both have the tools needed to teach literacy, and if the work is split up, and chilren are exposed to aspects of literacy at home and at school, the results should be great.

Now, how do we get all parents to work with teachers?