When I reflect on the learning that has taken place through this course, I most identify with Michel Foucault who said, “ There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all.” This quote applies in two ways, to us as teachers striving to become better practitioners of our craft and to the students who enter our classrooms seeking knowledge.
To meet the learning needs of our students we must always be searching for ways to make learning relevant and meaningful. As the needs of our student’s change, so must our approaches and responses to learning. If what has worked in the past is no longer effective, we must be willing to abandon it to forage into new territory. For me, studying and seeking to understand the lives of working class children has been just that, unfamiliar terrain. Throughout the duration of this class I have reflected on my own practices as an educator. What has been most revelatory is research like Hick’s that explores the sometimes subtle but fundamental differences in home and school ways of being. Looking back on the behavior of former students I can see how the dissonance between home and school discourses left them lost and floundering in the classroom. Student’s reactions may be different, escaping into fantasy worlds, striving for good behavior, or even acting out, but the result is the same, an inability to connect with, be motivated by, and invested in classroom learning. For students like Daniel in Noll’s research and Jake from Hick’s who had the support of loving families and success in other arenas this inability to connect with school values may not be as detrimental. Most of my students, however, come from homes more like Laurie’s in Hick’s research, where successes are few, resources are scarce, and the trajectory of their lives uncertain. They cannot afford to disengage from institutionalized learning when it provides them with what is possibly their only opportunity to escape their circumstances and provide a better life for themselves. Thus we are left with the question at the heart Staple’s, Hick’s, and Noll’s research, Why do students fail to connect with the discourses of school and what can we as educators do about it? In essence we must “perceive differently.” We must let go of stereotypes and preconceived notions to see students for who they really are and why they behave as they do. The more that we know about students’ home discourses, the better able we are to help them navigate the transition to the discourses of school. Delpit’s exploration of the language students’ bring to school from the discourse of home was particularly interesting to me because the population I work with uses nonstandard English. I have found myself constantly correcting student’s grammar to no avail. They continued to use the same speech patterns throughout the year. I have come to understand that my student’s language is not incorrect but rather an assimilated pattern of speech, learned through interactions with loved ones, that is integral to their identity as a part of their community. They speak the way they do because it is the way the people they love and admire most speak. If we seek to have that level of influence over our students we must first seek to know and care about them. What Hick’s further demonstrated in her research with Laurie and Jake, is that even when speech patterns are similar, the discourses of home and of school can be incongruent. Jake’s father’s attitudes towards college and formal school in general, seemed to undermine Jake’s teacher’s, mother’s and Hick’s efforts to help him succeed in school. He responded by tuning out, playing, and otherwise disengaging, behaviors which I previously would have attributed to rebellion, that now have a different shade of meaning when viewed in the context of these students home discourse. I think back to previous students and can see so clearly the same patterns of behavior as in Jake. They came from homes that did not place an emphasis on education or herald their academic achievements and just as Jake did, found refuge in their own occupations. Before students arrive at school to learn math and reading, they have already learned a way to be, a way of seeing the world and responding to its demands. Our job then becomes to find ways to connect learning to student’s home discourse, to help them to see the value in learning and to help them move from one discourse to the other with ease. This is not an easy task, but we can begin by recognizing the discourses that students bring to school and by making a place for them to be expressed and valued in the classroom. Just as Jake brought his interest in Nascar to his writing, we should be tapping into those interests and passions that motivate our students. We should be searching for ways to ignite excitement that students not only feel in the classroom, but also carry home to share with loved ones. Hick’s last chapter reinforced for me the idea that parents are the greatest influences in a child’s life. If we want student’s buy-in into the discourse of education, I think we must start by getting parents’ approval, cooperation, engagement, involvement. Inviting parents into the classroom and school where students can show off what they have learned, in the company of those who value such achievements, seems like a good start. Just like our students, parents need to know that they are valued and respected. We are not trying to take their children from them, emotionally or mentally, but rather to provide them with opportunities to make a better life. We must rethink viewing students as individuals and see them as part of a culture and community, valuing the whole of who they are.
So too, must our students be willing to think and perceive differently. Each child comes to school with their own set of experiences, beliefs, expectations and values. For some students their discourse is complimentary to that of institutional education, for others success in school will mean learning a new way of thinking and living. We can provide the safe environment where children feel secure in taking risks, but they must also be willing to step out of their comfort zone to “think and perceive differently” about the world around them. This process is neither easy, nor simple and students will face many roadblocks as they attempt to transition to the discourse of school. Prejudice like what Dowdy faced when trying to learn and use Standard English in her homeland of Trinidad, is still rampant. Students may fear giving up their pattern of speech because it separates them from those they love and opens them up to condemnation for not fitting in. They may be afraid of the stigma of being smart or attaining higher education than that of their parents. I watch my ESL students surpass their parents in English ability and see what an effect this has as the dynamic of their relationship shifts and the parent takes the role of the child and the child the parent. And yet despite these difficulties we must forge ahead to create a future for our students. We must recognize the barriers students face when adopting a new discourse and be willing to listen to and support them as they assimilate to a new way of being.
What this class has brought into focus for me is that ultimately our goal as educators is not to make students into perfect reflections of our own discourse, but to give them choices for their future, so that they can be and do whatever they dream. That may mean that we have to change how we view students, and be willing to open our doors to new ideas about who students are. We are all a product of a myriad of influences. This is our opportunity to be one of those influences that shape our student’s lives.
-Rebecca Ashby