Cynthia Milonas Cummings

Professor, English Language Learning Department
Professor of American Culture, English Department
Bunker Hill Community College

ABSTRACT

This paper explains how traditional Eurocentric curricula and teacher centered learning environments diminish the educational experiences of both the ELL student and the culturally and economically underrepresented native speaker. It argues that remedial programming based on student scores on standardized assessments and the prerequisite model is not effective and acts as a barrier between underperforming learners and content studies. This paper also maintains that a curriculum centered on humanizing pedagogies can empower students, build academic literacy skills and teach metacognitive strategies. It contends that when properly executed with differentiated instruction, humanizing pedagogies foster learner engagement and promote student acceleration. This paper will conclude with a self-check or audit to assess how educators and staff may unwittingly act as gatekeepers by guiding learners to remedial programs based on standardized test scores or bias. Rationale for high-stakes testing, remedial learning and teacher centered pedagogies will be debunked with discussion and examples of humanizing pedagogies, integrating learners’ cultural wealth, the U-shaped curve, and data demonstrating effective asset-based approaches. Anyon (1980), Bartolome (1994, 2004, 2006, 2017), Delpit (1988), Freire (1968, 2005), Moll et al (2005) and Yosso (2005) are referenced.

. . .

Although the United States’ college student population has grown increasingly diverse since 1997, the current call for equity will fall short if faculty and staff perpetuate academic traditions which elevate “the right” teaching and learning methods and sideline the cultural capital of working class, minority, and limited English proficient (LEP) students (Association of American Colleges and Universities News, 2019; Bartolome, 1994, p. 174). This article argues that educators of all races and ethnicities unwittingly obstruct advancements in equity by blindly following what Maria de la Luz Reyes (1993) refers to as one-size-fits-all methodologies (Bartolome L., 1994, p. 175). To promote equity, stop the deficit view of working class, minority, and limited English proficient (LEP) learners as well as meet the needs of all students - educators must evolve. Humanizing pedagogies which value learners’ cultural wealth and integrate their funds into the curriculum need to be rooted in the community college classrooms so that all students can imagine the possibilities (Bunker Hill Community College, 2018).

The need for humanizing pedagogies cannot be underestimated as the face of U.S. public education has changed; 2017-2018 was the first time white students did not represent the majority of undergraduates at public colleges and universities (Miller, 2020).  This picture is complex as the United States is experiencing both an upsurge in Latinx college students and declining numbers of both Black and White undergraduates (Miller, 2020). Likewise, Bunker Hill Community College is experiencing changes in its enrollment. In 2015, 24% of BHCC students identified as Black/African American, 25% as White and 24% as Hispanic/Latino of any race.  By 2018, the percentage of white students attending BHCC decreased 4 percent, Black/African American increased 1 percent and Hispanic/Latino students increased 3 percent (Boudreau-George, 2021). To meet the needs of the new college student demographic, Bunker Hill Community College pivoted. Today, inclusive programming and increasingly diverse faculty and staff mirror recent U.S. immigration trends as non-native English speakers and their children account for over half of the nation’s population growth and more than a third of school enrollment (Crawford, 2014, p. 3). In 2018, BHCC earned a 78.2 score in the diversity scale, and the Chronicle of Higher Education named it the ninth most diverse school in the country (Bunker Hill Community College, 2018).

Accolades notwithstanding, rebranding the BHCC community (or any other for that matter) to lean into diversity can only go so far if faculty of all races and ethnicities were trained to teach in monolingual, Eurocentric classrooms and implement pedagogies of the privileged.  Acting (or teaching) as if one culture, language, dialect, accent is superior to others labels educators as uninformed and having “little experience with people different from themselves” (Bartolome L., 2004, p. 97; Aaronsohn, Carter & Howell, 1995 as cited in Nieto, 2009, p. 495). This potential disconnect between educators and learners is problematic because culture influences how one frames the world, makes references, and processes information (Huber, 2009).  Moreover, given that the “way we speak and are spoken to help(s) shape us into the people we become,” miscommunication or a power struggle between teacher and student can contribute to false perceptions and create barriers that further marginalize students who are minorities, LEP, or suffering from housing and food insecurity (Shor, 2009).

Ultimately, all teachers must recognize that education is political as “schools are socializing institutions that mirror the greater society’s culture” (Bartolome L., 1994, p. 178; Freire, 2005).Measures such as opposition to standardized/high stakes tests as the sole guide for placement and progress, and the adoption of Open Educational Resources are well meaning gestures to create inclusive learning environments. Yet, they fall short if educators act as gatekeepers by preserving the status quo (Bartolome L., 1994). For example, academic English should not be framed as the sole language of power; western philosophy and history should not be presented as the foundation of the civilized world. To stay on the path of finding a solution rather than being part of the problem, educators must be mindful. Even a simple written reflection assigned so learners have a vehicle to integrate their culture into coursework can go awry if it is added as an afterthought.Rather than integrating learners’ traditions as an add-on, teachers should first familiarize students with theories of cultural wealth. Both Moll (1992) and Yosso (2005) provide models of cultural capital or funds of knowledge that allow learners to examine their backgrounds with a critical lens.By viewing everyday experiences common to college students such as developing academic literacy, maintaining communication with multiple social groups, and navigating difficult situations as both capital/funds and the foundation for academic or professional growth, students who would have previously been marked as unsuited for intellectual pursuits will be empowered by their personal history.

Framing student reflections, process writing, and peer review

In The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently, Richard Nisbett (2003) argues that one’s cultural framing, or the mental structures that guide individuals to reference their past to formulate opinions, is formed by both geographic and sociopolitical factors (Lakoff, 2006 as cited in Huber, 2009, pp. 706-707).  He suggests that Asians view the world in terms of relationships while Americans compartmentalize people, places and things on perceived similarities and differences (Nisbett, 2003 as cited in Lynch, 2011).  As a result, many Americans unconsciously frame others based on racial, cultural, and religious contrasts (Huber, 2009).  Because unconscious framing leads to generalizations, there is a potential for any educator who has adopted a Eurocentric view of those in power to view others in terms of weaknesses rather than what they can contribute to the classroom.  Such framing can lead to a rift between the learner and the teacher.  Consequently, if the learner’s home culture emphasizes relationships rather than differences, students may need additional support to meet learning goals in assignments with hidden bias towards Western learning norms such as the comparison essay or process writings.

Lisa Delpit (1988) argues process writing, a mainstay of White liberal education, may not deliver positive results with Black students. Delpit notes one student’s impressions about her white instructor:

I didn’t feel she was teaching us anything. She wanted us to correct each other’s papers and we were there to learn from her.  She didn’t teach us anything, absolutely nothing…. Now my buddy was in a Black teacher’s class. And that lady was very good.  She went through and explained each part of the structure. This [White] teacher didn’t get along with the Black teacher. She said she didn’t agree with her methods. But I don’t think the White teacher had any methods” (Bartolome L., 1994, p. 175)

Although the White educator appears to be using more student-centered approaches in the classroom, it is ineffective if the student believes it is the teacher’s or text’s job to impart knowledge and the student’s job to mechanically bank information (Anyon, 1980; Freire, 2005). When lesson planning, one size does not fit all. To increase the possibility of effective instruction, activities such as peer review should be preceded and followed by humanizing pedagogies that impart a global view of cultural wealth and learners’ assets. It is also the responsibility of educators to address the link between academic and professional growth to critical thinking and decision making. “According to Freire, the teacher has authority but does not become an authoritarian. He intervenes in order to help the learner reflect on aspects of his/her cultural, social and gender constructs'' (Ruget, 2013). If the educator, learning environment and participants do not understand or appreciate the cultural capital of all students, or they do not acknowledge skills beyond what is measured in the classroom, students are apt to view their (own) culture as inferior (a deficit) and their ideas not suitable for exchange in an academic or professional setting. Unknowingly the educator is becoming a gatekeeper who teaches these learners that they have a deficiency that needs to be repaired (Alfaro, 2017).

One size does not fit all: Skill and drill

Further complicating matters, educators are often presented with effective strategies to bridge the gap in the form of prepackaged curricula stressing remediation or maintenance of basic facts through skill and drill. One-size-fits-all-methodologies, and skill and drill curricula, even those that promise high returns, are dangerous for a variety of reasons.  First, the notion of any instructional method as suitable for all learners of any category is not only preposterous, but it dehumanizes participants through supporting the idea that learning and teaching are technical issues that can be resolved by a specific methodology (Bartolome L., 1994, p. 174).  Second, skill and drill methodologies define learning as memorizing and banking knowledge rather than understanding and analyzing; thus, it turns learning into passive exercise (Freire, 2005; Ruget & Osman, 2013). Consequently, when students are faced with tasks that demand the creation of original thought such as answering open ended questions or making predictions, they become paralyzed and produce a summary of their findings. Third, one-size-fits-all methodologies measure students’ control of the content through standardized high stakes or semi high stakes assessments. Because the language used during standardized tests cannot be easily decoded through context, it evaluates learners from a deficit perspective rather than to the degree they are bridging the gap between their control of the content and institutional goals.

Furthermore, prepackaged curricula, skill and drill and other one-size-fits-all methods emphasizing learners’ ability to bank knowledge over critical thinking exercises such as interpreting data deskills the profession because it ignores the partnership between teacher and students. One should not put the teacher, the text, or the curriculum on a pedestal as it debases how student to student and student to teacher interaction provides natural scaffolding and additional input.  One-size-fits-all methods, based on the student’s ability to follow the procedure, also absolve educators from their role guiding the classroom. In other words, the school is fine; the teacher is fine; the method is fine. If students do not meet the course or program objectives, it is due to linguistic and/or cultural deficiencies (Bartolome L., 1994). So, where should teachers turn to for guidance? Ultimately, it is “important that educators not blindly reject teaching methods across the board, but that they reject uncritical appropriation of methods, materials, curricula, etc.” (Bartolome L., 1994, p. 177). 

Fighting back at remedial English with funds of knowledge and cultural wealth

What happens when students’ language or dialect is not valued in the classroom? The deficit theory argues that when academic and professional English is presented as the language of power, students are given the message that academic and professional success can be achieved only at the expense of (subtracting) native language and culture (Crawford, 2014, p. 201). Hence, students must be remediated by completing developmental coursework.  The viewpoint that remedial programs give underperforming students the opportunity to catch up to their more successful peers by completing academic boot camps requiring students to bank knowledge is far from new as Anyon (1980), Gorski (2010), Hanford (2016) and others trace deficit pedagogy to British and American imperialism. Centuries later, deficit programs remain populated by underperforming students whose failure to demonstrate control over academic English or Algebraic equations relegates them to noncredit coursework. It is estimated that 250 independent studies demonstrate that remedial methods such as “stand alone” grammar classes requiring students to perform tasks such as identifying a verb in a sentence are not effective (Cleary, 2014). The most effective way to teach learners how to recognize grammatically appropriate language is by reading and writing. Grammar should only be addressed in context of the assignment (Hillocks, 1984 as cited in Cleary, 2014).  While educators fail to move past the nostalgia of activities such as diagramming sentences, students drown in a sea of developmental coursework. Of those who begin their college careers playing catch up, it is estimated that only 36% will graduate (Hanford, 2016).  Yosso (2005) suggests that the permanency of deficit ideology is demonstrated by its ability to shift, adapt, and negate the cultural capital of both native and immigrant speakers of nonstandard English. 

Louis Moll suggests that an asset-based learning environment can be created for all learners by integrating community realia for “meaning centered” activities (Moll et al, 1992). With realia, learners can use their funds of knowledge to make connections between their lives and the content and become active participants in the classroom.  For example, utility bills can be used to discuss energy or finance, and the current health crisis can open the door to a discussion about individual rights and the role of the local government. In addition to building content and literacy skills, using realia gives students the opportunity to see beyond the stereotypes and appreciate other’s cultural wealth (Moll et al, 1992). In their experiences and roles as family advocates, many ELLs develop strategies that later serve as the foundation for academic critical thinking skills. Integrating these “funds of knowledge” into the curriculum by creating cross disciplinary ties and practical applications will promote engagement and generate interest (Moll et al, 1992).  For instance, acting as a language and culture broker by helping family members pay bills or advocating for their health care requires organization and higher order thinking that can be transferred to work in healthcare management or as an interpreter (Orellana et al, 2003, p. 507). Educators should encourage all learners to reflect and draw on their unique funds when completing class activities.

Similarly, Yosso’s (2005) model of cultural wealth is another resource to offset the deficit view of working class, minority, and limited English proficient (LEP) learners. In this model, cultural wealth is divided into 6 types: aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistance. Each category is linked to an asset that can be used as background knowledge for academic or professional gains. For example, skills learned through resistance wealth such as participating in movements or challenging inequalities can be shifted to community organizing.  Familial capital lends itself to collaborative or project-based fields. Harnessing these skills democratizes the learning environment by expanding the definition of cultural wealth and tapping into learners’ assets. Thus, it sends the message that sameness is not necessary for a productive learning environment (Kalantzis, 2021).