Hey everyone! Thinking out loud here--looking forward to hearing your perspectives!
Conversations about language and literacy necessitate a
broader conversation about the purpose of education. John McWhorter and Jawanza
Kunjufu enter this latter conversation in disparate ways.
McWhorter affirms, “the job of school is to add a new layer to a child’s speech
repertoire, not to undo the one they
already have” (15). His analysis operates at the intersection of dialect,
accent, and “standard” form, asking us to reconsider the typical hierarchies of
language often reinforced in school environments.
Whereas McWhorter’s argument is primarily a linguistic one, Kunjufu’s
orientation might be categorized as more pragmatic or economic. I wonder if his
analysis aligns education too closely with commerce or economic capital:
§
“To be effective teaching African American
students, you must convince them that there is a ‘payoff’ in education” (101)
§
“Thus every student in the [Nguzo Saba Assembly]
could receive an award. With this program and others, it is very possible that
African American students may buy into academic
achievement” (115, emphasis mine)
Is this really what we, as educators, want—for our students
to “buy into” education and look toward the “payoff” at the end? Is it a necessary discourse to channel students' (and teachers') energy and motivation? Or does this
undermine the very libratory purposes of education?
And for fun (if time allows), here are a few additional ideas to think about!
§“The worst environment for an African American
student is a large high school” (Kunjufu 103). Can we really generalize to all African American students? Or should we
be looking at the best environment for each
individual student?
§
“Right-brained thinkers are visual… they do not benefit
from reading aloud” (Kunjufu 105). What do you make of the whole “left-brain person,
right-brain person” dichotomy, specifically as applied (in this context) to
African American students?
No comments:
Post a Comment