Gebhard, Fast Capitalism

8/2/2019 Gebhard, Fast Capitalism

1/21


2/21

When we take a sociocultural approach to literacy, we exit

the mind, and ultimately the school and enter the world,

including the world of work. (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear,

1996, p. 4)

Increasingly, economists, social theorists, educa-tors, and language specialists are calling our at-tention to the linkages between changes in globaleconomy, ensuing demands for school reform,and the ways in which language practices simulta-neously reflect and create new forms of socialpractice (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999;Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Gee, et al., 1996; Katz,2001; Reich, 1992). Specifically, Gee, et al.(1996), as well as others, argue that the new

work order is driven by saturated world marketsand increased global competition. As a result,

they maintain that work is becoming geared to-ward producing customized knowledge-basedproducts and services as opposed to standardizedmaterial goods en masse. Leading analysts ofchanges in the forces and relations of productionsuch as Senge (1991) and Drucker (1993) havenamed this new kind of manufacturing new capi-talism.1 They argue that as world economiesmove from producing standardized, materialcommodities to producing customized servicesfor niche markets, business organization must

change because bulky, top-down bureaucraciesassociated with old capitalism are not capableof anticipating and quickly responding to tar-geted clients needs in a just in time fashion.Senge and Drucker further advise that if compa-nies are to remain competitive in a rapidly chang-ing global market place, they must become flat-ter, leaner, decentralized organizations. Workersmust be cross-trained team players who shareexpertise, not specialists who work autonomously.Finally, they argue that such fundamental

changes in the nature of work demand new kindsof knowledge workers who know how to solveproblems creatively and collaboratively, instead ofmechanically following static job descriptions.

As in the past, the demand for new kinds ofworkers exerts pressure on schools to preparepeople to take their place in a changing eco-nomic order (see Cohen & Mohl, 1979, for adiscussion of how school reforms associated withthe Progressive Era in the United States were aresponse to industrialization and urbanization).

Echoing the language of new capitalism, contem-porary school reformers argue that schools can-not operate like Fordist factories, but must be-come thinking organizations. Advocates of schoolreform, myself included, assert that learningtherefore should not look like piecework but like

project-based collaborative teamwork; that teach-ers should not function as givers and evaluatorsof facts but as critical co-constructors of knowl-edge; and that students should not be passivereceptacles of information but equally criticalproblem solvers.

To achieve these changes in the organization ofteaching and learning, reformers in the UnitedStates have been pushing for a variety of initia-tives that are widely taking hold in schools acrossthe country (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995; Little &Dorph, 1998; Murphy, 1991; Newmann &

Wehlage, 1995). For example, driven by the beliefthat smaller is better, large elementary and sec-ondary schools are being restructured intosmaller units such as houses, teams, or acade-mies. These smaller units are intended to sup-

port teachers in creating a sense of community, insharing information, in making decisions, and inbeing more responsive to the needs of their stu-dents. Second, many school reformers maintainthat if teachers are to be responsive to the uniqueneeds of their students, authority should rest withthem, not with administrators and policy makers

who are less aware of the day-to-day demands oftheir work. Finally, similar to the discourse of

workplace reform, many school reformers call fora movement away from traditional, Fordist ap-

proaches to teaching and learning characterizedby students individually mastering isolated facts

within artificially separate disciplines. Rather,they advocate a constructivist approach to teach-ing and learning characterized by teachers andstudents developing knowledge collaborativelythrough the exploration of interdisciplinary real-

world problems.In providing a critique of workplace reforms,

and by extension school reforms, Gee, et al.(1996), make several important points. First, they

highlight that one of the fundamental charac-teristics of new capitalism is that it centres onproducing engineered communities of practicethat purposefully attempt to socialize people intoassuming new identities so that they can becomenew kinds of managers, new kinds of workers,and new kinds of consumers. Second, the authorshighlight how language practices, as well as otherdiscursive semiotic systems, are implicated inbuilding these new communities and new identi-ties. Specifically, they draw attention to the way

literacy practices create social positions fromwhich people are invited or summoned tospeak, listen, act, read, write, think, feel, believe,and value in particular ways (Gee, et al., p. 10). Inillustrating these points, Hulls work illustrateshow the ability of workers, particularly second

246 The Modern Language Journal 88 (2004)


3/21

language learners,2 to negotiate smoothly and re-sist strategically new subject positions is crucial ifthey are to become indeed empowered as op-posed to exploited by reforms in the organizationof their work (Hull, Jury, Ziv, & Katz, 1996; Katz,2001). This quick slippage between the promise

of opportunity as described by business consul-tants and the likelihood of new forms of margi-nalization as experienced by workers captures theessence of fast capitalism.

Despite the similarities of the new work orderand what some are calling the new school order(Malarkey, 1999), there have been no similar in-

vestigations of the discourses of school reform.This paper, therefore, is an investigation of theimplications of new ways of organizing teachingand learning, particularly for second language

learners who have historically been the impetusof many school reforms (Cohen & Mohl, 1979;Fass, 1989; see also Gebhard, 2000, for a review).Specifically, the central question guiding this in-

vestigation is: How do second language learnersassume, negotiate, and resist the roles assigned tothem by the discourses of school reform?

THE STUDY

The purpose of the broader study from which

this paper is extrapolated was to explore the waysin which the phenomenon of classroom secondlanguage acquisition is shaped by the institu-tional context in which it is embedded (Gebhard,1999, 2000). This larger investigation sought todescribe how sociolinguistic interactions withinEnglish as a second language (ESL) and bilingualclassrooms are shaped by the institutional con-texts of U.S. public schools engaged in the pro-cess of structural school reform. In this paper Idraw on data from one school, Web Magnet Sci-

ence and Technology Elementary School. I focuson Web Magnet because of its location in theheart of Californias Silicon Valley. This regionis held up as exemplifying many characteristics ofthe new work order and is a place where pressureto produce an Information Agesavvy work forcethrough schooling is part of the local ongoingdialogue between the business community andeducational policy makers (Hull, et al., 1996).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework guiding this re-search is informed by a sociocultural perspectiveof second language acquisition (SLA). A sociocul-tural perspective takes asa starting pointan under-standing that theoriginandstructure of cognition

are rooted in the daily social and cultural activitiesin which people participate (Lantolf, 2000; Vygot-sky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). As a point of departure,however, I foreground questions related to therole played by power dynamics in schools as insti-tutions and the ways in which issues of English-lan-

guage proficiency are implicated in the produc-tion and reproduction of social relations andmaterial conditions (Gebhard, 1999, 2000; Olsen,1997). For this project, therefore, a wider theoreti-cal lens is neededone which underscores the re-lationships that exist between texts, both oral and

written, and the sociopolitical, economic, and his-torical context in which they are acquired (Fair-clough, 1989, p. 24; see also Bourdieu, 1991).

Applied to a discussion of second languagelearning in reforming schools, as Figure 1 illus-

trates, the theoretical assumptions undergirdingthis study are that classroom textual practicesshape and are shaped by the institutional contextin which they are embedded (e.g., turns-at-talkand literacy events). Institutional practices, ororganizational discourses (e.g., approaches tocurriculum and instruction) as enacted in thenomenclature of organizational structures, policystatements, staff development meetings, and thelike, in turn shape and are shaped by societaldiscourses and ideologies regarding the educa-

tion of second language learners (e.g., assump-tions regarding societal multilingualism and di-

versity). Theoretically, then, one of the aims ofthis broader investigation was to illustrate howmicro discursive practices within a climate ofreform circulate through multiple macro levels

within school organizations and in doing so gal-vanize and/or erode naturalized assumptionsand power dynamics inherent in the practice ofsecond language education in modern public in-stitutions (for studies of literacy adopting a simi-

lar approach see Gee, 1996; for studies of doctor-patient discourse see Wodak, 1996; for studies ofadvertising see Fairclough, 1989).

Methods

The methods of the larger investigation ofwhich this study is a part were qualitative in na-ture and involved the construction of three casestudies of schools undergoing restructuring inCalifornia.3 The data were collected by a team of

researchers with a variety of interests over thecourse of three, week-long site visits to eachschool between September 1995 and June 1997.My specific role as a member of the research team

was in analyzing the meaning of school restruc-turing for second language learners at a time

Meg Gebhard 247


4/21

when conservative politics were gaining momen-tum in California as evidenced by the passage ofanti-immigration, anti-affirmative-action, andanti-bilingual-education legislation (Gutirrez,

Asato, & Baquedano-Lopez, 2001).The structure of the case studies was shaped by

two units of analysis: the school and the focus

student institutionally designated as limited En-glish proficient(LEP). The purpose of designing astudy with two units of analysis was to create abifocal approach for seeing mutually constitutingdynamics between individual actors and the mul-tiple contexts they inhabit within schools. For theunit of the school, the team of researchers se-lected three elementary schools representing arural, suburban, and urban distribution from apool of 144 schools which were awarded 5-yearrestructuring grants as part of a state-wide school

reform bill known as California Senate Bill 1274.For the unit of the individual focus students, I

selected four students for participation based onboth their identification by the school as LEP andtheir grade level. Of these four, by the end of datacollection, due to a variety of reasons (e.g., stu-dents transferring to other schools and studentsbeing retained a grade), the number of studentson which my analysis was based was reduced tothreeonly one ofwhomwas a part of the originalcohort. In selecting students, I focused on third-

and fourth-graders because these grades are tran-sitional years in which the linguistic and academicdemands placedonstudents increase.As such, thethird and fourth grades can be seen as importantturning points in students ability to cope with in-creasing academic demands that may have lasting

implications for their academic trajectories. Addi-tionally, focal students were selected torepresentarange of academic andlanguage proficiency levelscategorized as low, mid, and high. Thesecategories were defined by an initialobservation, aconsultation with their classroom teachers, and areview of their school records.

DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS

The data sources, as Table 1 shows, are of mul-tiple types: field notes from observations ofschool life as experienced by focus students; tran-scriptions from audiotaped semi-structured inter-

views with students, parents, teachers, teachersaides, and administrators; and relevant docu-ments (e.g., students work, students academicrecords, curricular materials, and school re-

ports). The analysis process moved through a se-ries of overlapping phases. Phase 1 involved re-

viewing field notes, transcripts, and records at theorganizational level in order to get an under-standing of what schools attempted and how sec-ond language learners were organizationally po-sitioned. This review involved conducting a broadcontent analysis to profile and code the schoolsactivities in regard to a number of institutionalaspects of schooling (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).These features included the following:

Aspects of School Restructuring and SecondLanguage Learning

The physical plant(e.g., an analysis of wheresecond language learners were physically lo-

Note. Reprinted from Gebhard (2000).

FIGURE 1Second Language Acquisition as an Institutional Phenomenon



5/21

cated on school campuses and the nature ofthe material resources in their classrooms,such as computers, overhead projectors, andthe like).

The organization of teaching and learning(e.g.,second language learner and mainstream

student grouping practices; push-in orpull-out ESL and bilingual instruction;level of support for native language instruc-tion; and programs for native English speak-ers to learn a language other than English).

Curriculum and instruction(e.g., the connec-tions between ESL and bilingual instructionand the mainstream classroom; evidenceof instructional practices that strengthenlanguage learning and support academicachievement; and supports for first and sec-

ond language development).Assessment practices (e.g., the use of alter-native, culturally, and linguistically sensitiveassessment tools; the ability to set and moni-tor linguistic and academic goals for secondlanguage learners; and entry and exit re-

quirements for ESL and bilingual pro-grams).

Professional support for teachers(e.g., the char-acter of workshops or in-services designed toprovide teachers with an understanding ofthe needs of second language learners; and

the ways in which ESL and bilingual staffmembers have opportunities to examine anddevelop their teaching practices and work

with other teachers).

Family and community interactions(e.g., organ-izational structures or norms of behaviourthat foster understanding and respect for lin-guistic and ethnic diversity and the availabil-ity of bilingual counsellors and social work-ers).

Governance (e.g., the character of specific

committees that act on behalf of second lan-guage learners).

In addition to a broad-based content analysis ofthe schools restructuring plans in regard to thesecategories, Phase 1 involved an analysis of the

TABLE 1Data Sources and Analysis

Transcripts fromUnit of Audiotapes and/or Document Method of Analysis Observations Videotapes Collection Analysis

School General staff Interviews with Student Thickn 1 meetings district personnel records descriptive

Committee Interviews with State fieldnotes (Geertz,meetings administrators records 1973)

In-service Interviews with School Content analysisworkshops restructuring reports (Bogdan &

Special events coordinators and Media Biklen, 1992)(e.g., open committee chairs pieces Criticalhouse) Interviews with Correspond- discourse

teachers ence with analysis of Interviews with parents transcriptions

ESL and bilingual School maps (Fairclough, 1989)

teachers Interviews withbilingual aides

Focal student Shadowing Recordings of Student Thickn 3 focal students classroom social work descriptive

throughout and linguistic Teacher- fieldnotes (Geertz,their school interactions created 1973)day, including Interviews with materials Content analysisadditional students Textbooks (Bogdan &support Interviews with Correspond- Biklen, 1992)services, lunch, parents ence with Criticalrecess, and parents discourse

after-school analysis of programs transcriptions(Fairclough, 1989)

Meg Gebhard 249


6/21

ways in which ESL and bilingual programs weretalked about in meetings and described on paperusing the tools of critical discourse analysis (Fair-clough, 1989, 1992; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996).Specifically, this analysis included attention to thefollowing:

Aspects of School Restructuring and CriticalDiscourse Analysis

The lexicon. What classification schemes aredrawn upon in discussing second languagelearners and second language education?

What metaphors are used? What euphe-misms are employed?

Syntax. Is agency clear? How are passivesused? How are nominalizations used? How

are pronouns used? How are declaratives,interrogatives, and imperatives used?

Textual structure (oral and written). Whatlarge-scale structures do texts have? How isparticipation structured and controlled? In

what ways is textual cohesion achieved?

Images. How are visual images and other non-linguistic semiotic systems used in conjunc-tion with linguistic signs?

Phase 2 focused on analyzing the experiences

of focal students. This process entailed reviewingfield notes and transcribed audiotape and video-tape to code the different types of activities in

which second language learners participated. Ipaid close attention to how activities were accom-plished in terms of how participation was struc-tured (Philips, 1972; Mehan, 1979; Cazden, 1988)and in terms of how teachers and students appro-priated various signs and tools available to themin accomplishing tasks, especially tasks associated

with language arts instruction (Kern, 2000; Lan-

tolf, 2000; Wertsch, 1998). In doing this analysis Ialso identified the ways in which speaking posi-tion constructed the identities of second lan-guage learners as members of classroom commu-nities, and the ways in which such identitiessupported or constrained second language learn-ing opportunities (Norton, 2000; Toohey, 1998,2001; Willett, 1995).

Phase 3 involved analyzing the discourse ofschool restructuring at the institutional level andthe discourse of school restructuring as experi-

enced by individual focal students in local, spe-cific classroom contexts. The purpose of thisphase was to determine where patterns of institu-tional discourse and classroom discourse inter-sected and how these intersections reinforced his-torically rooted school identities for second

language learners or provided opportunities forresistance (for a history of immigrant educationin the United States see Cohen & Mohl, 1979; SanMiguel, 1987; Fass, 1989; Raftery, 1992; Olneck,1995; and Olsen, 1997).

WEB MAGNET SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY SCHOOL

As one exits Highway 101, a main artery con-necting San Francisco and San Jose, and ap-proaches the well-cared-for school grounds of

Web Magnet Science and Technology School, thepeaceful surroundings of this attractive elemen-tary school offer a welcome relief from the stressof trying to manoeuvre through Silicon Valleytraffic during rush hour. Web Magnet is a small,

single-story school tucked between a row of sin-gle-family homes with manicured lawns and alarge, open park complete with baseball dia-mond, volleyball court, and a scattering of ma-ture oak trees.

Web Magnet is situated in the city of Barnette,an affluent, predominantly White communitythat has benefited enormously from the boom inSilicon Valley during the last decade. Accordingto US Census data, the population of Barnette in1990 was 30,000. Approximately 75% of this

population was designated as White, 12% as Afri-can American, 10% as Hispanic, and the remain-der as Other. Additionally, 63% of the populationof Barnette in 1990 owned their own modestthree-bedroom homes at an average cost of$435,000. Given skyrocketing real estate costs,

which were fuelled by the boom in Silicon Valley,these same houses now, ten years later, cost up-

wards of $700,000.The families of the students who attend Web

Magnet, however, have participated in and bene-

fited far less from the robust high-tech economythat visibly and invisibly whirls around them. Infact, they do not live in the predominantly White,affluent community that surrounds the schoolthey attend. Rather, the students who attend WebMagnet reside in the Latino and African Ameri-can communities located in the working-class sec-tion of the city referred to as East Barnette. Theyattend school in this whiter, more affluent part oftown because of a controversial redrawing of dis-trict lines in the late 1980s.

The racial and socioeconomic differences be-tween the neighbourhood community and theschool community are reflected in a comparisonbetween demographic data for the school andthe census figures mentioned above. Specifically,nearly 60% of the students attending Web Mag-



7/21

net during the 19961997 school year were desig-nated as African American, 32% as Hispanic, 3%as White, and the remainder as Other. In regardto the Hispanic population, the number of stu-dents who were officially categorized as LEP

jumped threefold from 9% in 1992 to 27% in

1997. In addition, approximately 50% of the stu-dents attending Web Magnet were eligible for afree or reduced lunch based on financial need(see Appendix A for a more detailed 5-year demo-graphic school profile).

Last, Web Magnet is a small school serving ap-proximately 270 students from Grades K8, witha single teacher assigned to each grade. There

were few additional, non-teaching staff membersother than a principal, a restructuring coordina-tor, a secretary, and a morning janitor. This was

the staff configuration prior to Californias class-size reduction mandate in 1996. Under state law,the staff grew to include another first-, second-,and third-grade teacher in 1997.

SCHOOL REFORM AND THECONSTRUCTION OF NEW IDENTITIES

When visiting Web Magnet classrooms, on justabout any day of observation, I became familiar

with the surprisingly similar images, activities,

and patterns of interaction associated with read-ing and writing instruction. Students of colour,neatly clad in the schools uniform of grey, blue,and maroon, would sit quietly at desks arrangedin groups of four. During the next hour and a halfor so, they would work independently as classicalmusic softly played from the classs CD player.The activities students engaged in included work-ing on drafts of writing assignments, reading as-signed texts or books of their own choosing, orlogging on to one of the classroom computers to

exchange e-mails with employees who worked forthe schools corporate sponsor (e.g., e-mail ex-changes related to school activities, weekendplans, area sporting events, new movie releases,and the like). Periodically their teacher wouldcall a student over to have a one-on-one writingconference in a corner of the room that was ap-pointed with overstuffed chairs, muted-colourthrow pillows, soft lighting, and attractivelyframed pictures of students, teachers, and theirfamilies.

These predictable images, activities, and pat-terns of interaction reflect key aspects of theschools reform efforts (see Appendix B for acomprehensive profile of the schools restructur-ing efforts). First, in regard to technology, theschool established a partnership with a leading

high-profile software company. Through thispartnership, the school purchased enough hard-

ware and software to create a networked com-puter lab and to have at least two computers ineach classroom.4 Second, in regard to curriculumand instruction, the administration provided

training to make sure all teachers were knowl-edgeable and used teaching methods reflective ofbrain compatible instruction ( Jensen, 1998).Teachers described this approach to teaching asfocusing on creating predictable, clutter-free,organized, and peaceful learning environ-ments. In practice, the hallmarks of this approachinvolved teachers posting a daily agenda, playingclassical music when students worked inde-pendently, and decorating the classroom in whatthey called quiet ways. These quiet ways in-

cluded appointing the room with soft colours,muted lighting, and other personal knick-knackssuch as family pictures. Third, in regard to class-room management, the administration madesure all teachers, students, and parents were fully

versed in a behaviour modification programcalled Lifeskills. This program reflected an at-tempt to translate findings from studies of thebehaviours of highly successful corporate manag-ers into techniques designed to inculcate thesebehaviours in children at home and in schools.

Specifically, based on a book by Dorothy Rich(1998), the administration mandated that everyteacher post the 15 characteristics of successfulstudents in the Information Age. These charac-teristics included, for example, taking initiative,being organized, showing effort, using com-mon sense, and being able to cooperate withothers. Using these posted words as touchstones,teachers rewarded or punished students for usingor not using their lifeskills through a merit anddemerit system. Rewards included weekly award

ceremonies and privileges such as going toMcDonalds for lunch. Punishments, on the otherhand, included notifying parents, giving deten-tions, issuing suspensions, and ultimately expel-ling students from school.

In sum, like many fast capitalist projects, thediscursive semiotic practices associated withschool reform at Web Magnet enacted an engi-neered community of practice and accompany-ing set of identities for students and teachers(Gee, et al., 1996; Chouliaraki & Fairclough,

1999, Katz, 2001). Namely, classrooms at WebMagnet felt in many ways more like upper-middleclass, Pottery Barn living rooms than institutionalspaces; students were constructed more as self-di-rected actors than as consumers of facts; andteachers were positioned more as consultants

Meg Gebhard 251


8/21

than as information givers. To Web Magnetscredit, the schools reform efforts, resulting prac-tices, and accompanying roles for students andteachers stand in refreshing contrast to the bleakimages and oppositional stances of students andteachers which are all too often characteristic of

urban schools serving high numbers of secondlanguage learners and students of colour (Dar-ling Hammond, 1995; Kozol, 1991; Olsen, 1994,1997). The central question guiding this investi-gation is, however: How did second languagelearners assume, negotiate, and resist the rolesassigned to them by the discourses of school re-form at Web Magnet? In answering this question,the data reveal that the collective practices at WebMagnet visibly and invisibly placed second lan-guage learners in new highly vulnerable posi-

tions. In what follows, I provide an analysis of thisvulnerability by relating the stories of three fami-lies and their attempts to enrol and stay enrolledat Web Magnet. Further, I provide a microanalysisof the practices associated with reading and writ-ing instruction and of a text produced by a focalstudent named Alma. This analysis highlights the

ways in which classroom literacy practices con-strained Alma in her efforts to acquire academicliteracies and ultimately were implicated in theschools ability to declare her not Web material.

ENROLLING AND STAYING ENROLLED ATWEB MAGNET

Web Magnets restructuring proposal and sub-sequent efforts over the five-year funding period

were full of meaningful silences regarding theposition of second language learners, despite a300% jump in the number of students institution-ally designated as Limited English Proficient(from 9% to 27%). The common response ininterviews with administrators and teachers con-cerning how school reform efforts were affectingsecond language learners was best captured bythe schools counsellor, who said, We dont haveany specific bilingual program . . . Its Englishonly (Web Magnet School counsellor, personalcommunication, May 14, 1997). The schools jus-tification for the lack of an ESL/bilingual focusto their reform efforts and in their day-to-daypractices centred on the schools magnet statusas a high-performing science and technologyschool and on the schools admissions policy.5Asstated in the parent/student handbook for the19951996 school year,

Initial acceptance at Web [Magnet Science and Tech-nology School] for grades 28 is determined at least

in part by test scores. Students should obtain at orabove the 40th percentile in reading and the 60th

percentile in math. Most importantly, students

should be willing to put forth effort to achieve aca-demic success. (Web Magnet, 199596)

Such high percentiles as measured in Englishby the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) bydefault excluded many learners of English re-gardless of their ability to perform academic tasksin a language other than English. The reason forthe increase in the number of students desig-nated as LEP, despite the schools stringent ad-missions policy, related to two other factors. First,many LEP students, such as the focal studentnamed Alma, started attending Web Magnet inkindergarten, when tests were not administered.Second, strong-willed parents, as one teacherreferred to them, who wanted English-only in-struction for their children and were willing tomake an extraordinary investment in the school,

were often able to persuade the administration toaccept their children. This was the case for thetwo other focal students named Julio and Amy.The narratives these students, their parents, andtheir teachers told about how they were able toget into Web Magnet had remarkable parallels.Namely, Amys and Julios parents had been send-

ing their children to elementary schools in theirneighbourhood. Both families described how theacademic abilities of their older children hadcaught the attention of teachers who advisedthem to get their children out of the regularschool and into Web Magnet. Both families de-scribed how they aggressively lobbied the schooland committed to volunteering in a host of waysto get the administration to agree.

In an interview conducted in Spanish andtranslated into English, Amys father, Mr. Silva,

described his familys experience. He explainedthat a teacher at his neighbourhood school hadrecommended that his eldest son, Alejandro,transfer to Web Magnet because he was too intel-ligent (interpreted as too intelligent to attendthe low performing school in his neighbour-hood which had limited resources compared to amore adequately funded, high performanceschool like Web Magnet). This teacher told Mr.Silva to try to get Alejandro into Web Magnetbecause he was one out of hundreds, the best

in the class, and that Mr. Silva should not stoptrying until Alejandro got what he needed. Mr.Silva described how, at this teachers urging, hesucceeded in getting all three of his children on

Web Magnets waiting list, and how eventuallyAlejandro was able to attend Web Magnet before



9/21

graduating and moving on to middle school.When it came to Amy, however, he had an addi-tional obstacle because she was able to read and

write in Spanish but not in English. As evidencedby her school records and interviews with Amyand her father, Amy had been enrolled in a bilin-

gual program in kindergarten and first grade inher neighbourhood school before coming to

Web Magnet. At that time, Amy spoke Spanishand English and had an age-appropriate ability toread and write in Spanish but not in English. Asa result, she failed the English entrance test ad-ministered by Web Magnets second gradeteacher. The second grade teacher, Ms. Hum-phrey, the only fluent Spanish speaker on staff,described how Mr. Silva just begged and pleaded

with us to let her in, and how the school agreed

to admit Amy on the condition that Mrs. Silvawork as a classroom aide two mornings a week forthe entire year. Mr. Silva described how, when

Amy first got to Web [Magnet], they [teachers]didnt like her very much, but that with the hard

work and the efforts of his wife, it was worth itbecause at the end of the year she was at gradelevel with all the other kids.

In commenting on these events, Ms. Hum-phrey, who was Amys, Julios, and Almas teacher,said that the extra effort Latino parents had to

exert to get their children into Web Magnet madethem distinctive kinds of parents in ways that didnot necessarily fit the profile of other parents inthe district. In asking her to elaborate on specificfeatures of this profile, she said that these Latinoparents take initiative, have confidence regard-less of the ability to speak English, and get in-

volved. Missing from her description of the WebMagnet Latino parent profile, in the case ofboth Amy and Julio, is the fact that both families

were willing, in effect, to pay for admission to

Web Magnet by donating an enormous amountof time. This price is one that many families withfull-time, less flexible job situations or with verysmall children at home cannot afford. Moreover,the degree to which parents like Mrs. Silva wereessentially pressed into the role of an unpaid bi-lingual aide speaks to the degree to which theschool unintentionally leveraged parents com-mitment to their childrens education to fill ingaps in the schools infrastructure.

Paying this price, however, did not necessarily

secure the future of ones son or daughter at WebMagnet in the long run. Rather, the precariousnature of staying at Web Magnet became appar-ent in an analysis of how, in an unforeseen turnof events, the states class-size reduction mandateincreased competition between students and

their families and put second language learnersin particular in jeopardy. Specifically, because ofclass-size reduction, the school was forced to cre-ate two first-, second-, and third-grade classrooms.These two third-grades fed into a single fourth-grade, creating a problem of over-enrolment.

The administration responded to this problem byrevisiting the schools admissions and disciplinepolicies to decide which students would be in-

vited to continue and which students would beadvised to transfer to other schools in the dis-trict. As a result, students who were performingbelow grade level as determined by CTBS scoresand teacher comments, students who had ac-quired too many Lifeskills, and students whoseparents did not volunteer regularly at the school,

were at risk of losing their coveted spots at WebMagnet. The parents of all three focal studentsdescribed the panic this situation caused. In aninterview, Julios mother, Mrs. Reyes, expressedwhat a load off her back it was that Julio wasgoing to be allowed to stay despite his poorgrades, low-test scores, and his teachers assess-ment that he was a low-performing student. Shedescribed how other students who had poorgrades and test scores and whose parents had notmade an active effort to get to know teachers

received letters telling them that they could notcome back.

Mrs. Reyes: Resulta que estn mandando cartas alas personas que no completaron las veinte horaso que nunca vinieron por la escuela y no conocen

a los maestros de sus propios hijos y que real-

mente no les importa la educacin de sus hijos.

Yo s que Julio es un poquito flojo con los deberes

porque como ya va a terminar y l no quiere hacer

los deberes pero ya recib mi carta diciendo que

me lo aceptaban el prximo ao.Researcher: Ah, s?Mrs. Reyes: S.Researcher: Ah, que bueno.Mrs. Reyes: Si, eso me quit un peso de encima. Yo

realmente me estaba preocupando sin saber en

que escuela ponerlo.(Mrs. Reyes: Well, theyre sending letters to

the people that didnt complete theirtwenty hours or that never come by theschool and dont even know their kids

teacher, that dont have much interest intheir childs education. I know that Juliohas been a little lazy with his work becausehes about to get out of that grade [third]and he doesnt want to do his homeworkand all that but they already sent me my

Meg Gebhard 253


10/21

letter that hell be allowed to return nextyear.

Researcher: Oh, yeah?Mrs. Reyes: Yeah.Researcher: Oh, how good.Mrs. Reyes: That was a load off my back. I kept

worrying about what school to put him in!)

Interestingly, as evidenced by lines 2021[People who] dont have much interest in theirchilds educationMrs. Reyes seems to have in-ternalized a common sense assumption at work in

American schools. This assumption dictates thatparents who do not regularly attend open houses,go to parent-teacher conferences, or volunteer atschool do not care about the education of theirchildren. The hegemony embedded in this belief

is that it serves middle-class parents who have thetime to volunteer and who have been socializedinto establishing particular kinds of relationships

with teachers (e.g., teacher and parents as part-ners) that may be very different from the kindsof relationships that are typically established be-tween teachers and parents within other cultures(e.g., the notion of the teacher as a respected,high-status professional; see Valds, 1996, for adiscussion). As will become clear in discussing

Almas experiences, not all immigrant parents

shared the schools understanding of the rolethey were expected to play. Second, even if theydid understand what was expected of them, theydid not always have the luxury of time that suchparticipation requires. Almas parents, for exam-ple, worked during school hours. Her mothermade an effort to come to parent-teacher confer-ences and to stay in touch with teachers but wasnot able to put the same kind of investment intothe school as did Amys and Julios mothers.Moreover, neither of Almas parents spoke En-

glish, making communicating with the school dif-ficult, particularly because the school made noconsistent effort to have an interpreter availableat meetings or to translate written communica-tion going home to parents.

In sum, becoming and remaining a student atWeb Magnet meant primarily displaying aca-demic English language proficiency by achievinghigh scores on standardized tests. Room for nego-tiating the legitimacy of a Web Magnet student

who was not proficient in English was possible if

parents, like their children, fit a rather narrowdefinition of what it meant to be a Web parent.This definition necessitated that immigrant par-ents not only have some fluency in English, butalso adopt culturally specific roles such as par-ents as partners and parents as volunteers. The

degree to which the parents of focal studentsconsciously or unconsciously understood theroles they were expected to play, and/or the de-gree to which assuming these roles was a possibil-ity, varied and had profound implications fortheir children. Amys mother worked essentially

as an unpaid, part-time bilingual aide for a fullyear and was thus able to secure Amys future atWeb Magnet. Julios mother kept her son in goodstanding because she played a key role in one ofthe schools fundraisers (e.g., Christmas in April)and regularly attended meetings. Almas parents,however, had less flexible work schedules and

were less proficient in English. Both of these fac-tors contributed to the teachers perceptions that

Almas family was less capable of supporting heracademically and that Alma would be better

served by attending a less academic school in herown neighbourhood, despite the fact that herability to complete assigned tasks was almost iden-tical to Julios.

THE DISCOURSES OF READING ANDWRITING INSTRUCTION

The following is a description of the discursivepractices associated with independent study and

writing conferences, two related and high fre-

quency interactional patterns observed in class-rooms at Web Magnet during reading and writ-ing instruction. In line with the new schoolorder driven by the new work order, these in-teractional patterns positioned students as inde-pendent problem-solvers and teachers as con-sultants, but also ironically constructed learningas an individual phenomenon and language ac-quisition as skills-based piecework. Paradoxically,these approaches to teaching, learning, and lan-guage development reflect the logic and goals

of the old capitalist work order, which are gearedtoward the mass production of material goods,not the tenets of new capitalism, which aregeared toward the production of knowledge-based products through teamwork, collabora-tion, and collective expertise. Even more ironicfor second language learners specifically, is thatthese more traditional schooling practicesleft-overs from manufacturings influence on publiceducation (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Tyack,1974)invisibly cut second language learners

off from the much needed sociolinguistic know-how that was distributed around them (e.g.,Brown, 1994; Lantolf, 2000; Lave, 1988). Assuch, the engineered community of practice in

which second language learners participated wasnot one that readily prepared them to take their



11/21

place in the new Information Age as symbolicknowledge workers. Rather, despite thesemiotics of change (e.g., the absence of teacher-centred instruction, the living room surround-ings, and the presence of high-tech tools), theseliteracy practices leaned toward preparing stu-

dents to take their place as low-skill workers ina manufacturing work order that is rapidly dis-appearing (e.g., Reich, 1992).

The following analysis of a typical classroominteraction illustrates the above conclusion. Inthis example, students and their teacher sat pret-zel-style in a circle on a cobalt-blue carpet as theteacher, Mrs. Chan,6 listed the assignments they

were to work on over the next hour and a half.This list included finishing their pen pal letters,completing two sections in their social studies

text, and reading their assigned language artstext, The Black Pearl, by Scott ODell. Studentscompleted these tasks with minimal supportfrom Mrs. Chan. Likewise, students were to com-plete these assignments with minimal supportfrom each other. These aspects of the discursivepractices at work in Mrs. Chans classroom wereevident in Mrs. Chans instructions to edit your-self, by yourself and then Ill look at it (see lines3233 below) and in the lack of teacher-ap-proved interactions between students (e.g., lack

of extended talk between students, and Mrs.Chans warning to maintain a quiet, settledclassroom).

Mrs. Chan: Okay, weve got lots to do. Raiseyour hand if you still have to finish yourpen pal letter, to finish. (Alma, a focal stu-dent, raises her hand.) Okay, as yesterday,if I dont get it today, youre in today overlunch working on them. I am mailing themtomorrow. This is the last pen pal letter of

the year. That we are sending. That they aregoing to get in time to write us back. I needto send them tomorrow. So I need for thoseto get done today. (Jaime, another focalstudent, raises his hand.) Raise your handif that is going to be a problem for you.(Jaime pulls his hand down quickly. Alma islooking off to the right with her thumb onher lips in a semi-reclined position with herhead under the table behind her. Sheshakes her head no in response to the

question but does not make eye contactwith Mrs. Chan.) All eyes up here. (Almalooks at Mrs. Chan and sits upright.) Is thatgoing to be a problem? (Several studentshave their hands raised.) Julia, is that goingto be a problem; why? (Alma claps her

hands once, looks at her lap, and bites herfingernail.)

Julia: xxxxxx (indecipherable)Mrs. Chan: Shh, I couldnt hear.

Julia: xxxxxx (indecipherable)Mrs. Chan: I wont look at it until youve ed-

ited yourself, and youve gone over thatchecklist. Yourself, by yourself and then Illlook at it. Joe, maybe you can tell us?

Joe: What?Mrs. Chan: Did you finish your pen pal letter?

Joe: xxxxx (indecipherable)Mrs. Chan: All right, after your pen pal letter,

you need to work on social studies. It islesson one and Ill put up two, too. Unfor-tunately, I erased it. Lesson one and two,chapter three. If you dont know the page

numbers for that, where can you find it?Carlos: In the index.Mrs. Chan: In the index or in the front. If you

finish that, and youve answered the ques-tions at the end of each(Mrs. Chan looksat two students sitting at a table in the cor-ner of the room. These students did not goon the class field trip and have been as-signed to sit in Mrs. Chans class for the day.The two students have been reading a booktogether quietly with an occasional muffled

laugh.) Marcos, could you get your bookand go someplace else please? (Marcospicks up his book and moves to the floor bythe bookshelf as Jaime and Alma look on.)No, thats not far enough. Over here by thepoems. And is there anyone who doesntunderstand about social studies? Richard?

Richard: Uhh, and if you finish it.Mrs. Chan: I cant hear you.Richard: What do we do if we finished our

social studies?

Mrs. Chan: Im going deaf, if you finish yoursocial studies after youve showed me, then

we see that you really understand it well,then you need to read The Black Pearland

you need to read through chapteryouhave to read through chapter 10 bybyThursday, because Sara is coming, and onFriday Im going to give you a short quizthrough chapter 11. Or just on chapter 11.(The student next to Jaime raises her hand.Mrs. Chan nods in her direction.)

Theresa: xxxxxx (Theresa asks somethingabout how many social studies questionsshe has to answer. Students are beginningto move around.)

Mrs. Chan: Shh, all the questions of course.

Meg Gebhard 255


12/21

Theresa: Oh. Can I go to the bathroomplease?

Mrs. Chan: Yes. Okay, and after The Black Pearl,I would like toI dont know if weregonna have enough timeI would like togo over some more of math that we started

yesterday, but we are going toour prob-lems took a lot longer today than they usu-ally do (referring to a playground disputethat spilled over into the class and took 20minutes of circle time). So are there anyother questions? I will give you one minuteto get settled and then Ill, we need to startdoing something about it. (Mrs. Chanturns on classical music.)

During the next 40 minutes, the class as a

whole worked silently. The only sounds I re-corded were of papers rustling, chairs moving,and Mrs. Chans voice murmuring as she con-ducted one-on-one editing sessions with studentsregarding their pen pal letters. After 40 minutes,Mrs. Chan began reprimanding students for toomuch chitchat and asked some students tomove closer to her to ensure the room stayedquiet.

Almas Letter

In regard to the ways in which focal secondlanguage learners participated in the activitiesdescribed in the above transcript, Alma, like themajority of students, quickly returned to herdesk, got the materials she needed, and got to

work. During the first 4 minutes, she copied overa draft of her pen pal letter, stopping frequentlyto erase and rewrite words. Mrs. Chan had al-ready responded to this draft in a previous con-ference (see recreation in Appendix C). Mrs.

Chans comments centred on spelling (e.g., some-thing, letter, four, and field trip), capitalization,punctuation, and indenting (e.g., an arrow indi-cating where Alma needed to indent because theassignment called for at least two paragraphs).There were no other comments regarding thecontent of Almas letter despite a lack of coher-ence between several of the lines she had written.For example, Almas draft contained the follow-ing: I know that the leters came in late it passedone mounth April and came in May. (Alma Gar-

cia, third grade student).My interpretation of what Alma was attempting

to communicate was that she was apologizing forwriting back so late, but that she did not receiveher pen pals letter until recently, despite the factthat it was written over a month ago. After copy-

ing the letter, Alma waited in line for a secondconference with Mrs. Chan. In this conferenceMrs. Chan drew Almas attention to four capitali-zation errors, which Alma had again copied overincorrectly. Mrs. Chan also crossed out the abovelines regarding the lateness of Almas reply but

offered no explanation for why this made theletter better. After the conference, Alma returnedto her desk and spent the remainder of the classsilently copying over her draft with coloured pen-cils, alternating the colour of each word, anddecorating the envelope with stickers, probably tothe delight of its recipient. Her social studies textand reading text, however, went untouched.

For comparison, if a true constructivist ap-proach to learning and language development

were at work in this context, Mrs. Chan poten-

tially could have entered into a more genuinelycollaborative dialogue with Alma that might haveled Alma to internalize or appropriate aspects of

written English (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998).Namely, Mrs. Chan could have scaffolded theprocess of writing a quality letter as opposed tosolely focusing on the formal properties of herdraft as a product (see Bruner, 1983; Johnson,1995; Kelly-Hall, 2000; and McCormick & Do-nato, 2000, for a discussion of instructional scaf-folding). For example, Mrs. Chan could have pro-

vided a verbal scaffold supportive of Almaslearning to write an apology if she had askedquestions about what Alma wanted to communi-cate. In addition, Mrs. Chan could have helped

Alma answer these questions in ways that mighthave given Alma the language forms required toproduce a well-formed written apology (e.g., I

would have written sooner, but I just got yourletter). Such a dialogue not only would haveimproved the content of the letter in ways that

Alma intended but also would have provided

Alma with an opportunity to explore how condi-tional and implied conditionals are formed inEnglish.7 In addition, Mrs. Chan could have pro-

vided the class, not just Alma, with an example ofseveral letters and then led a discussion rich inopen-ended questions to help students constructan understanding of what features make someletters better than others.

Potentially, interactional practices such as theones itemized above could have accomplishedmany things: first, in the Vygotskian sense, Alma

could have looked to available classroom modelswhen drafting her letter. These models couldhave acted as cultural artefacts or tools thatcould have enhanced Almas performance whenshe was working independently (Lantolf, 2000;

Wertsch, 1998). Second, over time members of



13/21

the class might have internalized Mrs. Chans un-derstanding of a quality letter and might havebeen in a better position to provide assistance toless proficient writers like Alma in a peer confer-ence kind of situation. Third, Mrs. Chans evalu-ation practices would have been made public and

explicit and therefore could have provided bothstudents and parents with a better understandingof how students were doing and where they stoodin a highly competitive environment. Finally, inline with the main thrust of the new school order,a community of practice reflective of a construc-tivist approach to learning and language develop-ment would have done more to construct Alma asa symbolic knowledge worker capable of co-creat-ing new thoughts with language as opposed to askill-worker who mechanically copied edited

words.In contrast to the above hypothetical scenario,

Almas letter, and an abundance of classroomartefacts like it, reflected and created the kind ofreal-world school relationships she had with oth-ers, and in turn, reflected and created the social

worlds to which she belonged and may likely be-long in the future. Specifically, drawing on Fair-cloughs discussion of critical discourse analysis,

Almas letter and the other kinds of school-spon-sored texts she produced bear traces to the

context in which they were created (Fairclough,1989, 1992). Namely, the revisions she made(e.g., the wholesale deletion of her apology sec-tion and the subsequent copying of a seconddraft) bear traces of the non-collaborative, form-focused approach to literacy instruction at workin this classroom.

Moreover, Almas teachers, influenced by otherdiscourses associated with English-only (Ameri-canizing) instruction and individualizing concep-tions of learning, interpreted Almas schoolwork

in very specific ways. Again, drawing on Fair-cloughs discussion of critical discourse analysis,teachers tended to interpret nonstandard fea-tures in Almas writing, such as invented spellingsand nonstandard uses of capital letters, as cuesthat Alma had a learning disability caused by herassumed bilingualism (Fairclough, 1989, 1992).Evidence to support this conclusion came frominterviews with Almas teachers. For example, inresponse to a question regarding how second lan-guage learners were doing in her class, Almas

third-grade teacher said LEP students often hada lot of trouble getting their work done. Sheexplained that the problems were ones that shelocated within the kids whose parents are still

just speaking Spanish at home. With referenceto Alma, Ms. Testa8 said,

There are a lot of kids who are bilingual. I find thedifference within the kids is that most parents who

speak English at home, and those parents who are

still just speaking Spanish at home, and thats a sadstatement, because I wish everybody at the whole

school was bilingual, but I find that is where most of

the problems are. . . . Like for instance, Almas mom.Its hard for me, because Ive tried to explain some-thing to Alma and she doesnt understand, and I

think part of it is because she doesnt have olderpeople to help her understand a lot of those con-

cepts. (Mimi Testa, third-grade teacher)

In sum, teachers understandings of learning,literacy development, and multilingualism, cou-pled with intense competition for spots in WebMagnets single fourth grade class, resulted in aset of practices that constructed Alma as a reme-dial student. For example, Ms. Testa recom-mended that a team of specialists test Alma todetermine if the difficulties she was having wererelated to a learning disability or to her level ofproficiency in English.9 The testing team admin-istered a battery of tests designed to measure

Almas academic development (e.g., the Wood-cock Johnson Battery), her psychomotor devel-opment (e.g., the Bender Gestalt), her languagedevelopment (the Idea Proficiency Test in Span-

ish and English), and her intellectual develop-ment (e.g., the Weschler Test of Intelligence).The team reviewed Almas test scores and de-clared her a Fluent Speaker of English but rec-ommended she repeat third grade. The following

year, given remarkably similar teaching practices,Almas literacy skills improved very little. As aresult, her new teacher, Mrs. Chan, scheduledseveral conferences with Almas mother to discussthe benefits of Alma transferring to her neigh-bourhood school, where she wouldnt be the

lowest.Almas mother, Mrs. Garcia, said in an interview

that she realized Alma could get distracted easilybut that she wasnt sure whether Almas problem

was a question of her ability to do the assignedwork. Mrs. Garcia rejected the school counsellorsidea that the problem was we speak Spanish athome and this confuses her. In fact, Mrs. Garciaand Alma both reported that Alma spoke Englishat home with her older siblings and had difficultycommunicating with her parents in Spanish. In

this sense, the degree to which Alma can be de-scribed as bilingual is open to interpretation.

With anger, Mrs. Garcia blamed the school foronly wanting geniuses and for not helping Almasince the beginning, when she entered Web Mag-net in kindergarten. Mrs. Garcias solution to the

Meg Gebhard 257


14/21

problem was not to get rid of low-performing stu-dents but to get rid of low-performing teachers:

Mrs. Garcia: Ellos quieren que sean como un sabio.. . . Entonces si quieren un sabio, o sea losquieren que vayan as de alto, yo pienso que

aqul que va bajito tambin tienen que levan-tarlo no mandarlo a otra escuela, no decir esteque no sabe, vamos a mandarlo a otra escuela,que se va a empeorar. Ellos [los profesores] mis-mos tienen que sacarlo adelante. Si es verdadera-mente una buena escuela lo tienen que sacaradelante, es lo que yo pienso.

Researcher: Ayudar a todos los estudiantes . . .?Mrs. Garcia: Si, no sacarlos . . .Entonces si esa, es

la mejor escuela que tienen ac en el distrito,entonces por qu lo van referir a otra escuela?

Tienen que sacarlo adelante ellos mismos. Ledigo, mi nia empez ah, no tienen porqu mesugerir a m otra escuela, ellos tienen que sacarlaadelante, si ellos no la sacan adelante, quin lava a sacar? Yo no, porque yo no estudi, entoncestienen que sacar a los maestros.

(Mrs. Garcia: They want them to be like agenius. . . . So if they want a genius, orsomeone who has a really high score. Ithink that for those who have a low score,they need help getting up instead of send-ing him off to another school, like saying,This one that doesnt know, lets send himto another school, that would only make it

worse. They [the teachers] have to helphim out. If this is truly a good school, theyshould help him out, thats what I think.

Researcher: Help all the students . . .?Mrs. Garcia: Yes, dont take them out. . . . So if

that is the best school they have in thedistrict, why are they going to refer him toanother school? They have to help themout themselves. I tell you, my daughterstarted there, they have no reason in tellingme to send her to another school, theymust be able to help her out. I cant be-cause I never went to school, so what theyneed to do is to take the teachers out.)

In formal interviews and more casual conversa-tions with me, Alma resisted the remedial label oflearning disabled that the school tried to affix toher and presented herself as a student who had

no particular problems. In fluent, unaccentedEnglish she reported that she liked school andher teachers and that her assignments wereeasy. Voluntarily, she read to me from the classsassigned text, Charlottes Web, with enthusiasm andfluency. Similarly, the following year, Alma was

eager to show me a somewhat autobiographicalstory she was writing, titled Candy. Unbe-knownst to Mrs. Chan, this was a nine-page piece

Alma covertly worked on and shared with herfriends during class instead of doing official as-signments. Given the ways in which Alma seemed

to go out of her way to present herself to me as aproficient reader and writer, a presentation of selfthat remained invisible to her teachers giventheir assumptions about language and learning, I

was reluctant to bring up the subject of her reten-tion directly. The topic came up, however, almostaccidentally, when I asked in what ways shethought school was fair and unfair, a questionI asked all focal students. She responded by ex-plaining that it was sometimes not fair when

youre a new kid and other kids wont let you

play soccer, implying that making friends in hernew class had been difficult at first. She went onto explain that it was her mothers decision thatshe was not allowed to go on to fourth grade withher old friends because my mother didnt likemy handwriting so shesaid youre going back intothe third grade (emphasis added). In an effortto clarify Almas understanding of why she washeld back, I repeated her response that it was hermothers idea, to which she responded, yep.

Researcher: Okay. Do you think schools fair?Alma: Mm hmm.Researcher: Do you ever feel like its unfair?

Alma: Ummm, sometimes.Researcher: Whats unfair?

Alma: Because when we play soccer, they letthe other kids play, but not the new kidsthat want to play, they dont let them play,like, when I was . . . they played soccer fortwo months, and then I wanted to come inand they said no, but then one time when

one of the other kids took out a soccer ballthey said I could play, and I was playing,then I played, and then they said I was goodat soccer. Now I play.

Researcher: Why were you a new kid?Alma: I was a new kid because I was supposed

to go to fourth, but my mother didnt likemy handwriting so she said youre goingback into the third grade.

Researcher: Howd you feel about that?Alma: Sad.

Researcher: Sad? Why was that sad?Alma: Because I wanted to join the rest of the

kids.Researcher: Yeah. And it was your moms idea

because of your handwriting?Alma: Yep.



15/21

This exchange indicates that Alma, while pro-tecting a presentation of self as a good student tome, had to a certain extent internalized the ideol-ogy of the school regarding the cause of her aca-demicdifficulties.10 That is,Alma did not attributeher difficulties in school to a lack of assistance

from her teachers. Rather, likeher teachers, albeitfor different reasons, she located the cause of herfailure in her family, specifically hermother.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The discourses of school reform in this context,shaped by social, economic, and historical forces,constructed Web Magnet as a boutique, almostprivate school for high achievers. The specificcharacter of the definition of a high achiever in

this competitive context, however, made it verydif-ficult for second language learners and their fami-lies to assume the identities required for member-ship in this school community and potentially forfuture membership in communities associated

with high-paying jobs. For example, the literacypiecework skills to which Alma was apprenticedcompromised her legitimacy as a Web Magnet stu-dent and most likely will not support her in the fu-ture as she tries to position herself as a winner inthe redistribution of wealth and power taking

place in the new work order.This investigation reveals that a wide variety of

complementary and competing discourses inad-vertently produced the above situation. Namely,the reforms enacted at Web Magnet in effect wall-papered over the semiotics of industrial ap-proaches to schooling with the language and im-ages of fast capitalism while leaving historicallyrooted ideologies and practices regarding lan-guage, literacy, and culture untouched. For exam-ple, the reforms enacted at Web Magnet success-

fully changed how teachers and students usedspace, time, and learning tools. The faculty didthis by rearranging the classroom furniture so thestudents no longer sat in rowsbut weregrouped infours. Teachers no longer lectured in front of theroom in a chalk-and-talk fashion but consulted

with students individually in the atmosphere of amodern living room equipped with state-of-the-arthardware, software, and Internet access. Teachersand students no longer studied compartmental-ized subjects at specified times but went about

their work guided by a time-flexible daily agenda.These fast capitalist initiatives and their accompa-nying images, however, were laminated over In-dustrial-Age practices that cast learning as an indi-

vidual phenomenon and literacy as a skilldeveloped through the rote assembly of formal

bits of language. Moreover, Webs reforms left un-disturbed powerful folk theories regarding socialmobility in the United States (e.g., Kloss, 1971;

Vollmer, 1997). That is, educators at Web Magnet,as did educators in the past, pressed immigrantfamilies to give up ties to their first language and

culture in exchange for the promise of social mo-bility. They made these demands on immigrantfamilies despite the obvious benefits of multilin-gualism and multiculturalism in a borderless,global economy (see Cumminsand Sayers, 1995).

In accounting for the failure of teachers andadministrators to confront and productively dis-entangle the multiple systemic paradoxes that in-fused their reform efforts, the work of Andy Har-greaves regarding the nature of teachers workis insightful (1994). Hargreaves maintains that

teachers are precariously caught between twopowerful epistemes, one modern and the otherpostmodern, in ways that make seeing, under-standing, and changing how work is accom-plished in schools difficult. He writes:

The reasonfor the ironies ofchangeare tobe found inthe wider social context in which schools operate andof which they are a part. The fundamental problem, Iargue, is tobe found in the confrontationbetween twopowerful forces. On the one hand is an increasinglypostindustrial, postmodern world, characterized byaccelerating change, intense compression of timeandspace, cultural diversity, technological complexity, na-tional insecurity, and scientific uncertainty. Againstthis stands a modernistic, monolithic school systemthat continues to pursue deeply anachronistic pur-poses within opaque and inflexible structures. . . . It isnot simply that the modernistic schoolsystems aretheproblem and postmodern organizations are the solu-tion. Postmodernsocieties themselvesare loaded withcontradictory possibilities. . . . But it is the struggle be-tween and within modernity and postmodernity thatthechallengeof changefor teachers andtheir leadersis tobefound.(pp.34)

In drawing on Hargreaves work to explain howteachers and their students are caught in what canbest be described as an epistomological riptide, Ido not wish to suggest that efforts aimed at chang-ing racist and classist schooling practices are fu-tile. Nor do I wish to reduce an analysis of schoolreform to a discussion of bad teachers by un-fairly wagging an accusatory finger at Mrs. Chanand Ms. Testa. Rather, I hope this study adds

meaningfully to debates shaping research andpractice in the fields of school reform and class-room SLA in such a way that the discursive cur-rents over which a social justice agenda is enactedcan be navigated more smoothly.

First, in regard to studies of school reform, this

Meg Gebhard 259


16/21

study illustrates that educatorsat Web Magnet, likeeducators in many reforming schools, were able todescribe howtheir classrooms hadchangedas a re-sult of school reform. However, when it came toexplaining howstudent learning had changed, forthe better or worse, teachers and administrators

were often at a loss. As a rule, they either repeateda description of the reforms they were attemptingor interpreted the question as one of account-abilityandprovided examples of student work andreports of standardized test scores. This responseshould not come as a surprise given the publicsfaith, if not obsession, with test scores and giventhe slim resources dedicated to the professionaldevelopment of teachers.For example, Mrs. Chanand Ms. Testa participated in workshops thattrained them in how to implement brain compat-

ible instruction and a Lifeskills approach toclassroom management. They did not, however,participate in any sustained professional develop-ment opportunities that asked or supported themin thinking deeply and critically about how learn-ing takes place,particularly howsociolinguistic in-teractions play a role in the constructionof knowl-edge and language learning (see Gebhard, 1998,for a review of contextual factors that support L2teachers professional development). In thissense, through no fault of their own, the impact of

the literacy practices at work in their classroomwere invisible to them, and dominant ideologiesregarding individualism, skills-based learning,and English monolingualism remained unques-tioned.

In response to the above situation, which canonly be described as a crisis, I agree with policyanalysts who argue strongly that the professionaldevelopment of in-service and pre-service teach-ers must become a high priority if reforms are toavoid the dystopia they so ironically engender

(e.g., Little, 1984, 1989; Darling Hammond, 1993,1994). As an applied linguist, however, I call forprofessional development opportunities that sup-port teachers in seeing how turns-at-talk and liter-acyevents in their classrooms shape student learn-ing opportunities (e.g., taping, transcribing, andanalyzing classroom interaction). This recom-mendation is warranted now more than evergiven the call for teachers to implement Vygot-skian approaches to teaching and learning in in-creasingly culturally and linguistically diverse

classrooms (e.g., Tharp, 1997, and the work of theCenter for Research on Education, Diversity &Excellence). Likewise, investigations of school re-form, particularly evaluations, need to collect,transcribe, and analyze classroom sociolinguisticdata if they are to capture and display the essence

of interactions that support or constrain studentlearning opportunities.

Second, in regard to classroom SLA research, Iargue for a broadening of the focus of studiesadopting a sociocultural perspective of secondlanguage development.11 For example, to date,

there have been relatively few investigations ofhow a second language learners access to users ofthe target language, to talented teachers, and toquality instructional materials is mediated by insti-tutional practices associated with schooling.12 Aresearch agenda such as this entails asking ques-tions regarding the connection between the class-room experiences of second language learnersand a host of institutional practices suchashow dosecond language learners get grouped for instruc-tion? How are second language learners assessed?

How are the teachers of second language learnersprofessionally prepared and supported? How areschool policies impacting second language learn-ers made and enacted? How are ESL textbooksand other curricular material developed and usedin classrooms? How do the families of second lan-guage learners play a role in the educationof theirchildren?

In conclusion, an interdisciplinary researchagenda such as this admittedly (and unapologeti-cally) asks educational researchers to become lin-

guists and SLAresearchers to becomeeducationalanthropologists. Moreover, this agenda necessi-tates that educational leaders and researchers in-terested in school reformdevelop a deeperunder-standing of sociocultural perspectives of languagedevelopment and a greater ability to use the toolsof discourse analysis. In turn, SLA researchers in-terested in exploring a sociocultural perspectiveof classroom SLA must not only exit the mind ofthe language learner, as suggested by Gee, Hull,and Lankshear at the start of this paper, but they

must also move beyond the four walls of the ESLclassroom by venturing into staff rooms, principalcommittee meetings, and the offices of districtand state policymakers.

NOTES

1 The terms fast capitalismand new capitalismdescribethe same phenomenon. Gee, et al. (1996), use the term

fast capitalismto incorporate a critical perspective miss-ing from the work of writers such as Drucker (1993) andSenge (1991). Gee, et al. (1996), define fast capitalisttexts as a mix genre produced by business managersand consultants. These texts attempt to create on paperthe new work order or what Gee, et al., call the en-chanted workplace. This workplace is a scripted one,



17/21

where hierarchy is dead and partners engage inmeaningful, collaborative work. It is also a placewhere the complexities of the real world are glossedover in ways that produce a kind of soft-touch hege-mony (pp. 2425).

2 Many terms used to refer to students who primarily

speak a language other than English are problematic.The term limited English proficient, for example, is pejora-tive in the sense that it accents limitations as well asprivileges English over other languages as the mediumof academic achievement in American schools. Theterm linguistic minority student fails to reflect that stu-dents who speak a language other than English areoften in the majority given the make-up of the commu-nities in which they live and go to school. Likewise,referents such as English as a Second Language(ESL) orbilingual studentessentialize program types that vary con-siderably. For this report, therefore, I will refer to stu-

dents who are learning English as an additional lan-guage as second language learners, despite the fact thatmany such students may in fact be learners of a third orfourth language or variety of languages.

3 This investigation is part of a series of studies ofschool reform conducted under the direction of JudithWarren Little and funded by the Stuart Foundation andthe Hewlett Foundation. Californias Language Minori-ties Research Institute provided additional support.

4 In the wake of Californias state mandate to reduceclass sizes for all first, second, and third grades, thecomputer lab was dismantled in 1997 to make room for

an additional classroom.5 Magnet schools are public schools designed to at-tract students based on the schools ability to focus in-struction on a specialty (e.g., the arts).

6 Mrs. Chan is a White, monolingual English speakerof Irish descent. She was fully certified to teach third

grade.Shehad3yearsofteachingexperienceatWebandwas often called upon to train other teachers in Websap-

proach to teaching and learning. This pseudonym cap-tures the fact that she married someone of Chinese de-scent andchanged herlast name from OHarato Chan.

7 Conditional sentences typically consist of an if

clause and a result clause formed using the modelwould. In an implied conditional sentence, the if is

omitted.8 Ms.Testa is a White, monolingual English speaker of

Italian descent. She was fully certified to teach thirdgrade. She had taught for several years in the New YorkMetropolitan area and was in her second year as a staffmember at Web Magnet.

9 See Cummins (1984) for a discussion of the dispro-portionate number of language learners who are inap-propriately diagnosed with learning disabilities due toculturally biased educational practices and testing in-

struments as well as a lack of understanding of issuescentral to bilingualism and SLA. See McDermott (1996)for an insightful discussion of how learning disabilitiesare constructed by school practices.

10 See Dorph (1999) for a discussion of the ways inwhich students internalize institutional narratives re-garding the causes of their success and failure.

11 Studies of SLA adopting a psycholinguistic perspec-tive of language development have a very different, butequally valuable research agenda than the one I advo-cate here (see Firth & Wagner, 1997; Long, 1997).

12 Some exceptions include Olsen (1994, 1997),Harklau (1994, 2000), Gebhard (2000), and Toohey

(2001).

REFERENCES

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research foreducation: An introduction for theory and methods. Bos-ton: Allyn & Bacon.

Bourdieu, P. (Ed.). (1991). Language and symbolic power.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalistAmerica. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, A. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educa-tional Researcher, 23, 412.

Bruner, J. (1983). Childs talk: Learning to use language.New York: W.W. Norton.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999).Discourse in latemodernity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

Cohen, R., & Mohl, R. (1979). The paradox of progressiveeducation. New York: Kennikat Press.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual special education: Issues in

assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: CollegeHill Press.

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools. NewYork: St. Martins Press.

Darling Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school re-formagenda: Developingcapacity for school trans-formation.Phi DeltaKappan,74(10), 753761.

Darling Hammond, L. (1994). Developing professionaldevelopment schools: Early lessons, challenge,and promise. In L. Darling Hammond (Ed.), Pro-

fessional development schools: Schools for a developing

profession(pp. 127). New York: Teachers College

Press.Darling Hammond, L. (1995). Inequities and access toknowledge. In J. Banks & C. McGee (Eds.), Hand-book of research on multicultural education (pp.465483). New York: Macmillan.

Dorph, R. (1999). Between intention and reality: Howeducators notions about students shape students experi-

ences and opportunities. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University of California, Berkeley, Cali-fornia.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post capitalist society. New York: Har-per.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London:Longman.Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cam-

bridge, MA: Polity Press.Fass, P. (1989). Outside in: Minorities and the transforma-

tion of American education. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Meg Gebhard 261


18/21

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communi-cation, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLAresearch. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.

Gebhard, M. (1998). A case for professional develop-ment schools. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 501510.

Gebhard, M. (1999). Debates in SLA studies: Redefining

classroom SLA as an institutional phenomenon.TESOL Quarterly, 33, 544556.Gebhard, M. (2000). SLA and school restructuring: Recon-

ceiving classroom SLA as an institutional phenomenon.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacy: Ideology in

discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work

order: Behind the language of new capitalism. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an inter-

pretive theory of culture. In The interpretation ofculture: Selected essays(pp. 330). New York: Basic

Books.Gutirrez, K., Asato, J, & Baquedano-Lopez, P. (2001).

English for the children: The new literacy of theold work order. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1),

87112.Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times.

New York: Teachers College Press.Harklau, L. (1994). Tracking and linguistic minority

students: Consequences of ability grouping forsecond language learners. Linguistics in Education,

6(3), 217244.Harklau,L.(2000). From goodkids to theworst:Rep-

resentations of English language learners acrosseducationalsettings.TESOL Quarterly,34, 3567.

Hull, G., Jury, M., Katz, M., & Ziv, O. (1996). Changingwork, changing literacy? A study of skill requirements

and development in a tradition and restructured work-

place. Berkeley, CA: The National Center for theStudy of Writing and Literacy.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexan-dria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Instruc-tion.

Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in theclassroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.Katz, M. (2001). Engineering a hotel family: Language

ideology, discourse, and workplace culture. Lin-guistics & Education, 12(3), 309343.

Kelly Hall, J. (2000). Classroom interactions and addi-

tional language learning: Implications for teach-ing and research. In J. Kelly Hall and L. S.Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learn-

ing through classroom interactions (pp. 287298).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Kloss, H. (1971). Language rights of immigrant groups.International Migration Review, 5, 250268.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: CrownPublishers.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: Thegrammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Kruse, S., Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emergingframework for analyzing school-based profes-sional community. In K. Louis & S. Kruse (Eds.),Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reform-

ing urban schools(pp. 2342). Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and language learn-ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics,

and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Little, J. W. (1984). Seductive images and organizationalrealities in professional development. Teachers Col-lege Record, 86(1), 84102.

Little, J. W. (1989). District policy choices and teachersprofessional development opportunities. Educa-

tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2),165179.

Little, J. W., & Dorph, R. (1998). Lessons about comprehen-sive school reform. Berkeley, CA: SB 1274 SchoolRestructuring Study at the University of Califor-nia, Berkeley.

Long, M. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: Aresponse to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language

Journal, 81, 318323.Malarkey, T. (1999). Fast Capitalism, workplace empower-

ment and the learning organization: Implications for

and of the new school order. Unpublished manu-script, University of California at Berkeley.

McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacherquestions

as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J.Kelly Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second andforeign language learning through classroom interac-

tions (pp. 183202). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Publishers.

McDermott, R. (1996). The acquisition of a child by alearning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.),Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and

context(pp. 269305). New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing andassessing the phenomena. New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful schoolrestructuring. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of theUniversity of Wisconsin System.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Essex,

UK: Pearson Education Limited.Olneck, M. (1995). Immigrants and education. In J.

Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of re-

search on multicultural education (pp. 310327).New York: Macmillian.

Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America. New York: New Press.Olsen, L. (1994). The unfinished journey: Restructuringschools in a diverse society. San Francisco, CA: Cali-

fornia Tomorrow.Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communi-

cative competence: Warm Springs children incommunity and classrooms. In C. Cazden (Ed.),



19/21

Functions of language in the classroom(pp. 370395).New York: Teachers College Press.

Raftery, J. (1992). Land of fair promise: Politics and reformin Los Angeles schools. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Reich, R. (1992). The work of nations. New York: Vintage

Books.Rich, D. (1998). Megaskills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.San Miguel, G. (1987). Let all of them take heed: Mexican

Americans and the campaign for educational equity in

Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Senge, P. (1991). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of

the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Toohey, K. (1998). Breaking them up, taking them

away: Students in grade 1. TESOL Quarterly, 32,6183.

Toohey, K. (2001). Disputes in child L2 learning.TESOLQuarterly, 35, 257278.

Tharp, R. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory,and principles for practice (Research Report 1).Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for Research on Edu-cation, Diversity, & Excellence.

Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge: Har-vard University Press.

Valds, G. (1996). Con respecto: Bridging the distances be-tween culturally diverse families and schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

Vollmer, G. (1997, March). Teachers conceptions of the

typical ESL student. Paper presented at the an-nual conference of the American Association ofApplied Linguistics, Orlando, FL.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher psychological processes(M. Cole, V. John-Ste-iner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Web Magnet School Parent/Student Handbook.

(19951996). Barnette, CA: Web Magnet Scienceand Technology Elementary School.

Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: Anethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOLQuarterly, 29, 473503.

Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Long-man.

APPENDIX AWeb Magnet Elementary SchoolType: Elementary (K8)Size (6/95): 279

19921993 19931994 19941995 19951996

The StudentsTotal Enrollment 265 256 279 271White 12 11 8 10African American 180 165 174 162Hispanic 58 67 83 87Asian 1 1 3 3Filipino/Pacific Is. 14 12 11 9Am. Indian/Al. Nat 0 0 0 0% LEP 9.1 28# Spanish 21 70# Cantonese 0 0

# Vietnamese 0 0# Hmong 0 0# Other 3 7% AFDC 8.6

The Staff# Administrators 0 1 1# Teachers 12 11.6 11% non-white 23 23 25Average years teaching 8 8 7% MA or 30 15 33# Classified Staff 13 8 12

The 1274 Budget %

Instuctional Materials 13,351 3.71Technology 152,617 42.38Org. Learning & Development 150,896 41.91Staff Positions 34,223 9.50Other 8,994 2.50

Total 360,081 100.00

Meg Gebhard 263


20/21

APPENDIX BSchool Restructuring Matrix

Aspect of Restructuring Web Magnet Elementary School

Overall Restructuring Strategy The school used funding to purchase materials and tohire consultants for staff development in the areas ofscience and technology.

Teachers cycle with the same students for twoconsecutive grades.

High teacher and principal turnover (nearly 100%during the course of the study) compromisedrestructuring efforts.

Physical Plant and Material Resources Well-maintained facility (e.g., no graffiti or trash onschool grounds, lights and clocks in working order,enough chairs and desks for students).

Access to technology in lab and classroom was madepossible in part through a partnership with a leadingSilicon Valley company. Made vulnerable by high

teacher turnover and a lack of space in which to housethe lab in the wake of class-size reduction mandate.

The Organization of Teaching and Learning Second language learners assigned to English-onlyRelated to SLA classes.

No specific program for second language learners. District bilingu

Gebhard, Fast Capitalism

Documents

Transcript of Gebhard, Fast Capitalism