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 eAMFGR918317; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <a04320400b641a030498a@[10.3.1.82]>
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: Anne Murr <anne.murr@DRAKE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:289] pedagogy of the oppressed
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
Status: O
Content-Length: 3253
Lines: 78
--Boundary_(ID_oZtBojVa35Ba9QFspj1yUA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I've been "cleaning up" my cluttered email Inbox and reread Laura
Chenven's 10/13 posting:
Whole language (not necessarily as part of a practice) but as an
expression of a political position was an expression of a sort of
cultural imperialism and perhaps even white supremacy that privileged
primarily white children of well educated parents who had been read
to often, spoken to in a certain way, and who did not have any
learning disabilities. It excluded a considerable portion of the
population. The sad part was that it was done in the name of a
democratic view of education that stressed meaning and action.
Meaning and action are essential aspects of education. But we all
need the tools to make them real.
As I've been reflecting on our whole language vs. systematic,
structured phonological instruction discussion and looking at the
deficits in phonemic awareness and phonological processing of almost
all the adults we see in our Center , this is a thought I've been
pondering:
If we withhold instruction which gives persons the tools for, as
Laura stated "meaning and action", are we not perpetuating the
pedagogy of the oppressed?
Anne Murr
Adult Literacy Center
Drake University
Des Moines, IA
anne.murr@drake.edu
--Boundary_(ID_oZtBojVa35Ba9QFspj1yUA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>pedagogy of the oppressed</title></head><body>
<div>I've been "cleaning up" my cluttered email Inbox and
reread Laura Chenven's 10/13 posting:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font size="-2">Whole language (not necessarily as part of a
practice) but as an expression of a political position was an
expression of a sort of cultural imperialism and perhaps even white
supremacy that privileged primarily white children of well educated
parents who had been read to often, spoken to in a certain way, and
who did not have any learning disabilities. It excluded a
considerable portion of the population. The sad part was that
it was done in the name of a democratic view of education that
stressed meaning and action. Meaning and action are essential
aspects of education. But we all need the tools to make them
real.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As I've been reflecting on our whole language vs.
systematic, structured phonological instruction discussion and
looking at the deficits in phonemic awareness and phonological
processing of almost all the adults we see in our Center , this is a
thought I've been pondering:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>If we withhold instruction which gives persons the tools for, as
Laura stated "meaning and action", are we not perpetuating
the pedagogy of the oppressed?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Anne Murr</div>
<div>Adult Literacy Center</div>
<div>Drake University</div>
<div>Des Moines, IA</div>
<div>anne.murr@drake.edu</div>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_oZtBojVa35Ba9QFspj1yUA)--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:29 EST