The readings for this workshop were thought provoking. I found the Garland article did more to perpetuate stereotypes than it did to find a solution to the problem. It bothered me that the article was filled with growing statistics of how the black underclass continues to grow in isolation from the economical and social mainstream. Even the blurb, How Social Investments In Children Pay Off, did little to detail how to invest dollars so that the gap was narrowed between classes but certainly highlighted the possibility of tax dollars saved from the underclass issue. I felt the concern was not to provide a solid educating for youth so that they have a prosperous future, but rather the draining of America’s economic present and future. Because race was highlighted throughout all the reading I was bothered. I wanted to know whether the statistics were the same for other races or for immigrants. I have experienced issued of Literacy in my educational community and have found that they do exist across all races and socio economical classes. Because of my Special Education Background, I revert back to what I know. Special Education was a white middle class movement to protect the interest of a white middle class. Issues surrounding language and learning are easy to dismiss in poor, or ethnic students and are only addressed or labeled, special education, when an explanation is needed to protect white middle class students and interests.
As an educator and life long learner, I know and believe in the importance of education. Today’s socio economical reality is not the socio economical reality of tomorrow. With new market advancements come new demands and I know that students will need to be prepared to be adults in the workforce they will join. Students need to be critically literate which means the curriculum needs to be examined. If student needs are met and they are engaged in the learning, the opportunity will be there for them at graduation to partake in jobs and job creation. Lankshear noted that naive literacy is a large part of today’s issue. A more robust approach of examination is needed to truly deal with the issues of literacy and the underclass. Critical literacy is required and should essentially not be comprised.
Lankshear also noted that the underclass is the underclass because of the lived consequences of exclusions; it is a social historical creation. I was both surprised and bothered that people who were able to benefit from social programs and thus no longer be part of the “underclass” were noted as contributing to the issues of the underclass. Garland too noted that people who took advantage of opportunities left behind those who did not. Schools then became for the poor and role models were gone. This bothers me so I agree with Lankshear when he wrote that it was a cruel twist. I don’t feel that the issues of the underclass should not be placed back on those who were able to leave the underclass. The blame needs to go elsewhere; or better yet, the energy required to find blame should be put to use in finding a solution .
Our present day curriculum and expectations need to be examined. Does the curriculum really meet the needs of our learners? Are present day student expectations essential for tomorrow’s world? I believe in education and the right to an education. Shouldn’t students have the right to be critically literate and prepared for tomorrow’s world? Obviously, past prescriptive teaching of literacy has not worked for all students; perhaps, it is time for a more descriptive approach be examined. A shift needs to occur, a literacy revolution of sorts.
