Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e8TIXK904137; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <LAW2-F124F4yLPehSFa00006fca@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:77] X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 4391 Lines: 70 My head is spinning with all the different aspects of this discussion, and I appreciate the many points of view. Some of us think in terms of theory and generalities, others in terms of practice and specifics. The pulls on this discussion are very much like the many voices and interests we hear in the classroom (that is, if students have a chance to voice their interests). To me, one of the underlying themes in everything we discuss is that of maintaining capitalism. Capitalism is based on inequality, on a few having access to wealth and power, and the vast majority scrambling for what's left. Edward N. Wolff is one of the economists who tracks the distribution of wealth and income in the U.S. He reports in his book "Top Heavy" that as of 1993, 1% of the people in this country owned almost 50% of the wealth, and the next 19% owned another 48% or so. That leaves the rest of us to fight over 2% of the wealth of this country, and that doesn't even consider that much of the wealth of the U.S. is stolen from peoples and countries we dominate. If we look at wealth along a continuum, most of us are closer to our students than to that 1% and probably to the next 19%. But racism, sexism, etc. help keep us divided (and conquered). As we prepare people for the GED test or entry-level jobs or citizenship, we teach them, intentionally or not, that their efforts will make a difference to their lives (and of course they will make some difference), and we perpetuate the myth that hard work is all it takes to "make it" in this society. Of course, a few people do go from rags to riches, and those few become examples for the rest of us, so that we blame ourselves for not working hard enough or not being smart enough when we don't get ahead. As educators, even when we as individuals want to practice a critical pedagogy, the fact of our presence in a literacy classroom makes us a prop to the system. That's not to say we shouldn't be there; we have to take as much space as we can, and create it where it doesn't yet exist. I just mean that we always need to be aware of our many roles, chosen or not. Deborah's story of working in D.C. on Jesse Jackson's campaign reminded me of a bumper sticker I have: "Under Republicans, man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's just the opposite." Are elections in the U.S. really democratic institutions, or do they give the impression of democracy and in so doing help perpetuate oligarchy? Is education as it is practiced here really liberating or does it just pad the chains in which we are bound so they don't hurt as much? For the past three years, I was faculty/program coordinator and then director of a community college adult education program in Washington state. Most of the instructors I worked with took a very functional view of literacy, but there's one in particular who comes from a community organizing/social justice background who has been struggling with the students' stated need to get the GED and get a job, her own belief that they also need to examine the political/social/economic reality in which they live, and the limits of time, irregular attendance, and other barriers. My dilemma, too, one that is shared by many of us. I've been thinking about this for years, and so far have reached the perspective that as a teacher, I must respond to the needs my students express. Whether they analyze it or not, they do live in this reality and it's not going to change before the rent is next due. However, I can teach functional skills within a larger context and using materials that engage my students in a discussion of issues that go beyond the functional. For example, one of the ways that I have taught students to read graphs is by using the graphs from Edward Wolff's study of wealth inequality. At the same time that they are learning a functional skill, they are exposed to a larger issue and we discuss it. An issue I still struggle with a great deal is the balance of power in the classroom: how can I be a facilitator of learning with my students instead of taking all the authority upon myself? Eileen _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:23 EST