Thursday, August 5 (DJ #8)

Although these articles were short, I found myself furiously underlining a large amount of what I read. However, rather than trying to incorporate every quote I found intriguing, I would really like to respond to a few key ideas that I found particularly interesting. The first is from the Pirie chapter in which he states:

“Ultimately, it is the machinery of textuality, not the individual text, that is our object of study” (98).

Though we have been studying this concept for the entirety of this course, we have not spoken about it in such an articulate way. This is where being a multicultural educator comes into play. Yes we can choose to have certain texts on our shelf rather than others, but the main purpose (in my opinion) of multicultural education is the approach we take to the textuality, not the specific text. Like someone mentioned in class, we may not consider texts like Pride & Prejudice to be “multicultural” we can teach them using multicultural methods. I also think that teaching methods, styles and motivations are what makes a good teacher—not necessarily knowledge of a certain canonical text, etc. (Though obviously this is helpful!)

I also agree with Pirie’s assessment of redefining English to be “cultural studies” however I am not sure it is entirely plausible. I wonder how he feels about the term “language arts?” In Minnesota, our licensure is called “Communication Arts and Literature,” would he think that this is more all encompassing than just “English?” I am personally glad that our licensure is not just English because I do think that we do more than that, especially because English really has two meanings—the literature and the language. With the growth of ELL programs, being an English teacher can really mean multiple things and I think that Language Arts or Communication Arts/Literature does a nice job of differentiating that.

In regard to the Amanti piece—I was particularly intrigued by this quote:

“In this project, we challenge the status quo by asserting that local knowledge has a legitimate place in our educational institutions for both our students and our pedagogical knowledge as teachers. We also say that no matter what background our students have, there is knowledge in their home, that can be tapped into and used in the classroom” (132).

I really, really like this idea. This is also an aspect of teaching that, quite honestly, cannot be taught. We need to develop this part of our pedagogy entirely on our own. If we are teaching our students to be global citizens, we need to teach them about their surrounding as well as those abroad and across the country. She also says, “this project cannot be packaged or standardized for export” which I think summarizes this idea quite well (138). In order to truly teach our students well, we must be willing to constantly adapt and revamp our lessons, ideas and texts. I truly believe that it is nearly impossible to write a lesson or unit plan for a group of students you have not yet met.

Wednesday, August 4 (DJ #7)

So, dialogic tension. There is so much to be said here, I am not quite sure where to begin! First off, I really like this particular phrasing. We talk about internal conflict and common conflicts in literature: man vs. nature, man vs. man, etc. And save for the fact that these are sexist…dialogic tension really allows for a more expansive understanding of the concept of conflict. It allows for us to have the interaction of lived worlds and text worlds that is so important in a multicultural classroom. Most of the methods we have talked about incorporate elements of text worlds and lived worlds because each of these is a product of culture. Each of the students we have and the books we teach come to the table with different cultural experiences and creating lessons and activities that allow us to dissect the effect these interactions have on readings/interpretations is crucial to a successful multicultural classroom. Unfortunately, reading Beach et al. chapter 9 was difficult because I have not had the opportunity to read any of the texts to which he was referring. Just like the Enciso article and Maniac Magee, I think I will have a much better understanding of this article (and use for it) after I have read these texts. Each of them sounds like a great text to use in a multicultural classroom, so I will definitely have to add them to my ever-growing list. Although I have not read the three main texts, I see the value in using them in the classroom. I really like the idea of using “competing narratives” in the classroom. Whether or not they are embedded in a larger text like a novel or if they are two poems written by speakers with very different views of a similar issue. Reading competing narratives would be a great way to have students start thinking about writing their own narratives or writing monologues from a character’s perspective.
I was particularly struck by the discussion of the phrase “white trash” in this chapter. I have always considered this term to be extremely offensive, but I have never talked about it with students or colleagues, only in passing with friends. I have actually been invited to “white trash” parties in which the guests are to dress a certain way (lower class) and drink cheap alcohol (perhaps in a paper bag) and pretend they live in a trailer park. I have been SO offended by this proposition that I adamantly opposed attendance. (Though I was tempted to go and give everyone a talking to…). These people who host these parties are ADULTS and this was not too long ago. I was really glad to see that the students addressed their understanding of this language quite thoroughly because I honestly don’t think that many people think about it. I am also glad to know that there are young people out there who are really thinking about the way language affects culture—this gives me hope!
The other piece of this chapter that really struck me was the focus on assumptions. I think we as teachers are so focused on being P.C. and appropriate that we are not willing to admit to our own assumptions. If we aren’t willing to do this, how can we expect our students to be? The dialogic tension between cultural assumptions and cultural narratives is HUGE and we need to address this head on in our own readings of lived and text worlds so that we can teach our students how to do the same. We can never break down stereotyping and the like if we don’t first admit what the stereotypes are, where they come from and that we hold them, whether we like it or not.

Tuesday, August 3 (DJ #6)

As stereotypical as it might be, I was REALLY excited to talk about this issue in class not only because I am a part of the GLBTQ community, but because I am looking forward to hearing the insights of my colleagues on these issues. Before I begin I would like to recommend a couple of books which I will bring to class:
Am I Blue?—short stories, fictional and non-fictional that deal with teens “coming out”
One Teacher in Ten—short stories/personal narratives about GLBTQ-identified teachers and their experience being GLBTQ in a school setting (out or not)
Annie on My Mind—okay this one might not be with me, I think I lent it to someone…but it is the story of a young lesbian and her first love
Absolutely, Positively Not—hilarious story of a young man (in Minnesota!) who comes out after constantly saying he’s “absolutely, positively not gay.” You can listen to my podcast review of the book here:

Now that I have plugged a few great texts, I will turn to the articles. I must first say that I was very impressed that Reiko Liu is a brave soul. I was very impressed at her willingness to so boldly tackle such a controversial (unfortunately) topic. Although I agree that GLBTQ literature has a place in the multicultural curriculum—I really liked Athanases’ rationale:
“to encourage inclusiveness and to work against stereotype formation, thoughtful educators can select texts by and about groups defined by not only race and ethnicity, but also gender, sexual orientation, religion and other significant definitions of cultural and social groups” (233)
—I was surprised that she chose a politically charged letter to teach and discuss rather than a piece of literature about a teenager dealing with GLBTQ issues. Not only does it tackle political issues of Heteronormativity, but it also deals with Catholicism! Again, bold soul. In addition to church, government AND sexuality, the article is focused on gay teachers—yet ANOTHER taboo topic. Many people might be “tolerant” of GLBTQ individuals, but take issue with “one of them” teaching their child(ren). This complicates the issue to an even greater extent. I found myself wondering if Reiko would still tackle this topic if she identified as a lesbian? Athanases reminds us of the tension: “even when teachers are convinced of the importance of exploring gay and lesbian experiences in literature, they often still fear that community members will view such study as promoting homosexuality, thus instigating a backlash” (233). As a gay teacher, I am extremely worried that any piece that I include that represents a GLBTQ character or deals with homosexuality will be considered a personal agenda. It is for this reason that I often consider not being open about that aspect of my identity with my students. Although I still consider her to be a courageous educator, I must say that my opinion changed slightly when I realized where the school was located. Teaching about GLBTQ issues in San Francisco, at least to me, does not seem nearly as risky as other places. Most of these students have friends, family and community members who identify as GLBTQ and likely have learned much about that particular “social world.” That’s not to say that it isn’t important for the classroom, but I also think that this particular teacher probably has a bit more leniency in the GLBTQ department. I must read “Dear Anita” as soon as possible!

Monday, August 2 (DJ #5)

Following the readings and discussions on “social worlds,” I couldn’t help but think of Beth Brendler’s course and learning about Communities of Practice. Although a bit different, they stem from the same idea that we have many identities to many different people and that the discourse in each of our “worlds” is varied. I think that social worlds is an easier term for students to understand and I would lean towards that phraseology if I were to teach it to my students. That being said, I think that the short story by future Ph.D student Jessica Dockter was an excellent way to teach the concept of social worlds. It really forced us to consider how these two young women differed from one another and how the forces around them really affected their discourse and action. I would definitely use this activity in my classroom because I think it allows students access to the text in a way that is relatable for them. It worked particularly well for this story because both of the girls were from the same town and of the same age (similar to our students), however their cultural, linguistic and family histories were very different. I think it would be great to actually map these worlds out and see where (and if) they overlap. You could bring in the idea of Communities of Practice into this as well by asking students to identify things that this group or world does or says that are specific to them and seeing where this language and action overlaps with other groups. As I write this out I am getting more and more excited to use it in my own classroom! (Now to just get a job…!)
The Enciso article really helped me to see other ways we can negotiate discussion of MC texts (or texts multiculturally). I really liked the idea of “talking back” that Enciso quotes from bell hooks because it is framed in such a way, like social worlds, that would be simple for students to comprehend. It also makes the texts come to life, which I think is a huge part of our role as English teachers. I would like to come back to this text after reading Maniac Magee because I think it would be very helpful to have the background knowledge going into it. Reading the transcripts of classroom discussion was fascinating—I think even this could be a useful tool in a high school classroom, in a way decoding or analyzing genuine responses to literature. One particular piece of the discussion really stuck out to me. At one point they are discussing a part of the novel in which “Maniac puzzles over the nature of skin color the meaning of black and white. Maniac belives that we are all many colors—black and white are meaningless” (28). One student responds, “We’re not white. We’re skin color. We’re not white” (28). This really struck me because I thought of two things: bandaids and crayons. Bandaids were designed to “blend in” with the skin as to not be seen. But they only blend in on certain skin. I would love to discuss this with my students. Crayons are another story, though they have gotten better. I really like this video, “Crayola Monologues” that discusses race using crayons and also delves into the history of Crayola and the color naming process:

I intend to show this to my students, it is short and to the point and I think it would be a great conversation starter.

Friday, July 30 (DJ #4)

I have to start off by airing out some dirty laundry, some beef, if you will, with the past few articles we have read. Both Pirie and Goebel have approached classrooms as dichotomous—“all white” or “all of color” (Goebel 22). How in the world are we supposed to be “multicultural” teachers if we keep positioning people as one OR the other. What about individuals who identify as bi-racial or multi-racial? (I don’t know if people actually do this, but it seems quite plausible given the large amount of individuals who identify with more than two races or ethnicities). I think that this discourse positions people as opposites of one another in the same way that the pesky M or F checkbox does on various forms and documents. Although I did have this initial reaction, I did find the Goebel piece to be helpful—he addressed some issues we have yet to discuss in our class. One of the most important issues he brought up, in my opinion, was the issue of class. We cannot have these conversations about race and culture (and gender) without talking about class. Class is absolutely HUGE in this discussion. Class determines discourse about education, culture and experience. Class also determines access points. In my experience I have noticed that it is more likely for students of different races to have more in common if they are of the same socioeconomic status than those of the same race who are not of the same class. As much as I hate to say it, money is a big deal. How we are raised, what are values are, what we aspire to do as adults is all determined by the way we have been positioned in society based on class. Goebel gives a great example when he talks about the ways middle-class students are more prepared for schooling in the way it is currently structured than working class children: “middle-class children and adolescents have grown up in families who value the ability to floor-hold in conversation and construct monologues unsupported by listener response…working class children may not only appear less competent to their teachers, they may also experience school as a place where oral language skills, as they understand them, are not valued” (Goebel and Hemphill 24). One specific example I can think of (this does not refer to class necessarily, but differences in communication across cultures) is film viewing in the classroom. In my experience, when you are viewing a film in class you should be silent, listening and taking in what the film has to offer. However, this is by no means a value that spans across cultures. Many of my students get very involved in what they are watching and talk to the characters in the movie/film or make predictions vocally. At first I felt that this was rude, but then I realized that this was how they were interacting with the text that I had presented to them. They were not trying to be disruptive or rude, they were trying to learn from the film and to engage with it. This was an excellent learning experience for me.
Goebel also mentions that “two studies suggest that women and working class students might immediately benefit from a shift from individualistic, teacher-centered instruction to cooperative student-centered instruction” (24). I think that ALL students would benefit—and DO benefit—from this style of instruction. This suggestion among many others that have been seen as ideal for “multicultural education” are really just good teaching.
Glazier and Seo do an excellent job of transitioning from the theoretical into the practical smoothly and they offer some great suggestions. One of the points they made that resonated particularly strongly with me was their mention of White students saying, “I’m not anything” (687) or “I don’t have a story” (686). This is so very true. Many of the students (and other teachers I know!) believe that their Whiteness is the absence of culture rather than a culture within itself. This is why everyone should read Learning to be White by Thandeka (shameless plug). This text explores the development of Whiteness and how it came to be a revered “culture.” Although I have only read bits and pieces, it really helped me to see the ways in which the privileging of Whiteness came to be. I would highly recommend it!

Thursday, July 29 (DJ #3)

During our fall and spring cohort courses, we read a lot of articles on the pitfalls of the FPT, so I feel as though I can speak pretty eloquently to that. I think what Pirie says is particularly important: “the FPT is a valuable teaching tool; comp teachers just need to be sure that their students don’t perceive is as an end in itself” (76). This is absolutely crucial. The way to combat this mindset is to use authentic assessment as much as possible in the school environment. Though some might argue that the FPT IS in fact authentic because it allows students to pass high-stakes tests like the MCAs. However, I would argue that the FPT does not prepare students for college writing, resume and cover letter writing or logical-analytical writing that is necessary for math-science-computer careers. I also liked the metaphor he made of the paint-by-numbers kit: “the paint-by-numbers kit absolved me of any responsibility to do what real artists do, which is to experiment and make decisions about color and shape” (77). How will our students learn the varieties of writing if they are only given one style in which to practice. This is where I take the positive stance on teaching multi-genre writing in the composition classroom. Multi-genre also seems to be a way to be more inclusive of non-North-American styles of writing. I think that it is extremely valuable to give students the opportunity to construct their own writing using a variety of methods and organization schemes. They need to learn what works for them. This calls for a serious differentiation situation. I also found it particularly interesting that the author focused on the potential limitations of essays/papers written around a definitive thesis. He suggests, “It might be more useful for students to defer the drive for answers in favor of more thoughtful elaboration of questions” (80). I think that our need to base all of our writing assignments in one “closed thematic statement” comes from a North American cultural value of precise, scientific, research-based knowledge. One of the beauties of English/Language Arts is that it is NOT scientific. It is philosophical. It is hard to pin down. This is the arena in which we are allowed to talk about things like race, culture, gender and the “self.” This idea of creating “lateral contacts” is a great way to think about literature. Imagine if we tried to categorize species laterally rather than hierarchically. Literature is valuable in a different way than science. Literature allows for a more lateral relationship between the teacher and the students, the students with each other and students with the text. I think that secondary English class is a great time for students to experience a variety of different types of literature AND different writing styles. Giving them a FPT outline that just makes them “fill in the blanks” does not challenge them and to be quite frank it is telling them that they can’t do it themselves.
Now that I’ve ranted enough about the FPT to last me a while…I really enjoyed reading the suggestions for writing activities to use with multicultural texts. I think the idea to do an “Ibo Diary” (or something similar that related to the text) would work really well as a way to give students a chance to develop writing skills while simultaneously being cognizant of the way they and their peers construct knowledge based on cultural, personal and family experience. The dialogue presented in the Vinz text also seemed to be facilitated in an effective way. The teacher continuously re-focused the class to “work out of each other’s statements” which I thought was a really great way to get them to listen and truly hear one another. This forces them to think about language and how it is used differently by and for various audiences. Learning this skill will then translate into their critical thinking and reading skills.

Wednesday, July 28 (DJ #2)

After today’s discussion and reading the theoretical articles and chapters for tomorrow really made me consider the differences between discomfort and disequilibrium. I think it is important to consider the difference because it refers to—I believe—two separate states of being; discomfort being a physical or emotional unrest versus disequilibrium, a psychological or intellectual instability. I think that while the latter might often cause the former, it is the second that we should be striving for in our classrooms. That being said, the English classroom is a fantastic starting point for these types of equilibrium-busting conversations. I found Toni Morrison’s quote at the beginning of the Dilg chapter to be quite a good jumping off point: “You don’t know anything about a person just because you know race.” This is very true, but it also begs the question, then why is “race” the word we always use when discussing difference rather than cultural identification? I recall reading an article that strongly resisted the idea of “colorblindness” because it doesn’t allow people to be seen for who they are. But taking Morrison’s quote into consideration, neither does race. So, how can we be culturally competent—if that is indeed the goal—without essentializing races and cultures? How can we give our students the chance to learn about other cultures while also teaching them that one person’s reflection does not equal the larger community? The reference to Beverly Tatum’s concept of “allies” was particularly interesting to me as I often think of the term “ally” when I think of those “on the side of” GLBT individuals. Is it possible to be a cultural ally? How do we make it known that we are an ally of a certain identity? Putting up a “safe space” sticker in our classroom allows our students to see that we are allies of the GLBT community, but how do we show our students that we are committed to inclusive (or anti-racist as some say) classroom practices? One way I think I would consider making this aspect of my teaching clear to my students would be to engage them in an activity like the one we did in class today with our collages. Like Kim was saying, putting our “best faces forward” or most comfortable selves might be a good way to let students begin to share pieces of themselves in a way that is safe. It would also allow students to “self-label” at the beginning of the course so that future labeling by others would be lessened. One way I attempted to do this in my student teaching courses was a project I called, “The Block” in which students made representations (audio, visual, digital, tactile, written) of their neighborhood, block or community. Although Dilg questions whether or not these things “define us,” in my experience my students sought out elements of their community that were points of connection or disconnection with their personal lives and talked about them in the larger group. It was a good way to get them to think about how their environment played a role in their development as a young adult. This followed a lesson on Romare Bearden’s piece of the same name. One of my students wrote a one-act play entitled “GLBT,” in which a young girl wakes up one morning and announces to her family and friends that she is “GLBT.” The entire play consists of everyone in her life trying to get her to say which part of the acronym she identifies with, but even with their support, she still says things like, “no one understands me” and “stop discriminating.” At the end of the play she comes back to her community and corrects herself, “I meant I’m Asian!” For a white actress, this is intended to come across as funny and it is meant to be a satire of the strong inclination teenagers have to define themselves in some way. It was a smart piece that resonated strongly with a number of my students. I think things like this are important points of discussion in a class in which students are discovering who they are and more importantly, how they want others to view them. Giving them the opportunity up front allows them to start to “test the waters” as it were, take risks and begin to trust you as their teacher. I think Bill Lundgren did some very cool things with his classes that allowed for this type of relationship building with his students and it sounds as though he allowed himself to also be vulnerable, as evidenced by his letter to his students at the end of his experience. I did something like this when I was done as well and I know I will continue that practice in the future.