RES 5535: Race, Class, and Gender in Literacy Research (summer 2010)

Dictionary.com defines discourse as communication of thought by words; talk; conversation. This is my first class in grad school that I have heard about the term discourse. It is very interesting to me that regardless of who you are everyone is a part of some sort of discourse or another. As Hicks said on page 21, "None of discourse of locations in associated power relations are fixed or unchanging; they are shifting relations between discourses; they complicated or retract the identities; children can gain or lose power in associated kinds of knowledge as social discourses as they take up social discourses; they can talk, act, and know in hybrid ways as well." As adults we are well aware of the fact that we have to "become hybrid" in order to properly function in our society. We understand what we have to do in order to change automatically depending where we are and who we are around. I remember when my sister went to college at Chapel Hill she would come home on the weekends and when we would be eating dinner or something she would correct our speech if we didn't say something correctly. As soon as Dr. Jackson gave the example of a southern girl going off to college and having to shift herself a little bit, I thought of my sister. The example that she gave really helped me to understand what this term means. I think that my sister was experiencing her difference of discourses from the one she was being introduced to (Chapel Hill) and the one she came from (Maiden). The older she got and the closer she was to graduating, I think she started to realize that she belonged to different discourses. Her social network at college was completely different than the discourse she belonged to as she grew up and still yet. She became comfortable with being able to correctly "code switch". I thought it was also interesting how Dr. Jackson described her southern discourse to her academic discourse as being incompatible. This is very true. I found this out for myself along with my sister when she went off to college. For example, the friends that I have who did not go off to college are still some of my best friends, but we have different things in common than the college friends I made when I went off to college.

While entering the education system, it is very obvious that education today is aimed at middle-class to higher middle-class children. It is almost a "one size fits all" type of thing (which I think someone created a post on this). But this bothers me because as teachers we are trained to accommodate to the needs of the diverse learners in our class and of course we do, but the state mandated tests at the end of the year just gives an example of the "one size fits all". Teachers go to workshop after workshop to learn how to "improve" our instruction, but maybe it is not the teachers. Maybe it is those stupid tests kids are forced to take at the end of the year. Should that really determine if a child is literate or not especially when literacy is not defined as just reading and writing?

This brings me to my next point. Since school is mostly for the average middle-class child where it was expected that their parents read to them before school started, then how does everyone else fit in to this discourse? I never thought about it until now, but children come to school in kindergarten being a part a specific discourse for around five years. That is a pretty long time for students to become accustomed to their way of life. However, perhaps this child from a lower class family comes into kindergarten and realizes that things are a little different. They are already trying to figure out how they fit into this discourse, but at the same time there is pressure on them to have to learn to "catch up" because they aren't as advanced as what is expected of them. Learning to read does not become priority to them and therefore from day one of kindergarten they hate school and consider themselves as "dumb" because that is how they are viewed. It is almost like these kids were never even given a chance just because of the socioeconomic status they came from. Okay, so what if a Hispanic student from a lower income family comes into kindergarten and just moved here from another state or country. First of all, they are trying to learn the discourse they are in, but at the same time they cannot speak English, so therefore they are already seen as non-readers. Anyways, my point is that I don't think as teachers we realize just how different children are. They come into kindergarten and their world completely changes. I would go back to my example that I used in a previous post where I talked about the 7th grader I had who could not read. I will no longer say he is illiterate because there is no way someone that smart with "street smarts" would be illiterate. He may not know how to read and write the words, but he can speak them and he can learn things. He was probably seen as a child with power at his house because he could do so many things because he was taught at a young age that these life skills such as fixing a car is more important than learning to read. However, when he came to kindergarten, it probably started from day one that he became uncomfortable with the discourse he was in because school is made for the middle class children and he did not fit into that nor did he know how to fit into that.

So I agree that teachers should understand their students and where they come from, but how about the government or whoever changes the tests they give these students at the end of the year according to the levels the students are on. If these students fail year after year on these state-mandated tests then how are they ever going to appreciate learning and more importantly reading? I agree with Hicks when she makes her argument about literacy is not just reading and writing. The question I leave you with is then if that is the case then is there really anyone out there who is illiterate?

Katy Dellinger