Vygotsky

            Wow–I have a Vygotsky headache. I have determined over the past few days that I simply do not have the mind for higher-level psychology, as I struggle to synthesize the discussion of psychological theories with my physical interaction amongst students and learning.  I agree and understand with Vygotsky’s idea that the development (or convergence) of language in a direct relationship with human activity is arguably the most significant developmental step in a human beings life. It is through this convergence that human beings begin to attribute meaning and context to all of their interactions, and where they begin to operate in ways that are “purely human.” In this sense, the language and literacy teacher’s job is to create a social space where growing human learners can practice and evolve their language and speech patterns in a meaningful way. Through this practice–we hope–our students can develop into more thorough and thoughtful communicators. I also very much enjoyed his discussion of the ways human beings adapt to their own environments. I think this is directly relevant to the teaching profession, as facilitating a productive classroom environment is one of our most essential duties.

            My favorite chapter in Vygotzky, however, was the final one that talked about the development and importance of written language. He writes, “Up to this point, psychology has conceived writing as a complicated motor skill. It has paid remarkably little attention to the question of written language as such, that is, a particular system of symbols and signs whose mastery heralds a critical turning point in the entire cultural development of the child” (106). I loved this quotation for many reasons, but most importantly because Vygotzky acknowledges that writing is not simply “a complicated motor skill” but rather a social and “cultural” experience that heightens a human beings level of active engagement with him-or-herself and others. It is, as he surmises, one of the most important developments in the life of a learner. Acknowledging this connection between writing and culture is critical in building the idea that literacy is an act of social engagement, and to promote the idea that writing should not (and can not) be taught in isolation. One does not learn to write simply by being given the proper “motor skills.” In this way, a child who only knows how to hold a pen and negotiate the alphabet does not know how to write; not in a way that can be empowering and life changing, to say the least. When we acknowledge the importance of thought and emotion within the writing process, we can more properly facilitate literacy growth in the classroom.

Why are we Oppressing the Oppressed?

            Something about reading Freire always fires me up. His use of language seems to speak directly to me, as he eloquently and deliberately addresses many of the issues that are circling around in my mind. Although I could literately pull quotations from almost every page in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to talk about, I want to focus on two related quotations that address the issue of student agency and victim status. The first quotation reads:

            Attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects which must be saved from a burning building; it is to lead them into the populist pitfall and transform them into masses which can be manipulated.

I strongly agree with this statement and I fear that our public education system is aligned deliberately towards this damaging “savior” mentality that Freire speaks against. We do not actively promote student agency or participation on a wide scale basis and thus position our broader student population as passive victims in need of saving. This becomes even more visible in our interaction with minority and low SES students, as we remove their “reflective participation” on a cyclical basis. In this sense, there is an entire population of students that are labeled “at-risk” essentially from birth, and because of this our public school teachers are urged to “save” these children from the “burning building” that we perceive their lives to be. This begs the question–how can we ever possibly respect or value a student’s home culture if we view his or her inherited environment as the primary predictor for looming failure?

           

            Unfortunately for the equity of our society, there is little room for authentic “liberation” present in our current system, as a student must instead “play the system” to succeed; as opposed to viewing the system itself as the oppressive force. Freire addresses this in the second quotation I hoped to speak on, writing:

            “One does not liberate people by alienating them. Authentic liberation– the process of humanization–is not another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it.”

If we adopt Freire’s position that liberation (and humanization in general) is accomplished FOR and BY the individual people being oppressed, then there is no room for a savior mentality within our classrooms. Instead, teachers must use the classroom as a  space–not a mechanism–for social change. The ultimate change, in this sense, comes from the students NOT the teacher.

Damaged Youth.

            We had a strange professional development sequence this past week that left me troubled. The meeting was led by one of the assistant principals and it focused around the brain development (or lack of development) by students in high-stress situations. The teachers were all asked to brainstorm some of the specific challenges that students face, and to discuss the problems that cause stress in students’ lives (i.e. Teen Pregnancy, Low Income, Lack of Food, Abuse, Drugs, Gangs, Missing Parents…). This led to a discussion of particularly tragic situations that some of the students are currently dealing with, and teachers/administrators used this as a way to justify lack of intellectual development.

            The entire conversation struck me the wrong way, obviously, because it just acted to support the deficit perspective that is already pervasive throughout the school. I understand that students in “high risk” areas have to deal with certain stresses and anxieties, and I also recognize the importance of getting to know your student population, but when you connect the stresses of low-income living to fundamental brain development issues (regardless of the research supporting this connection) you run the risk of strengthening stereotypes and growing the deficit model that drives the teacher’s perspective of local school culture. I would argue that this was exactly what happened in this week's meeting and that the entire thing positioned low-income youths as fundamentally damaged when compared to their middle-class peers.

           

Dewey Dude.

           It was amusing reading Dewey’s piece this week, as what he wrote so long ago still rings immediately true in today’s educational environment. This is both a wonderful feat of writing, to keep something so relevant for such a long period of time, but also serves as a reminder to all educators that our march of progress often moves at a snails pace. Beyond that, his focus on the importance of “reflective thinking” and its connection to “inquiry” is still a central goal for many teachers across the country, and a necessity for productive human thought. Unfortunately, this type of higher level thinking is still commonly removed from classroom environments–either explicitly through curriculum constraints or less explicitly through poor pedagogical approaches–and our educational institutions have not directly valued this higher level thinking above other aspects (like conformity, control, or the fundamentals of societal access).

            The entire concept laid out by Dewey where humans actively discover facts (inquiry) to then reflect upon within their own decision making process is devalued in most public school situations, as we do not allow student discovery at all, replacing inquiry instead with the processes of delivered knowledge (via the teacher). Thus–since answers are most often presented in the classroom instead of sought out–a “demand for the solution” is not made central within the internalized learning situation of our students. This in turn, unfortunately, serves to remove a key piece of motivation from reflective thought.  In this way, we move our students away from the empowering pursuit of critical thinking and into the more passive process of “uncritical thinking.”  This ultimately positions our educational system as a safe and effective institution for societal reproduction, while at the same time retaining control of social access for all students who do not conform properly.

Now or Then?

            One of my major frustrations with modern teaching practices and the continuing trend our schools are following towards “teacher-proofed” curriculum, is the emphasis placed on the incompleteness of students and their need to develop skills for the future. I do not disagree with the notion that students are in our classrooms to grow as readers and writers in hopes of engaging them with important literacy practices that they may use throughout the rest of their lives, however I do push back against the present disconnect between schooling and our students’ immediate lives. We–as an education system–tend to consistently over-drill our students about the importance of school as a mechanism to prepare and/or benefit the students in their later adult lives, yet too often we fail to anchor the relevance of their learning within the constructs of their daily lives, as we focus our attention on their futures instead of their presents. With this attitude–I fear–we position this concept of an adult life as a MORE IMPORTANT state of existence, which in turn de-values the adolescent lives our students are currently living. In doing so, we confiscate what I believe to be a necessary sense of urgency from the classroom experience and posture ourselves as the more important person in the room because of our “adult” status. When we remove their sense of present agency and replace it with the more passive role of the “developing adult,” we risk denying our students the ability to see the importance of their current lives and the choices that they make daily. In so doing, we eliminate any sense of present ownership from our students, because even if they want to feel ownership over their own education, the rewards and benefits of their hard work are positioned as something received by their future self, not their present self.  As Ladson-Billings states so gracefully, “the classroom has got to be the kind of place that helps them deal with their lives now so they can have some options, some choices, later.” Allowing the classroom to become an immediately relevant space is a great challenge, and unfortunately a large portion of our national classrooms fail to meet this challenge.