Hull Article
Well, I have experienced a true first in reading the Glynda Hull article; it was the first time that an essay I had to read for class made me angry. haha.. I wasn't angry with the essayist themselves, but rather with the teacher in the study, June. Her comments about Maria struck me as extremely ignorant, rude, and uncalled for. Because Maria did not follow the "proper" rules of classroom conversation, June thought her mentally deficient, incapable of making proper connections between ideas and thoughts. This kind of ignorant thinking leads to a perpetuation of students' falling behind. "Remedial" students, who do not know the discourse of the classroom, fall farther and farther behind because teachers continuously label them. That label, then affects the teacher's interaction with the student and their grading of the student. Teacher's begin not to expect anything of the student, and therefore, don't invest as much time in them. If the student does do well in assignments, many teachers like June attribute the success to the student getting help from an outside source. (What crap!) haha...
Back in the early days of schooling, students who feel behind were labeled social deviants basically. On paper, this has changed. Educators now claim to understand the hardships of students coming for different social and economic backgrounds. However, many teachers, including June, cling to ideas that poor coursework, or poor classroom behavior, is related to some kind of mental default in the student. It is just a destructive mindset. Students pick up on more than we think. They notice when the teacher thinks they are annoying, or when the teacher thinks that they are simply not "trying" hard enough. A poor teacher attitude is very damaging and can cause these students that are in danger in the first place to dislike school and give up hope.
Teachers need to really analyzing their own preconceptions about students. Most teachers, think that they are always fair, but are they? Awareness is the key to changing behavior. I think all perspective teachers should read the Hull article. Unfortunately, however, few people would read it and say, you know, that's me! We tend to think the best about ourselves, and I’m not sure if reading an article is enough to give people a true “aha” moment.
As a pet peeve, I really didn’t like the articles use of the word “remedial.” At my high school, the word was used to describe the lowest level English class, and I always thought that was terrible. Labeling really affects people. Actually, in sociology there is a theory known as the labeling theory, that talks about that phenomenon. Once labeled, people sometimes begin to take on the behavior associated with the label, even if they didn’t exhibit it before, or at least not to an extreme. (IE. You label a kid a problem child, they begin to act out to fit the label.) In a sense, students give up. They here themselves called remedial, and they think of themselves as remedial, with not hope to get “better.” It is bad terminology. It ALSO makes me angry.
I am quite a feisty blogger tonight, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I had feelings similar to Ashley on this one. I also found it odd how they listed Maria’s race and background, but they didn’t list June’s. If the cultural confusion between June and Maria is due to Maria being a lower class minority student, are we to assume that June is a WASP? That’s the way I saw things, especially when it came to the contrast in Maria’s performance and June’s analysis of this performance. Maria was someone on the right track, and actually enthusiastic about learning; this is something June should have taken advantage of. But I read her negative reaction to Maria as a case of obvious cultural presumptions (“this lower-class, minority, remedial learner is beyond hope”). I don’t think it’s too far of a leap to call this a case of latent racism.
If we can fault Maria for anything, it would be her unproductive comments that the article mentions. And, while she is still productive, Maria is used to a model of discourse where she can take the floor at any time; this is not the ideal model for a writing class. June should have set the ground rules for discussion in class, or perhaps gently let Maria know that she’d like a chance to hear from other students as well. Maria was obviously helping with class discussion (something that June never discovered), which was a good thing, but we’ve all been in classes where a single person just talks way too much. June should have made it her responsibility to include Maria’s comments in equal quantity to the comments of her fellow classmates.
I agree, Ashley. June is a complete villain! I wonder if she's read the article?
That said, I do think all teachers (even the great ones) are/have been/will be guilty of similar atrocities. Teachers are only human, and it's so easy (almost automatic, really) to judge students, especially when you have a full class. I'm finding that in my own desperate attempt to know my students, generalizations are forming.
Which is why I am thankful for this article. I don't think it's just about June--it's a wake-up call for all of us.
Post a Comment