Creating Opportunities - SAGE Journals

1 downloads 0 Views 110KB Size Report
Emerson et al, 1995; Graue & Walsh, 1998). My interpretations ..... the classroom due to her presence that week at the NBA draft in New York City. (Her partner's.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 6, Number 2, 2005

Creating Opportunities CHRISTOPHER BROWN University of Texas at Austin, USA

ABSTRACT In this age of greater accountability, local school districts within the USA increasingly use summer school programs as an intervention service to provide students who have failed to meet classroom, district, or state performance requirements with the opportunity to ‘catch up’. Although such programs attempt to provide varying types of educational experiences to improve the student’s academic performance, teachers continue to inscribe the expectations and language of schooling. Through examining the actions of Steven, a student diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in a summer intervention program, the author contends that his teachers’ adherence to the norms of schooling prevent Steven from engaging in the school classroom in a meaningful way. Steven’s teachers read his carnivalistic actions as part of his deviant behavior rather than as a critique of how even the summer curriculum fails to meet his learning needs.

Summer is a time within the USA where the lives of children are no longer under the auspices of their local public school system. Those children who attend summer school usually do so because of some sort of failure to meet the expectations of the regular school year – be it a specific state, district, or school policy, or a recommendation made by the teacher or parent. Students typically enter the summer school environment carrying deviant markings (Hargreaves et al, 1975), and, by attending an alternative program, the hope is that the student will be ‘saved’ (Popkewitz, 1998). Hence, markings will diminish, and the student will get back on track for the regular school year. Multiple studies have examined the effectiveness of summer school in improving student performance – or what some term preventing summer loss (Cooper et al, 2000; Alexander et al, 2001). For example, Cooper et al (2000), through a meta-analytic and narrative review of 93 evaluations of summer school, found that summer school programs that focused on lessening or removing learning deficiencies have a positive impact on the knowledge and skills of participants. Other studies examine the use of summer school as an intervention to avoid retention (for example Roderick et al (1999, 2000) and Allensworth (2004), and Nagaoka & Roderick (2004) explore the promotion policies within the Chicago public school system’s standards-based accountability reforms). Although some school districts have struggled to maintain successful programs, for example New York City, Houston, Washington, DC, and Oakland public schools in the late 1990s (White & Johnston, 1999; Harrington-Lueker, 2000; Stenvall, 2001), the popularity of these programs remains strong in this age of increased accountability (for example the performance requirements instituted under Mayor Bloomberg’s school board in New York City). The underlying hope of school administrators is that by participating in these programs, students will overcome their deficiencies and achieve at the level of performance required by the school, district, or state policy. Moreover, such programs provide politicians, school board members, and school personnel with a tangible response to critics (be it parents, educators, or political opponents) who argue that the state, district, or school is not doing enough for the ‘failing’ child. Rather than continue to inquire about the effectiveness of summer programs in improving student performance, I examine the types of opportunities that exist for students to succeed in the summer classroom. Because summer programs create a dialogic relationship between the teacher and the student in which the authoritative discourses of schooling frame the student as lacking in some manner (Bakhtin, 1986), I argue that the corrective nature of these programs frames the

112

Creating Opportunities teacher–student relationship in such a way that rather than create opportunities for change they continue to inscribe the discourses of the status quo. Additionally, the program structure creates a situation where a student’s actions possess a connection to this notion of deviance, limiting the possibility for that student to enter the dominant discourses of schooling. Specifically, I use Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1984a, b) construct of carnival, the act of rupturing the authoritative discourses through the unsanctioned actions found in the carnival square, to argue that the actions of a 10-year-old boy diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD), Steven [1], provide a carnivalesque critique of a summer program (Bakhtin, 1986, 1993). Steven’s teachers read his unsanctioned activities as a part of his deviant nature rather than as social commentary of the teachers’ actions, creating a dialogic relationship in which Steven is consistently denied access to the authorized discourses of the classroom by his teachers. Method and Case Description The data for this study come from a research project that explored how the district’s pilot summer school program for students ‘at risk’ of not being prepared for the fifth grade affects their perceptions of themselves and of schooling.[2] The collection of data took place in a mid-size city in the midwestern USA during the summer of 2002. The district developed this program in response to a state-based policy titled No Social Promotion for grades 4 and 8. This policy calls for the promotion of a student to the fifth or ninth grade to be based on a set of district-developed hierarchical criteria.[3] This policy went into effect during the 2002-03 school year. The district piloted the observed summer program in order to prepare itself for when the policy was implemented. This study centered specifically on the fourth-grade program, which was a half-day program that lasted for six weeks. I recognise that early childhood education is typically defined in the USA as the time in an individual’s life from birth through grade 3. Rather than question this normalized definition of early childhood education (for example Cannella, 1997), I argue that fourth grade in Wisconsin represents a marker in a child’s academic career that determines whether or not she or he has had a ‘successful’ early childhood academic experience. State and local government agencies throughout the USA are instituting gate-keeping devices, typically through standardized tests, which determine whether or not students possess the skills that are necessary to progress through the elementary school grades.[4] Such policies are changing the landscape of early childhood education (for example Roderick et al (2000) found an increase in the percentage of students in the Chicago public school district being retained in grades K through 2 after that district implemented its third-grade promotion policies), and, in this case that I investigate, fourth grade is the marker on which the early childhood teachers and programs are basing their longitudinal perspective of the early childhood curriculum. The fourth-grade performance expectations are the standard against which the child’s early childhood experiences are measured. Additionally, it is in fourth grade where the ‘labels’ a child is given in the early childhood grades are evaluated in relation to the district’s promotion policies for the first time. Thus, for Steven, not only are the district’s promotion requirements questioning his success in the early grades, but it is also at this specific point in his academic career that identifies whether or not the labels attached to him have hindered his ability to succeed in school. Multiple forms of data collection were used throughout the project. Two focal students who participated in the language arts program and the math program were identified and observed over the course of the summer. These students participated in semi-structured interviews at the beginning and the end of the program (Fontana & Frey, 2003). Additionally, pre and post semistructured interviews were undertaken with the three teachers who worked with these two students. Observations took place primarily in the daily two-hour language arts program (I attended 19 of the 29 two-hour sessions). Furthermore, I attended eight of the 29 two-hour sessions of the math program to identify patterns in the data and to contrast the students’ experiences in different classroom settings. My role within the classroom was primarily as a participant observer (Graue & Walsh, 1998). I assisted the students with their work during independent work activities, and, for two days of observation in the language art program, I took on the role of substitute

113

Christopher Brown teacher for one of the two teachers. Field notes were generated after each visit to use in the analysis process (Emerson et al, 1995). As stated above, this article focuses on the experiences of one of the two target students, a 10year-old boy named Steven, as he went through the fourth-grade summer program. Steven is biracial and while in kindergarten was diagnosed with ADD [5] – he takes medication for his ADD three times a day. At the time of this study, he lived at home with his mother and his older brother, and his father did not participate in his home or school life. Half-way through his fourth-grade year, his mother transferred Steven from a private school into the district. The primary sources used to explore Steven’s experiences in school are field notes, interviews with Steven, and interviews with his two language arts teachers, Ms Collins (a Caucasian female in her early 30s who has taught elementary school for five years) and Ms Hoff (a mid-20s Caucasian female teacher who has one year of teaching experience as a substitute), who team-taught the language arts class, and Ms Klein (a Caucasian middle-aged woman who has taught for 15+ years), his math teacher. The analysis of data followed traditional qualitative inquiry (Wolcott, 1994; Strauss, 1996; Graue & Walsh, 1998). Field notes and interview transcripts were read and reread in order to identify relevant themes in the data, which were then coded using both external and internal codes (Graue & Walsh, 1998). External codes are codes that come out of my theoretical and conceptual perspectives about this research project. Internal codes are codes that developed through my reading of the data (Graue & Walsh, 1998). These themes were derived from the relevant data, and were read against the text in a search for contradictory evidence (Wolcott, 1994; Strauss, 1996; Graue & Walsh, 1998). Throughout the analysis process, I generated memos as a means to provide ‘a running record of insights, hunches, hypotheses, discussions about the implications of codes, additional thoughts, whatnot’ (Strauss, 1996, p. 110). Based on the memos I developed in the analysis process, I wrote vignettes and poems to describe the emerging themes (Erikson, 1986; Emerson et al, 1995; Graue & Walsh, 1998). My interpretations of these themes are based in Bakhtinian theories of discourses, carnival, and dialogism (also referred to as the dialogic). Bakhtin’s constructs provide a theoretical lens to view the actions of the classroom that recognizes both the complexity and the interconnectedness of such actions and their various discourses. Additionally, in Bakhtinian theory, the individual operates in and chooses among the various authoritative discourses that operate within the world. Bakhtin in the Classroom Many researchers use Bakhtin’s work as a theoretical tool to interpret the actions of teachers and students in the classroom. For example, using the writing of two children, Kamberelis & Scott (1992) developed a typology rooted in Bakhtinian theory that analyzes students’ writing. Kamberelis & Scott’s (1992) analytic tools frame the author of the written text as the co-constructer of her voice. The author’s writing develops through her dialogic relationship with the historical, intertextual, social, and political worlds that encapsulate her life. By using such a typology to deconstruct the complexity that exists in the writing process, Kamberelis & Scott (1992) hope that teachers and students can develop critical literacy practices to analyze the social and political institutions in which they operate, with the aim of transforming them. Along these same lines, Dyson (1993) interconnected the work of Bakhtin with that of other theorists and researchers, such as Geertz (1973, 1983), to analyze the dialogic interaction of students’ social worlds and work with ‘the institutional setting of school’ (p. 215). A primary theme that emerges from Dyson’s (1993) work is that schools, teachers, and curricula need to make spaces for all students through answering children and their work in a manner that fosters and develops the child’s sociocultural breadth and depth. Such a relationship not only empowers and encourages learning in the student, but also affects how the teacher and members of the school community author themselves and the curriculum. Finally, Tobin (2000), using Bakhtin’s work and the work of many other theorists, (for example Althusser, 1972), analyzed the complexity with which students made sense of the visual media with which they interacted in their lives. Tobin’s (2000) work demonstrates the complexity

114

Creating Opportunities and skill children possess in interpreting media images, and points to the importance and power of a child’s sociocultural positioning in her interpretation of the world around her. In these publications, the authors incorporate Bakhtin’s idea of the dialogic in framing the actions of the individual (Bakhtin, 1984a). Bakhtin’s dialogic relationship creates an ontological understanding in which the individual, the teacher for example, is in constant interaction with herself, others, and the discourses that surround her. The teacher’s thoughts, statements, and actions are in constant interaction and struggle with the discourses of the classroom (for example best practices and behavior management) and teacher–student, teacher–teacher, and teacher– administrator relations (Bakhtin, 1986). Bakhtin constructs two types of discourse, authoritative and internally persuasive. Examples that Bakhtin uses to name an authoritative discourse are religious, political, and moral discourses, such as the word of the parent or teacher (Bakhtin, 1981). Individuals participate dialogically in authoritative discourses through their internally persuasive discourses. For example, the teacher’s internally persuasive discourse embeds itself within various authoritative discourses that are a part of her life – moving in and out of these discourses depending upon the situation at hand. By recognizing a gap in her own thoughts from the thoughts rooted in the authoritative discourses that are a part of her life, she can separate herself from the authoritative discourses with which she interacts (Bakhtin, 1981). Unless this rupture takes place, the teacher typically relies upon the authoritative discourses of schooling throughout her daily actions. The authoritative discourse is the discourse of convenience or comfort in which the teacher nests her power in the classroom. Additionally, it is through this discourse that the teacher sanctions appropriate and inappropriate actions by students. To separate herself from the discourses that empower her is to shatter her defined role. Thus, cutting herself off from the authorial power of the discourse of teaching is a difficult act. Authoritative Discourses and Steven’s Teachers By applying these constructs of authoritative and internally persuasive discourses to the data analysis process, one begins to see how the authoritative discourses of schooling and ADD thread themselves throughout Steven’s teachers’ constructions of him as a student. For example, Ms Collins describes Steven as a student who is in summer school due to attention issues he had during the regular school year: Ms Collins: I think Steven is in summer school because during the school year he has a lot of challenges with attention in class. He’s on medication. I think that probably his difficulty is with attention and it has gotten in the way of him moving ahead. Interviewer: Academically? Ms Collins: Yep.

Steven’s ADD marked him from the beginning of the program. As Bakhtin (1984a, p. 291) notes, words can clothe the individual: ‘the clothing of language, a new mode for wearing one’s body, one’s embodiment’. In this case, Steven’s ADD became a cloak that he wore throughout his experiences in summer school. Besides dressing Steven in the discourse of ADD, his teachers consistently stated that they wanted Steven to have a positive experience in summer school – academically and socially. This need for schooling to be a positive experience is part of the corrective act found in the culture of schooling. For instance, Ms Klein, who is a unique informant because she was not only Steven’s math teacher in the summer school program but also his fourth-grade teacher for the latter half of the previous school year, hoped that Steven had a positive experience throughout the program: Ms Klein: I think his experiences have been fairly negative about school and I don’t know when the medication started, but I can imagine that would have had a big impact on that. Socially he’s had a hard time finding a good fit for himself at our school. He tends to be a very quiet child, at least in school. He tends to be somewhat especially quiet around adults. I would really like him to be more positive about school too. He’s also a kid who ... hmm ... His anger and stuff comes up when someone teases him. Often times, it’s just typical social things ... He is this kid that I

115

Christopher Brown have been worried about over the school year so I’m really pleased that his mom made the effort to get him in here.

Steven’s ADD and his behavior frame him as a child who needs to be ‘saved’ in order to succeed in school (Popkewitz, 1998). Ms Klein’s statements demonstrate how Steven’s teachers read his actions through the authoritative discourse of schooling, which creates a situation in which any action or statement made by Steven carries the mark of his ADD. Embedded within their notion of saving Steven is his teachers’ concern that if they do not get Steven back on track with school they might lose him altogether – he may withdraw or drop out from school. Ms Klein stated: You could just see them teetering on the brink here and you just hope you can push them this way instead of the other way. I guess that’s what I hope this [the summer school program] can help him [Steven] with.

Ms Klein’s words emphasize the program’s ‘at-risk’ discourse. Steven, as well as other students participating in the program, is at a critical juncture in his academic career. The ‘way’ in which he is pushed determines whether he will succeed or fail. While the process of constructing an identity, being one’s own or another’s, is a fluid process, Steven’s teachers consistently constructed him as an ‘at-risk’ student with ADD who struggled both academically and socially. They hoped that his experiences in summer school would assist him in reaching grade level so that he would continue to interact with school and be successful. These authoritative discourses all have embedded within them the authoritative discourse of success – helping Steven succeed in school, control his ADD, diminish his ‘at-risk’ markers, and save himself. Steven’s Self-construction Steven, in many ways, ventriloquized (Bakhtin, 1981; Holquist, 1990; Wertsch, 1991) the same authoritative discourses represented in his teachers’ construction of him. However, Steven’s image was not an exact replica of his teachers’ image of him, demonstrating a separation between his own identification of himself as a student and the identity projected of him by the authoritative discourses of his teachers and schooling. For example, Steven described himself as being shy (something Ms Klein noted), but he also constructed himself as being a good student, which differed from the images of his teachers and the purpose of the summer program: Interviewer: What kind of student were you during the school year? Steven: Good ... and nervous. Interviewer: Why are you nervous? Steven: Not nervous, just shy.

Another example of the variation between Steven and his teachers’ authoring of him rests in Steven’s depiction of himself as a bad kid. None of his teachers used this term when describing him: Interviewer: What kind of kids go to summer school? Steven: Hmm ... Some good, some bad. Interviewer: How are they good? Steven: Like, they listen to the teacher. Interviewer: And how are they bad? Steven: Like, they don’t listen to the teacher. Interviewer: Is that how you think it works? What kind of kid are you? Steven: Hmm ... I think I’m bad. Interviewer: Why do you think you’re bad? Who told you you were bad? Steven: My mom. Interviewer: Your mom tells you you’re bad? When did she say you were bad? Steven: If I do something bad like fight with my brother or something. Interviewer: Well, how does she know about you in school? Steven: Ms Collins told her. Interviewer: Ms Collins told your mom? When did she see your mom? Steven: No, she called.

116

Creating Opportunities Interviewer: Why did she call your mom? Steven: I was making fun of people.

A few interesting points are evident in Steven’s construction of himself. First, Steven’s image of himself is complicated. His relationship with his mother, brother, Ms Klein, and the other members of his life influences how he authors himself. Thus, Steven interacts with multiple perceptions of who he is, which in turn influence whom he actually becomes. Second, over the course of the summer, Steven did not present himself as being nervous or shy in either the math or the language arts classes. These inconsistencies between Steven’s teachers’ descriptions of him and his own descriptions raise the question of whether or not Steven was simply ventriloquizing Ms Klein’s construction of him as being shy to me in order to present himself to me in an acceptable manner. I, a researcher whom he did not know, observed him on an almost daily basis. Therefore, it would make sense for him to mimic his teacher’s words in describing the type of student he is in school to a complete stranger. Finally, Steven’s ADD was a central focus in each of the conversations that I had with each of his teachers. I did not ask his teachers a specific question about Steven’s ADD in the initial interviews, but it was evident in each teacher’s description of Steven as a student. Yet, in my interview with Steven, he does not mention it at all. Steven’s ADD takes a primary role in the discourses of his teachers, which represent the authoritative discourse of schooling, but this discourse of ADD is not a primary part of his own internally persuasive discourses. These points represent the complexity of how Steven is defined in the authoritative discourses of the classroom and by Steven himself. Addressivity and Answerability Bakhtin’s (1986, 1993) notions of addressivity and answerability highlight the significance of these interactions between Steven, his teachers, and the authoritative discourses of schooling, ADD, ‘atrisk’, and salvation. Understanding the process of these interactions provides a foundation for interpreting the dialogic relationships that exist in Steven’s world. According to Bakhtin (1986, 1993), addressivity and answerability define the act of communication within the dialogic relationship. In a dialogic relationship, the position of the author/addressee depends upon the dialogic exchange. For Bakhtin (1986), the addressee can be an immediate participant (such as the student), an audience (such as the class), etc., and even an ‘indefinite, unconcretized other’ (such as a discourse) (p. 95). In this study, the teacher and the student can be both the author and the addressee. So when the teacher constructs an utterance, she actively tries to determine the response from the student (Bakhtin, 1986). Hence, the teacher’s utterances that address the student represent her perceptions of that student and the student’s intended response. Using Bakhtin’s constructs to interpret the dialogic relationships among Steven, his teachers, and the discourses of schooling, one begins to see the influence of these interactions on what takes place within the classroom. In particular, when Steven’s teachers address him, their anticipated answer from Steven is read through authoritative discourses, limiting how Steven can answer such a response. Thus, if Steven answers the teacher’s comment, question, or response in an inappropriate manner, the teacher frames that answer through one of the deviant markings she has assigned to Steven. Additionally, if the teacher continually uses such discourses to interpret Steven’s actions, the reinforcement of these discourses further limits the possibility for new interpretations to present themselves in her dialogic understanding of Steven – causing frustration for both Steven and his teachers. To be clear, I am not using Bakhtinian theory to untangle the psychological process of identify formulation. Rather, my emphasis is on how the student is being constructed in the dialogic process, and not the process by which the student internalizes or rejects such an identity. [6] Addressing Steven’s Actions in the Classroom The following two examples in the language arts classroom provide a glimpse into the daily interactions between Steven and his teachers. Such examples offer insight into the scenarios in

117

Christopher Brown which Steven’s teachers interpreted his actions and his academic skills, creating a dialogic interpretation of Steven’s actions as falling outside their accepted norms of schooling. This first example is a meta-cognition activity, which exemplifies a typical authoritative classroom pedagogic discourse. In this instance, Ms Hoff asks the class why they do word study (Bear et al, 2000), a spelling/orthographic program that teaches students about spelling patterns through sorting words into specific categories. Word study was a daily activity for students in Ms Hoff’s and Ms Collins’s language arts class. 2 July 2002 11.00 a.m. Ms Hoff asks the class, ‘Why do we do word study?’ Alexander, Latisha, and Sky have their hands up. Sky, who is called on by Ms Hoff, says, ‘So we can find new words in sentences and to help us when we get stuck on words’. Ms Hoff tells Sky that she gave a good answer. Ms Hoff then calls on Alexander. He says, ‘To learn words better’. Steven, sitting in his seat, blurts out ‘So we can get dumber’. With this utterance, Steven started to re-enact Jim Carrey’s role in the movie Dumb and Dumber with Sky, and Steven then says out loud to the class ‘Dumb and Dumber’, and then tells Sky, quite loudly, that he has that movie. The two of them continue to discuss movies while the teachers continue with their activity. Ms Hoff then calls on Latisha, and Steven, who is still discussing movies with Sky, says quite loudly ‘Like Mike’. This is in reference to a movie that was just released starring Lil’ Bow-Wow, and it is the current ‘hot’ topic of conversation for the class. Ms Collins, who was organizing her things at the back of the room for group work, now joins in the classroom conversation with Ms Hoff by turning around and walking towards the students in their desks. Ms Hoff states that it is now Sky’s turn to answer the question. Sky did not have her hand up and was still talking with Steven. Sky responds to Ms Hoff’s question by stating, ‘Because so we can learn more better’. After Sky answers, Steven, who is also looking at Ms Hoff, turns back to Sky and continues to talk with her about movies. Steven and Sky continue their conversation, and Steven makes gestures that mirror the story-lines of the movies they are discussing. Steven and Sky’s conversation continues while Ms Hoff and Ms Collins finish their lesson with the rest of the class.

In this example, Steven actively chooses not to participate in the classroom discussion. He answers Ms Hoff’s questions without being called upon and attempts to take over the classroom conversation by discussing movies instead of the purpose behind word study. Rather than acknowledge Steven’s misbehavior, his teachers turn to Sky, a student Steven tries to bring into his own conversation rather than the classroom discourse. Although Sky responds to the teacher’s question for a second time, she re-enters her conversation with Steven as soon as she finishes answering her teacher. This example demonstrates Steven’s ability to ignore the class discussion and his attempts to usurp it to pursue his own interests. Interestingly, the teachers ignore his behavior, a typical response within certain behavior management strategies, and attempt to correct Sky’s behavior. Rather than alter their relationship with Steven, his teachers take on a particular authoritative discourse that emphasizes acknowledging only those who choose to live within its boundaries. Steven’s attempt to shift the class discussion towards his own interest failed, and this failure led to his exclusion from the classroom conversation. The Carnival Act In his examination of Rabelais’s work, Bakhtin (1984b) analyzes the development of folk culture through the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Bakhtin’s analysis centres on the rituals and activities that opposed the official culture of that time. In particular, Bakhtin dissects the carnival of the Middle Ages. During carnival, there was a suspension of hierarchical power, which created a generative time that resulted in ‘a special type of communication impossible in everyday life’ (Bakhtin, 1984b, p. 10). The carnival Bakhtin develops through Rabelais’s work existed outside officially sanctioned feasts, which reinforced the ruling power structures. Bakhtin’s (1984a, b) carnival act is a generative process where individuals rupture the authoritative discourses that dominate society and generate new possibilities within these dominant discourses.[7] An area of emphasis in Bakhtin’s analysis is the carnival square. It is here that the individual sheds the ‘official’

118

Creating Opportunities life for the ‘free and unrestricted life’ (Bakhtin, 1984a, p. 129). This unofficial life spawns new thoughts, ideas, and actions that can forever alter the authoritative discourses of that society (Bakhtin, 1984a, b). In the case of Steven, his actions and behaviors exist typically within the unsanctioned behaviors of the authoritative discourses of the classroom. In the above example, Ms Hoff and Ms Collins deny Steven’s attempts to alter the class discourse and cut him off completely. Nonetheless, Steven continues to engage in his own activities and recruits Sky to join him. His actions do cause Sky to be singled out momentarily, but even such corrective actions fail to attract Sky back into the sanctioned classroom discussion. Once Sky responds to Ms Collins’s question, she re-enters her conversation with Steven, and they continue to operate outside the accepted activities of the classroom, pursuing a topic that interests them. Their laughter, loud expressions, and discussion of popular culture demonstrate their attempts to interject a topic of interest into the class discussion. Yet, within this classroom framework, their ‘misbehavior’ is a result of their own deviance and not a failure of the classroom structure. Thus, their generative acts fail and Ms Hoff and Ms Collins continue with their teaching agenda. In this next example, Ms Hoff discusses with the class the National Basketball Association (NBA) draft and New York City. The impetus for this discussion is the absence of Ms Collins from the classroom due to her presence that week at the NBA draft in New York City. (Her partner’s brother was one of the top prospects for the NBA draft.) In this discussion, Ms Hoff asks the class about the rules of basketball: 27 June 2002 10.30 a.m. The students are making comments about penalties in basketball while Ms Hoff is recording someone’s answer about basketball on the board. The classroom discussion revolves around the rules of basketball. While Ms Hoff is writing on the board, Steven (without being called on) says out loud to the class, ‘23, MJ’ (for Michael Jordan) and then he says, ‘Baldy’ and giggles. (Michael Jordan typically shaved his head as a professional basketball player.) Ms Hoff turns around after she finishes writing on the board, and, at this point, Steven has his hand up. Ms Hoff asks the students about how many players are on the court during the game, and Steven (without being called on) reels off a series of NBA players’ names. Helen, who is called on by Ms Hoff, says that there are six players. Someone says ‘Unh-uh, there are five’. Seng, without raising his hand, says there are five but there are six when they play basketball at gym class during the regular school year. Steven, who is not called on, begins to talk about the NBA finals – which finished earlier in the month. Ms Hoff writes ‘five players’ on the board. As she writes, Seng, who was not called on, says out loud to the class, ‘Slam-dunks’, and pretends to dunk the ball in the basket. Steven, also not called on by Ms Hoff, says, ‘Goal tending’. Another male student is talking to Steven about slam-dunks and players shattering the backboard. (Neither of them has been called on by Ms Hoff.) A girl mentions Lil’ Bow-Wow to the class, and Seng and Steven start a side conversation in which they talk about the commercial for the Lil’ Bow-Wow movie in which his role involves being a professional basketball player. Ms Hoff turns the class discussion to the team that drafted Ms Collins’s friend the day before. (The young man went high in the draft, and was drafted by a team that had not been in the playoffs for several years.) Steven, not raising his hand, says out loud to the class, ‘They suck’ (again, he was not called on by the teacher). Ms Hoff asks if they are any good. Steven (not called on) says louder, ‘They suck!’ He keeps saying this, and finally Ms Hoff calls on him and he says, ‘They suck’ in a calmer tone. She tells Steven not to say anything negative. He then says, ‘They lost in the playoffs’ – even though the team has not been in the NBA playoffs for years.

The authoritative discourse employed by Ms Hoff requires the students to follow a specific call and response routine. Throughout the majority of this lesson, Steven does not comply with these implicit and explicit rules. Rather, Steven pursues his own interest in the topic and shares it with the class – similar to the first example. Eventually, Ms Hoff is compelled to respond to Steven, even though he is not participating appropriately in the lesson format. This allows Steven to interject his own ideas about the class discussion in what is now considered a sanctioned manner – demonstrating his ability to shift the class dialogue towards his own interests. More importantly, by

119

Christopher Brown allowing participation to expand beyond the class norms, Ms Hoff engages Steven in the class discussion rather than ignoring him altogether. Both examples demonstrate what is termed deviant behavior (by Steven) within the discourses of schooling (Hargreaves et al, 1975). Steven does not follow the norms of participation within the classroom discussion – he speaks out of turn about varying unsanctioned topics to his classmates and the teacher without the teachers’ permission. Specifically, in the first example, Steven is no longer a part of the anticipated response of his teacher’s utterances. Steven’s unofficial discussion with Sky creates a situation in which Steven is no longer considered a participant in the class. Rather than correct or accept Steven’s behavior, his teachers sacrifice him for the good of the class. They turn their efforts to correcting and saving Sky in order to prevent further losses within the relationships that exist between themselves and their class (Popkewitz, 1998). However, in the second example, Ms Hoff allows Steven to participate in the class discourse in an unsanctioned manner. Rather than disregard him altogether, Ms Hoff attempts to correct his behavior through allowing Steven to participate in the class discussion. By allowing Steven to participate, Ms Hoff forgoes control over the class discourse and pursues Steven’s interest. This rupture provides Steven with the opportunity to alter the class curriculum so that it better meets his interests. This incident, which occurred a few weeks into the summer program, allowed Steven to discuss an ‘unofficial’ (Dyson, 1993) topic that has dominated his conversations since entering the classroom – basketball – which plays a major part in the narrative of the Lil’ Bow-Wow movie that he has discussed on a daily basis. His excitement and commentary could be labeled as disruptive or impolite (for example stating that the team ‘sucks’). However, Ms Hoff decided to let Steven into the conversation. Such actions represent a shift from the norms of the typical class and an opportunity for a new type of communication to take place in the classroom – the unofficial language becomes official (Dyson, 1993). Bakhtin contends that during carnival: in the town square, a special form of free and familiar speech reigned among people who were usually divided by the barriers of caste, property, profession, and age ... This temporary suspension, both ideal and real, of hierarchical rank created during carnival time a special type of communication impossible in everyday life. (Bakhtin, 1984b, p. 10)

In this statement, Bakhtin provides a space for change within authoritative discourses: a shift from what is deemed an unsanctioned act of communication to a sanctioned act. On many occasions, Steven’s actions and words had the power to achieve a temporary shift – as seen in the above NBA example. Even within this shift, Steven had to use the sanctioned language of the classroom. According to Ms Hoff’s rules, he could not say something negative about the team. Yet, when stating the team lost in the playoffs, Steven tried to frame the team in a negative light – they are losers – within the rules of the conversation. Steven consistently attempted to break the classroom’s temporal boundary, and, in doing so, he tried to alter the class’s authoritative discourse. His actions were not simply acts of misbehavior rooted in his ADD. Rather, his attempts to rupture the authoritative classroom discourse were his way of telling his teachers that the classroom curriculum did not meet his needs. Unfortunately, for the most part, Steven’s efforts to alter the classroom discourse failed. Part of Steven’s failure to alter the class curriculum lay in how Ms Hoff and Ms Collins structured the language arts program. For example, on 2 July 2002, Ms Hoff gave the students a choice between sorting their word study words at their seats or playing a spelling game. The students selected the game, and Ms Hoff asked, ‘Why?’ Steven stated that word study was ‘boring’. Sky and Seng echoed Steven’s remarks. They all agreed that they did not like doing the same thing everyday. This idea of being bored was a typical response by Steven and many of his classmates to the literacy activities. However, starting from the first day of class and the introduction of the classroom rules, Ms Hoff and Ms Collins made it clear that it was their job to educate and not entertain the students. Specifically, when the teachers discussed the last of the five classroom rules, which was simply ‘Smile’, they talked about how they wanted the students to have a good time and be happy. Yet, in explaining this rule, Ms Collins and Ms Hoff made the point that while they did not want the students to be bored in class, it was not their job to entertain them. It was the students’ job to take responsibility for their learning, which implies that if the students were responsible for their own learning then they would not be bored. Thus, when Steven stated that he

120

Creating Opportunities was bored, which typically included some sort of disruptive behavior, Ms Hoff and Ms Collins had created an environment where it was his responsibility to correct this problem. Nevertheless, when small ruptures did occur in classroom discussions, the authoritative classroom discourse adapted to the moment but did not permanently alter itself – the teachers returned to the routine of the classroom schedule. Therefore, Steven’s constant challenges and attempts to alter the direction of the class curriculum, which were unsuccessful, frustrated both his teachers and himself. A Failed Attempt Rather than see Steven’s actions as an attempt to inform his teachers that the summer program did not meet his needs, his teachers read his actions through how Steven was medicated for his ADD. When a student misbehaves, the logical connection within the ideology of the medicated ADD student is between the student and the proper dosage of the treatment. Ms Klein’s statements nest Steven’s interfering with the classroom curricula within the idea of whether or not he was medicated. Ms Klein stated: But clearly there have been some days when he’s come and he hasn’t had his meds. Other days I’m not so sure.

Ms Collins’s comments reiterate Ms Klein’s concern: I think that Steven’s ADD influences his school experiences in general. He seems to be very vocal about taking or not taking his pills, and I’m wondering how much responsibility and control he feels for and over his impulses.

This issue of treatment influenced the dialogic interactions between Steven and his teachers. There were several instances in my field notes where Steven is pulled aside to be asked if he has taken his medication. Such questioning consistently occurred when Steven switched from the math program to the language arts program. Upon arrival at his language arts classroom, Ms Hoff and Ms Collins would ask Steven in the hallway to check his pockets to make sure that he had taken his pill. In some instances, Ms Collins or Ms Hoff asked Steven to pull his pockets inside out to ensure that Steven had taken his medication. These actions and the identity markers that Steven’s teachers assigned him, which appear in the above interviews, seemed to prevent Steven’s teachers from perceiving actions that fell outside their expectations as anything other than misbehaving due to his ADD. Furthermore, a deviation in the answer required by the teacher resulted in questioning whether he was medicated. Steven’s misbehavior led to frustration for all three teachers. Ms Hoff’s statements demonstrate this concern: A few days were really frustrating so I sent him out of the room. It was also challenging. I just ... I wish again that I would have known, I could have found out more what would have helped him learn ... I think with Steven it would have been helpful just to have more time and again to know what’s helpful for him during the school year. When he’s on, he’s on. He’s a smart kid and he has a lot to contribute so it’s interesting. But it’s kind of a social side too where he doesn’t always handle himself in an appropriate manner and I think it influences his academics.

Steven’s disruptions took time from both his and his classmates’ instruction. His teachers’ aggravation became a part of their relationship with him. Any increase in that frustration level diminished their patience with Steven, which limited their reflection on why he was misbehaving so frequently. Bakhtin (1986, p. 97) states: ‘Unless one accounts for the speaker’s attitude toward the other and his utterances (existing or anticipated), one can understand neither the genre nor the style of speech’ (original emphasis). By framing Steven’s attitude towards the events of the classroom within the issue of whether or not he was on medication, the teachers struggled to identify Steven’s attitude towards the classroom as anything other than being linked with his ADD. This discussion of medication provided a logical solution for Steven’s teachers as to why he acted the way he did – creating a situation in which Steven’s teachers defined his attitude towards the events in the classroom as being determined by whether or not he was medicated.

121

Christopher Brown Steven was very aware of this issue of medication, and his statements reveal his own recognition of the power of the pills he takes: Interviewer: What do you think about all that stuff [his ADD]? Steven: I don’t know. Interviewer: Do you take medication? Steven: Uh-huh. Interviewer: How often do you take it? Steven: Hmm ... I think three times a day. Interviewer: Have you been taking it this summer? [Steven nods head up and down in a ‘yes’ motion.] Interviewer: Every day? [Steven nods head up and down in a ‘yes’ motion.] Interviewer: Can you tell a difference when you take it? Steven: Uh-huh. Interviewer: How does it make you feel? Steven: Umm ... like I’m going to throw up. Interviewer: Really? It makes your stomach upset? [Steven nods head up and down in a ‘yes’ motion.] Interviewer: Do you feel like you can settle down easier? Steven: Um-hum. Interviewer: Is it easier for you to learn at school? [Steven nods head up and down in a ‘yes’ motion.] Interviewer: If you didn’t take it, do you think you’d be the same? Steven: No. Interviewer: How would you be different? Steven: Um ... like talk about people and stuff. Interviewer: So when you’re not taking your medication, do you feel like you talk about people more? [Steven nods head up and down in a ‘yes’ motion.]

Steven recognizes that he is a different kid when he is on his medication, and he realizes that he talks more when he is off his medication. His authoring in many ways matches his teachers’ authoring of him. However, I question whether or not his teachers realize that Steven internalized their discourse of his ADD in his own self-description. Their framing of Steven’s behavior hinged on his medication, and, as seen in the above, Steven also links his ability to behave properly with his pills. To be clear, I am not questioning whether the medication was effective in helping Steven gain self-control. Rather, my concern is whether his teachers’ frustrations with his behavior and their link to such behavior with the medication create a school environment for Steven where he can only define himself as a good student if he is medicated. Steven’s statements in the above demonstrate how he has internalized his teachers’ words, and, in doing so, I question whether his teachers understand how their verbal and physical interrogation of Steven’s medicated state has become a part of how Steven views himself as a good or bad student. Adding to this complexity of framing Steven as a medicated student is that fact that he stated that he took his medication every day, but, according to his teachers, this was not the case. I assume there would be days that he forgot to take his medication, but, as I previously argued, many of the times Steven was seen as misbehaving by the teachers he was commenting on the curriculum and attempting to fracture the authoritative discourse of the classroom; hence, a carnivalistic act. Too Little Too Late Steven’s teachers confined themselves to the authoritative discourses of schooling, ADD, ‘at-risk’, and salvation. This confinement created a dialogic relationship in which any action by Steven that resided outside the bounds of these discourses was read by his teachers as an act of misbehavior caused by Steven’s ADD. Unfortunately, as the program ended, Ms Hoff began to redefine Steven and his actions in the classroom – she left the program two days early due to family matters. She came to accept that

122

Creating Opportunities Steven was bored during word study time (Bear et al, 2000) and that his actions reflected this boredom. Ms Hoff stated: I was in watching him over the last two weeks. I realised that it was too easy for him. He was bored out of his mind but he never said anything. Instead he acted out.

Ms Hoff misread Steven’s actions until the end of the program, and she only identified Steven as being ‘bored’ in word study. Although she probably questioned her actions in regards to Steven’s behavior, Ms Hoff consistently defined his actions over the course of the summer through the discourses of schooling and ADD. Ms Hoff’s recognition of boredom demonstrates the power of the authoritative discourses in blinding Steven’s teachers from defining his actions as anything but being bored.[8] Steven’s boredom symbolizes the difficulty in identifying whether students are being challenged academically by the enacted curriculum – were Steven’s interjections a sign that he was bored by the work or was he acting out because he was not able to complete the work because he lacked the skills that were necessary to finish it? Furthermore, on many occasions, Steven, as well as several of the other students, stated explicitly that they were bored by the summer curriculum. However, Ms Hoff and Ms Collins made clear early on to the students that it was not their job to entertain and that it was the student’s responsibility to take an active part in their learning. So that even when students stated explicitly that they were bored by the curriculum, it was their responsibility to choose an appropriate ‘answer’ to the class discourse. While this issue of boredom raises further questions, such as where boredom fits within the discourses of schooling, it does demonstrate how the traditional activities of schooling failed to meet Steven’s needs as a learner as well as those of several of the other students, and how Steven’s attempts to alter the class activities through interjections of laughter, silliness, and popular culture were consistently read through the lens of ADD by his teachers. Conclusion Opportunities The missed opportunities by Steven’s teachers to expand the classroom’s authoritative discourses provide insight into the complexity of the classroom norms. Authors such as Kamberelis & Scott (1992), Dyson (1993), and Tobin (2000) have had similar findings and have argued for classroom teachers to open up classroom discourses and assignments to create spaces for students’ nondominant voices and experiences; those words and actions are marginalized by the school’s discourses and its defined norms. Ms Hoff’s actions in the NBA example demonstrate how she began to open the class discussion to include Steven’s interests, and, through this slight diversion, she was able to pursue Steven’s interests while staying on-topic. Ms Hoff made space for Steven within the discussion while not sacrificing him altogether, as seen in the above word study example. If Ms Hoff had adhered strictly to the authoritative discourse of schooling, she would have shut Steven out of the classroom discussion, and thus pushed him further away from participating in the summer program. It is through these risks to separate one’s practice from the authoritative discourses that teachers can create new spaces for those whom the authoritative discourse typically excludes. Opening these spaces for alternative voices within the discourses of schooling creates a space for critique within the classroom dialogue. Such a space provides opportunities for practitioners to gain insight into whether or not they are meeting the needs of students and how students feel about the curriculum and the school. Tied with this notion of creating spaces for non-dominant voices within the classroom dialogue is the need for teachers to inspect the clothing with which they adorn their students in the classroom (Bakhtin, 1984a). In Steven’s case, it was almost impossible for him to shed the cloak of ADD within the summer program, which created a situation in which the responses by his teachers consistently dressed Steven in his ADD clothes (Bakhtin, 1993). Failing to examine the words with which teachers adorn their students frames the dialogic relationships they have with those students in a limited manner. Failure to investigate the clothing in which the student is adorned creates a situation in which the intended response, as framed by the teacher, limits interpretations of the

123

Christopher Brown actions of the student, denying any opportunity for growth and learning for the teacher or the student. Although other authors (for example Dyson, 1993) and I argue for creating opportunities for change and critique within authoritative discourses, I recognize that it is through these authoritative discourses that teachers attain and possess their power. Thus, any movement away from the authoritative discourse is a risk. Total abandonment could create a situation in which the teacher has no power whatsoever. Additionally, change in the authoritative discourse could result in an unintended consequence (Apple, 1999). For example, allowing critique into the classroom or consistently pursuing the interests of specific children might create programs in which the teacher achieves none of her original goals (for example ensuring that students are taught the content standards that they will be tested on to be promoted to the next grade level). This fear of losing authority may be one of the reasons Ms Hoff does not separate herself from the discourse of schooling. Furthermore, creating a space for any critique, including Steven’s carnivalistic actions, that is aimed at eliminating the hierarchical structure of power in schooling is very difficult. Those who relinquish their authority have the power to take it back at any moment (Strallybrass & White, 1986; Apple, 2003), and, as argued by Bakhtin (1984b) and analyzed by authors such as Strallybrass & White (1986), the sanctioned critique/carnivalistic act reifies the power structure and strengthens its boundaries. Thus, teachers and members of the school community who attempt to create opportunities for change must question whether their actions are simply creating a spectacle of change (Edelman, 1985, 1988; Smith et al, 2004) or whether they are truly expanding the discourses of schooling. For example, rather than simply creating classroom rules that put the onus on students to be responsible for eliminating their own boredom, teachers might create a rule or procedure that allows students to inject the curriculum with their interests so that the teacher’s literacy curriculum could challenge the students’ abilities while at the same time providing them with opportunities to pursue topics from their ‘unofficial’ (Dyson, 1993) worlds (for example learning to write a movie review of the Lil’ Bow-Wow movie). Failure to attempt to create new opportunities in schooling for students similar to Steven perpetuates the discourse of failure that programs such as these are designed to eradicate. In Steven’s case, his teachers read his carnivalistic actions as acts of deviance rooted in his ADD. Such an interpretation limited his teachers’ understanding of how Steven attempted to expand the classroom dialogue in order to improve his learning experience in the summer program. For example, Steven’s language arts teachers could have created an opportunity for success for Steven by giving him words and word families that challenged his orthographic ability during word study rather than providing him with content that he had already mastered. Such an activity might have reduced his outbursts and time off task, which in turn could have framed Steven as an attentive student rather than as a disruptive student. Symbolically, Steven’s struggles represent the experiences of thousands of children across the USA who participate in summer programs to meet the demands of district or state promotion requirements. Although such standards-based intervention programs attempt to provide ‘accelerated’ or ‘alternative’ curricula to increase student learning, they continue to inscribe the authoritative discourses of schooling that identified these students as failing (for example McNeil, 2000; Lipman, 2004; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Valenzuela, 2005). In Steven’s case, as well as in the studies cited above, it is the students who must alter their responses to the programs’ anticipated responses. Failure by students such as Steven to do so ensures that members of the school community continue to identity them as failures. Steven’s example, as well as results found in the work by researchers such as Valencia & Villarreal (2005), Nagaoka & Roderick (2004), and Roderick et al (2000), will hopefully cause policy makers, district personnel, and other stakeholders in public schooling to question whether intervention programs such as summer school and interventions such as retention produce a temporary success that fails to incorporate and accept these students into the norms of schooling, thus creating a cycle of repeated failure. Opening the discourses of schooling to non-dominant voices is a risk for teachers, but avoiding such opportunities is a greater risk. Stagnation in authoritative discourses maintains feelings of frustration and failure for students like Steven, who experience the effects of these norms on a daily basis. Without risk, there is no opportunity for change to create spaces for success in school for students such as Steven.

124

Creating Opportunities Acknowledgements The author presented a version of this article at the 2003 ‘Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education: research, theory, and practice’ conference, Tempe, AZ. He would like to thank Bernardo Hoes, the editors of this journal, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions in strengthening this article. Correspondence Christopher Brown, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5700, Austin, TX 78712-0379, USA ([email protected]). Notes [1] All references used to identify individuals or institutions are pseudonyms. [2] The students’ fourth-grade teachers identified them as being ‘at risk’. The teachers used districtdeveloped criteria to assign such labels. [3] The district’s first criterion is for the student to attain a minimum grade in language arts, math, science, and social studies. Failure to do so requires the student to attain a minimal score in that subject area on a state-based standardized test. Failure to achieve that score(s) provides the student with the option to be retained or to attend a summer program. The student must pass the summer program in order to be promoted. Failure of the program results in retention. [4] Professional organizations such as the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999) and the work of such authors as Archbald & Porter (1990) and Heubert & Hauser (1999) argue against making highstakes decisions about students before grade 3 due to the inaccuracies of assessment tools in measuring the skills of young children. Thus, states (for example Texas, Massachusetts, Florida) and local governments (Chicago public schools, New York City public schools) typically make high-stakes decisions at the end of the child’s third- or fourth-grade year. [5] To be clear, Steven is not identified by the school district as a special needs student. [6] The psychological process of identity formulation is beyond the scope of my work, but there are theorists, such as Wertsch (1991), who link Bakhtinian theory to the psychological process, for example Wertsch connects Bakhtinian theory with Vygotsky’s (for example 1978) work [7] I use carnival as an analytic device (Emerson, 1997) to interpret Steven’s actions. [8] Ms Hoff’s statements also demonstrate the role of the individual within the dialogic relationship and Bakhtin’s emphasis on one’s non-alibi being – the individual is responsible for and has choice in creating her utterances and deeds, not authoritative discourses (Bakhtin, 1993).

References Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R. & Olson, L.S. (2001) Schools, Achievement, and Inequality: a seasonal perspective, Education, Evaluation, and Policy Analysis, 23, pp. 171-191. Allensworth, E. (2004) Ending Social Promotion: dropout rates in Chicago after implementation of the eighth-grade promotion gate. Chicago: Consortium of Chicago School Research. Available at: http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/pdfs/p69.pdf. Althusser, L. (1972) Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays, trans. B. Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999) Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Apple, M.W. (1999) Power, Meaning, and Identity: essays in critical educational studies. New York: Peter Lang. Apple, M.W. (2003) Down from the Balcony: critically engaged in policy analysis in education, Educational Policy, 17, pp. 280-287.

125

Christopher Brown Archbald, D.A. & Porter, A.C. (1990) A Retrospective and Analysis of Roles of Mandated Testing in Education Reform. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: four essays by M. M. Bakhtin, ed. C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans. M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984a) Problems of Doestoevsky’s Poetics, ed. and trans. C. Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984b) Rabelais and His World, trans. H. Iswolsky. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans. V.W. McGee. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 8. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1993) Toward a Philosophy of the Act, ed. M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, trans. V. Liapunov. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 10. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F. (2000) Word Their Way: word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005) Below the Bubble: ‘educational triage’ and the Texas accountability system, American Educational Research Journal, 42, pp. 231-268. Cannella, G.S. (1997) Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang. Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J.C. & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000) Making the Most of Summer School: a meta-analytic and narrative review, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65. Dyson, A.H. (1993) Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School. New York: Teachers College Press. Edelman, M. (1985) The Symbolic Use of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Edelman, M. (1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Emerson, C. (1997) The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. & Shaw, L.L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Erikson, F. (1986) Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching, in M. Whittrock (Ed.) Handbook on Research on Teaching, pp. 119-161. Chicago: Macmillan. Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2003) The Interview: from structured questions to negotiated text, in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, 2nd edn, pp. 61-106. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1983) Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Graue, M.E. & Walsh, D.J. (1998) Studying Children in Context: theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hargreaves, D.H., Hester, S.K. & Mellor, F.J. (1975) Deviance in Classrooms. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Harrington-Lueker, D. (2000) Summer Learners: can summer school make a difference in student achievement? American School Board Journal, 187, pp. 20-25. Heubert, J.P. & Hauser, R.M. (Eds) (1999) High Stakes: testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Holquist, M. (1990) Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York: Routledge. Kamberelis, G. & Scott, K.D. (1992) Other People’s Voices: the coarticulation of texts and subjectivities, Linguistics and Education, 4, pp. 359-403. Lipman, P. (2004) High Stakes Education: inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. McNeil, L.M. (2000) Contradictions of School Reform: educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge. Nagaoka, J. & Roderick, M. (2004) Ending Social Promotion: the effects of retention. Chicago: Consortium of Chicago School Research. Available at: http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/pdfs/ p70.pdf. Popkewitz, T.S. (1998) Struggling for the Soul: the politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Roderick, M., Bryk, A.S., Jacob, B.A., Easton, J.Q. & Allensworth, E. (1999) Ending Social Promotion: results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

126

Creating Opportunities Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Bacon, J. & Easton, J.Q. (2000) Update: ending social promotion. Passing, Retention, and Achievement Trends among Promoted and Retained Students, 1995-1999. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Smith, M.L., Miller-Kahn, L., Heinecke, W. & Jarvis, P.F. (2004) Political Spectacle and the Fate of American Schools. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Stenvall, M.J. (2001) Is Summer School the Answer or the Problem?, Education Week, 20, p. 36. Strallybrass, P. & White, A. (1986) The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Strauss, L.S. (1996) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tobin, J. (2000) ‘Good Guys Don’t Wear Hats’: children talk about the media. New York: Teachers College Press. Valencia, R.R. & Villarreal, B.J. (2005) Texas’ Second Wave of High-stakes Testing: anti-social promotion legislation, grade retention, and adverse impact on minorities, in A. Valenzuela (Ed.) Leaving Children Behind: how ‘Texas-style’ accountability fails Latino youth, pp. 113-152. Albany: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A. (2005) Leaving Children Behind: how ‘Texas-style’ accountability fails Latino youth. Albany: State University of New York Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes, ed. M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1991) Voices of the Mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, K.A. & Johnston, R.C. (1999) Summer School: amid success, concerns persist, Education Week, 19(1), pp. 8-9. Wolcott, H.F. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

127