This article was downloaded by: [University of Bath]On: 23 November 2014, At: 07:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Multicultural PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmcp20

“Um, They Weren't Thinking About Their Thinking”:Children's Talk About Issues of OppressionJeanne Gilliam Fain aa Vanderbilt University ,Published online: 12 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Jeanne Gilliam Fain (2008) “Um, They Weren't Thinking About Their Thinking”: Children's Talk AboutIssues of Oppression, Multicultural Perspectives, 10:4, 201-208, DOI: 10.1080/15210960802526102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15210960802526102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Multicultural Perspectives, 10(4), 201–208Copyright C© 2008 by the National Association for Multicultural EducationISSN: 1521-0960 print / 1532-7892DOI: 10.1080/15210960802526102

“Um, They Weren’t Thinking About Their Thinking”: Children’s TalkAbout Issues of Oppression

Jeanne Gilliam FainVanderbilt University

This article presents first and second grade chil-dren’s talk about issues of language diversity andculture. Children focus on the issue of oppres-sion and initially examine oppressors in their talkwithin literature circles across a year in a ShelteredEnglish Immersion classroom. Drawing on a crit-ical literacy framework and anti-bias perspective,the article offers an examination into how youngbilingual children grapple with critical issues con-nected to multicultural children’s literature in theclassroom. The article ends with some considera-tion regarding assisting young children to becomeadvocates for issues of social justice.

Literacy experiences should provide students withauthentic opportunities to “unravel” the word as studentslearn and discuss how they can bring about changes in theirworld (Freire, 1970). School curriculum should includeexperiences of non-dominant groups in this country.Urban and bilingual children need space to criticallylisten, express, and develop their views on critical issues(Lopez-Robertson, 2003). This year-long study examinesthe issue of oppression young learners deemed importantin their talk as they explored issues of language diversityand culture within the classroom engagement of literaturecircles. This qualitative classroom study investigatedurban and bilingual children’s talk in the school context.Research supports critical dialogue about issues ofsocial justice about multicultural and bilingual children’sliterature in the classroom (Lopez-Robertson, 2003). Thisarticle examines the research question: What issues oflanguage and cultural diversity do first and second gradestudents discuss in literature circles? I focus on findingsconnected to the issue of oppression. Dialogue is centralto this study and classroom context. Children try out theirideas and tensions within their talk as they participateas hearers and speakers within the literature circles.

Correspondence should be sent to Jeanne Gilliam Fain, VanderbiltUniversity, Peabody College, 1930 South Drive, Nashville, TN 37212.E-mail: jeanne.g.fain@vanderbilt.edu

Freire (1970) argues dialogue is a way of knowing andis situated within broader social and political tensionswithin the world. Dialogue is transformational as poweris shared within talk and participants gain additionalinsights into themselves. Critical thinking is consideredas essential within genuine dialogue. Dialogue alsoincludes the construction of identity that is carefullycrafted to influence the perceptions of others and includesconscious speech and actions of individuals (Goffman,1959). In this study, children’s dialogue about literatureincludes their understandings of complex social issues.

Critical Literacy as a Theoretical Frame

Critical literacy becomes transformational whenstudents shift roles and become co-investigators andproblem posers (Freire, 1970). Problem-posing educationencompasses authentic learning that positions learners totake critical roles within the broader scope of learning.Learners critically examine their positioning within theirworld and evaluate the “realities” of the world. Teachersand children learn alongside each other. Shor (1992)builds upon problem-posing education by examining theuse of language that is connected to self.

Lewison, Flint, and Van Sluys (2002) condense30 years of critical literacy research into four dimensions:disrupting the commonplace, interrogating multipleviewpoints, focusing on sociopolitical issues, andtaking action and promoting social justice. Thesefour dimensions are woven throughout the children’sdiscussions.

� Disrupting the commonplace: challenges learnersto closely examine the familiar through new lensesand includes considering new ways of looking atold ideas.

� Interrogating multiple viewpoints: requires us toput ourselves into the positions and perspectives ofothers.

Multicultural Perspectives

201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

� Focusing on sociopolitical issues: challenges usto explore institutional systems and the powerrelationships and language embedded within thesesystems.

� Taking action and promoting social justice: takes an“informed” stand against oppression or promotingsocial justice.

Issues of “fairness and justice” are integrated into theclassroom as children directly confront and tackle theseissues (Leland, Harste, Ociepka, Lewison, & Vasquez,1999). Literacy is not neutral and is filtered throughsomeone’s agenda or objectives (Comber, 2001). Youngbilingual children respond to these inequities and issuesof power within children’s literature (Lopez-Robertson,2003). Children bring their life experiences to thediscussions. Over time and with some scaffolding fromteachers as needed, children confront issues of racism,power, social injustice, and discrimination (Moller,2002). Children come to know how to make changesin the government, systems of learning, and injusticesthat need to be overcome (Cox & Boyd-Batstone,1997).

Over time and with somescaffolding from teachers asneeded, children confront issuesof racism, power, social injustice,and discrimination.

Critical literacy allows learners to step back, reflect,and take action (Freire, 1970), and shares similar goals ofanti-bias education (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006).Anti-bias education intends for children to constructa “confident self-concept and group identity,” to buildproductive relationships with people from diversebackgrounds, to develop “critical thinking about bias,”and to develop each child’s capacity to “stand up forher/himself and for others in the face of bias” (p. 5).Children learn to consider multiple points of views andsettle into their perspectives after taking risks withinthe dialogue (Foss, 2002). Teachers act as facilitators,encouraging the child to consider multiple historicalperspectives and simultaneously communicating to thechild that his or her sharing within dialogue is valued(Vasquez, 2000).

Similar to findings by Crowell (1993) and Vasquez(2000), first and second graders in this study came toliterature circles ready and excited to talk about toughissues related to social justice. The children in this studywere able to use linguistic and cultural knowledge to talkabout critical issues.

Methodology

This urban, multi-age Sheltered English Immersionclassroom where I conducted this year-long qualitativeclassroom study consisted of 22 first and second graders,which included 19 Latino/a students, two European-American students, and one Chinese-American student.There were 13 girls and 9 boys. Most children came tothis classroom knowing how to effectively communicateorally in more than one language. Mrs. Robin Horn,a teacher of 12 years at the time of this study, usedSpanish as support in the classroom (although she wasworking toward her fluency). She worked to validateand use multiples languages as a resource (Ruiz, 1984).All but two of the children’s families in Robin Horn’smulti-age first and second grade classroom at MiltonElementary School (pseudonym) discussed children’sliterature in their homes in their native languages andin English. Children consistently returned their responsejournals to school with responses in the language ofthe families’ choice. Children first discussed children’sliterature in family-led literature circles in the home andin 40 small-group literature circles in school (primarilyin English) throughout the academic school year (Fain& Horn, 2006). Four to five children shared responsesin each literature circle that included a facilitator, Robinor me (the researcher). We purposely selected children’sliterature that linked multiple features of languagediversity and culture (see Table 1 for a list of children’sbooks referenced in this article). The books consistedof bilingual or Spanish and English editions. Literaturecircles were comprised of each child’s verbal dialogue,written responses from journals in Spanish and English,and intertextual connections to children’s literature.

Data Analysis

In this case study inquiry, I was guided by themain purpose: What issues of language diversity andculture do first and second grade students discuss inliterature circles? Data sources of children’s talk inschool consisted of 40 audiotapes, 16 transcripts, 23response journals, and field notes. I listened to 40literature circles that were recorded on audiotapesthroughout the school year, and I used my field notesto guide my selection of transcripts for final analysis(Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). Sixteen literature circleswere transcribed and initially analyzed using qualitativemethodology. I selected five conversations to analyzein-depth, then examined children’s talk connected toissues of culture and/or language. Data were coded forthese issues (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Issues includedliteracy, identity, positionality within society, oppression,and resistance to structural inequality. For this study,I focus on findings connected to issues of oppression,

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

202

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 1. Children’s literature selected for literature circles

Themes used inTitle Author Language Summary literature circles

La Marıposa Jimenez (1998) Spanish and Englisheditions

Francisco enters schooland experiences lan-guage discrimination.

Sense of place Languagedifferences

La Senora de la Caja deCarton; The Lady in theBox (two groups)

McGovern (1999) Spanish and Englisheditions

Two children defend andadvocate for a homelesswoman who is forcedto move her home (box)outside of a restaurant.

Adversity and socialaction

White Socks Only Coleman (1999) English A young girl misunder-stands a Whites-onlysign and takes off hershoes and experiencesdiscrimination.

Adversity and socialaction

Sister Anne’s Hands Lorbiecki (2000) English Students send off an air-plane into the class withderogatory remarksregarding the teacher’sethnicity. The teacheruses the event to teachher students about civilrights.

Adversity and socialaction

Feliz Cumpleanos, MartinLuther King; HappyBirthday Martin LutherKing

Marzollo (1994, 1995) Spanish and Englisheditions

A story about MartinLuther King and how hefought against racism.

Empowerment

Picture Book of MartinLuther King

Adler (1989) English A biographical accountrevealing key historicalfacts about MartinLuther King.

Empowerment

Picture Book of RosaParks (Part of Text Set)

Adler (1995) English A biographical accountabout the life of RosaParks.

Empowerment

The Story of Ruby Bridges(Part of Text Set)

Coles (1995) English A story of how RubyBridges triumphed oversegregation.

Empowerment

More Than Anything Else(Part of Text Set)

Bradby (1995) English A young boy desires tolearn how to read andovercomes adversity tobecome literate.

Empowerment

Shake Rag: From the Lifeof Elvis

Littlesugar (1998) English A fictional account ofElvis’s life as a youngboy.

Empowerment

Invisible Princess Ringold (1998) English A slaveowner oppressesa princess, and sheteaches him a lesson.

Telling folk stories

Home at Last Elya (2002) English (some code-switching)

A family adjusts to mov-ing to the United Statesand experiences lin-guicism.

Linguistic diversity

Friends from the OtherSide; Amigos Del OtroLado

Anzaldua (1993) Bilingual book: Spanishand English

A story of two friendsas they experience thefear of hiding fromimmigration officialswithin the UnitedStates.

Immigration and discrim-ination

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 10, No. 4

203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

including subcategories of racism and the role of theoppressor.

Findings

First and second graders discussed the issue ofoppression in small group literature circles. According toFreire (1970),

Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanizedand dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressorsand those whom they oppress, it is the latter who must,from their stifled humanity, wage for both the strugglefor a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself de-humanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable tolead this struggle (p. 48).

Oppression is treating people like objects and ex-ercising power over them in such a way that they feelpowerless to make changes in their lives (Freire, 1970).This category of oppression was divided into two subcat-egories: racism and examining the role of the oppressor.Findings are framed using the four dimensions of criticalliteracy developed by Lewison et al. (2002).

Racism

The first category provided children’s insights intodehumanization as they talk about how they connected inpersonal ways to racism. Varenne and McDermott (1999)define racism as discourse that categorizes based upon“inherent” achievement. Children’s insights includeddiscrimination based upon privilege associated withlanguage and the socially constructed concept of race(Chang, 2002). Children discussed why they wouldnot participate in racism. This issue included talk thatdeals with discrimination based upon human differencesrelated to physical appearance. Children’s comments inthis category directly spoke to unjust treatment connectedto linguistic and racial differences.

In a discussion of Friends from the Other Side/Amigosdel otro lado (Anzaldua, 1995), children discuss theterm “wetback.” In this story, Joaquin becomes friendswith Prietita. It depicts the realities of immigration.Ricardo starts the discussion by having me share hisresponse journal that someone in the story called Joaquin“un mojadito” [a little wetback], and we explore thepages of the book together. We read part of the bookthat uses the term, “wetback.” I ask the group to definewetback.

Juan: Like somebody—somebody that is not nice to otherpeople.

Jeanne: A wetback is someone who’s not nice to otherpeople?Ricardo: No, it’s that they’re wet.Jeanne: They’re wet? (pause) Why would they be wet?(two pauses).Students: [laughing].

I validate their answer by telling them it’s a “goodidea” and I ask, “Where did the word wetback comefrom?”

Ricardo: —because they don’t take a shower?Jeanne: They don’t take a shower.Students: [laughing].Irma: [inaudible].Jeanne: Okay, listen! (pause) She said-listen! (pause) Sayit again.Irma: That he [inaudible].Jeanne: Voz fuerte [strong voice].Irma: That he didn’t have the same skin as them.Jeanne: Okay, (pause) so they’re laughing at him ‘cuz hehad a different color skin (pause) that what’s happening?Irma: Mm-hm.Juan: Yup.Jeanne: Yup? (pause) What else? (two pauses) Could it bethat the term wetback comes from they used to cross over(pause) and they had to walk through all the different wa-ter (pause) so they could—they talk about—that’s whata wetback is? (pause) So it’s not they’re actually wet(pause), it’s that when they were crossing over (pause)they got wet (pause) because they had to cross riversand different things like that to get to the United States.(pause) So do you think that it’s okay to call someone awetback?Beatriz: No!Jeanne: Or a mojado? [wetback].Beatriz: Because they—they (pause), um, they use peopleput-downs.Jeanne: It’s a put-down? (pause) It a REALLY BAD put-down (pause) right? (pause) It’sflit’s really a bad thingto say to somebody. (pause) How do you think they feltin the story when the kids (overlap) were calling them amojado [wetback]?Juan: Bad.Beatriz: Sad.Jeanne: Por que sad? [why].Beatriz: Because . . . [inaudible].Irma: They called them a (pause) wetback.Jeanne: Okay, (pause) so that was the part you connectedwith? (pause) yeah? (pause) So have you ever had some-one say something not nice to you like that?Juan: I have [in a sad voice].Jeanne: You have? (pause) what happened?Juan: Because they were [inaudible] of other people andthen (pause) they said that (pause) I’m a wetback.Jeanne: They said that you’re a wetback? (pause)

In this discussion, first graders discuss immigrationthrough the use of the term “wetback.” Children’s talk of

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

oppression included the first dimension of critical literacy,disrupting the commonplace (Lewison et al., 2002). Theuse of this language positions Joaquin as having lowstatus in the story, and the children demonstrate theirawareness of this term by sharing their emotions suchas laughing or showing sadness as they discuss thisterm. The children define wetback several times. Theydiscuss that wetbacks “aren’t nice” and equate wetbackswith being “wet” or not “having a shower.” They try onmultiple viewpoints as their talk connects to the seconddimension of critical literacy and examines “wetbacks”as the group that is being marginalized (Lewison et al.,2002). Marginalization is a concept children havedemonstrated understanding about in terms of their ownexperiences as related to being treated differently basedupon their culture and the Spanish language that theyspeak.

Children begin to focus on the third dimension ofcritical literacy, focusing on immigration and sociopo-litical issues. Irma then connects the term to a person’sskin color. We talk about social implications of thisterm. In the social world of school and with peers,Juan talks about his experience being identified as awetback. In the fourth dimension of critical literacy,taking action and promoting social justice, children’s talkincludes a quick reflection of the social injustices takenwithin the story by showing understanding for othersand realizing the power of “put downs” (Lewison et al.,2002).

In the following example, Alice, Elena, and Juanitatalk about oppression as connected to race as they discussInvisible Princess (Ringgold, 1998).

Alice: How would you feel if, um, the, like the Whiteand Mexican people were slaves today?Elena: Poor. How about you?Alice: Sad. Cause that’s why I don’t laugh at the Blackpeople because . . .Juanita: And White people . . .Alice: Yeah, because that’s not nice and what if ithappened to us.

Elena and Juanita respond to Alice’s question byrevealing their innermost feelings about oppressionlinked to slavery. Alice recognizes oppression couldhappen to everyone, including herself, and it motivatesher to seriously consider her actions and its possibleeffects. She doesn’t see herself as a part of the “white”past that has perpetuated slavery. All three girls werequick to point out that racism could occur to “White,Mexican, and Black people.” These beliefs that slaverycould happen to anyone represents the first dimensionof critical literacy, disrupting commonplace. The girlsare also examining multiple viewpoints, the second

dimension of critical literacy, as they discuss oppressionconnected to “White, Mexican, and Black people.” Interms of the third dimension, Alice, Elena, and Juanitamove to seeing slavery as a current issue that couldconnect to their lives, and provides them a reason tonot oppress others by laughing at them. This discussionfacilitates thinking about how they should act in thefuture in regards to oppression. In the fourth dimensionof critical literacy, the girls do reflect upon how slaverycould affect their own actions and they express empathyas they think critically about bias (Derman-Sparks& ABC Task Force, 1989). They don’t discuss howthey could prevent slavery, which is a problematicstance. The girls need to move toward advocating forothers who experience bias (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey,2006).

This discussion led them to initially think about theoppressor’s role, an issue represented in the next category.Linguicism refers to unequal treatment of languages basedupon power structures that privilege certain languagesas having legitimacy (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988). Robin(classroom teacher) leads the discussion by askingchildren to think about, “How would you feel if youwent to a school where they said that you couldn’t talkin two languages?” Antonio connects to the questionby stating,

La Mariposa because Francisco wanted, he wanted to talkin Spanish but the teacher said no Spanish so, so they, andthen, um, Francisco felt so sad too because like if I wastalking in Spanish and like somebody came up and shesaid, and somebody said you can’t speak like Spanish andthen, um, I would feel sad.

Delpit and Dowdy (2002) state, “Since language isone of the most intimate expressions of identity, indeed,‘the skin that we speak,’ then to reject a person’s languagecan only feel as if we are rejecting him” (p. 47). Students,Antonio and Logan, and Robin discuss the lack ofprivilege and status that one experiences when unable toexpress him/herself in the language of choice. Antoniospoke to the rejection and lack of inclusion Franciscoexperienced in La Mariposa (Jimenez, 2000), and heempathized with Francisco. Robin used the back of thebus example to expand Antonio’s ideas of exclusionas connected to the first dimension of critical literacy;Antonio, Logan, and Robin discuss language as identityas they think about disrupting commonplace. Their talkleads them to think about multiple viewpoints, the seconddimension of critical literacy. This group is focusedprimarily on sociopolitical issues of language, the thirddimension of critical literacy. Children talk about thetaking away of one’s language and their empathy withthese actions.

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 10, No. 4

205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Examining The Oppressor’s Role

According to Freire (1970),

... oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on havingmore as a privilege, which dehumanizes others and them-selves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit ofhaving as a possessing class, they suffocate in their ownpossessions and no longer are; they merely have (p. 58).

Freire frames the oppressor as someone who does not seehis or her destruction of others. In this category, childrendiscussed the motives of the oppressor. They talkedabout reasons oppressors caused pain for others and howoppressors hurt others without firsthand knowledge andconsciousness of their hurtful actions.

This discussion was based upon a text set or collectionof literature that focused upon power and oppression.The text set included: The Story of Ruby Bridges (Coles,1995), Picture book of Martin Luther King (Adler, 1999),Shake Rag: From the Life of Elvis Presley (Littlesugar,1998), More Than Anything Else (Bradby, 1995), andPicture Book of Rosa Parks (Adler, 1995). In previouslarge-group discussions, we had talked about how Whitepeople were called white trash in Shake Rag: From theLife of Elvis Presley (Littlesugar, 1998), and how whitepeople were “mean” in White Socks Only (Coleman,1999) and Sister Anne’s Hands (Lorbiecki, 1998). Ihad asked the children to think about the statement thatseveral had made that “White people were not nice” andthat led to a discussion about thinking.

Maria: Um, they weren’t thinking about their thinking.Jeanne: Oh, they weren’t?Maria: And they didn’t do some of the habits of mind(I then try to move the children into considering themotives behind the “white” peoples’ actions.)Maria: Cause they didn’t know how to work together.Jeanne: They didn’t know how to work together. That’s agreat idea.Beatriz: Like Martin Luther King did.Jeanne: Like Martin Luther King did? Okay.Beatriz: Some of them didn’t like what Martin LutherKing said.

Maria, Beatriz, and I discussed the motives of theoppressor, the white people, in all of these stories. Mariawas convinced that they are not “thinking about theirthinking” and that, despite oppression, they should beforgiven. Beatriz and Maria felt that the white people didnot understand the significance of working together asMartin Luther King did. The girls notice that workingtogether rather than competition is a goal worth workingfor (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006). Maria ends thedialogue by stating,

Ruby Bridges, yeah, and I noticed the last part she saidthat people didn’t know how to work together and shetold, um, God to forgive them.

Children’s talk includes the first dimension of criticalliteracy, disrupting the commonplace, as they discuss thesimilarities and differences in actions of the oppressorsacross the literature. Maria, Beatriz, and I discussmultiple viewpoints as we think about metacognition.In terms of the sociopolitical, Maria and Beatriz raisethe view that “white people” are not thinking abouttheir racist actions within these historical events. Asyoung children, Maria and Beatriz take on complexissues connected to thinking and the oppressor. In thefuture, they need to move to formulating a plan fortaking action and promoting social justice in terms ofdeveloping a critical look at institutions that promoteracism and do not encourage “thinking about theirthinking.”

In the next example, from a discussion of The Ladyin the Box (McGovern, 1999) and La Senora de laCaja (McGovern, 1997), Adriana, Cristina, Alice, andI discussed the oppressor in this story. In this story, thestoreowner moved the poor lady from the front of his storebecause he doesn’t want his customers to be distractedby her presence. Adriana summarizes the store- owner’smotives by stating,

Like the next day, when he saw her he said, ‘Move, move,you cannot be in front of my store no more because allthe people are complaining about you.’

We talk about how these actions lead the poor lady to feelsad about her circumstances. Cristina elaborates on thepoor lady’s suffering as she says,

Cristina: She was sad and not warm anymore and that hemade her move to the empty stuff with no cold air comingwarm air coming out.Jeanne: Right. So what do you think he was thinking? Doyou think that he was ignorant?Alice: No. I think that he just didn’t know.Jeanne: He just didn’t know?Alice: Yeah, because that, oh yeah, that gave me a con-nection to La Mariposa because he wouldn’t let herbe right there and, um, the teacher wouldn’t let theother boy talk in Spanish. She said, ‘No, no English,English.’

Alice reiterates in the discussion that the teacherdiscriminated against the boy in La Mariposa (Jimenez,1998) because she didn’t know any better. Adrianaand Cristina described the cruelty of the oppressorand the results of his actions on the homeless lady.Their views exemplify disrupting the commonplace.Alice and Cristina could connect the homeless lady’s

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

206

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

circumstances as they examined multiple viewpointswithin their discussion. Alice was convinced that theoppressor was unaware of his actions, and she made theintertextual connection to La Mariposa (Jimenez, 1998).She felt strongly that the teacher in La Mariposa actedout of ignorance just like the storeowner in Lady in theBox. In her eyes, both oppressors were acting withouttrue consciousness of their actions (Freire, 1970). Bothgirls saw the oppressor as ignorant as they discussed thesociopolitical issues.

In examining oppression, the children discussed theissue of oppression and the oppressor. First and secondgraders reflected upon racism that book characters oftenexperienced, and they felt empathy for the characters.Oppression was characterized as being mean and movingaway from niceness. Children tried to resolve the tensionsof the oppressor. They worked at getting insight intothe role of the oppressor and yet they often didn’t havenegative feelings for the oppressor, but saw oppressorsas unaware of their actions (Freire, 1970). Childrenelected to be optimistic about oppressors as they workedto think about these sociopolitical issues from multipleviewpoints.

Discussion of the Findings

Findings related to the issue of oppression werecomprised of categories of racism and the role ofoppressor. Children considered oppression from multipleperspectives, and they examined oppression in terms ofracism that was experienced by others. Difference of racewas a factor connected to oppression (Nieto, 2002). Chil-dren used racial codes, such as “White people” exercisingsuperiority in race over “Black people”(Bolgatz, 2005).One child stated oppression resulted from a lack ofsomeone “not thinking about their thinking,” and childrenagreed that oppressors were not vindictive villains.Children demonstrated genuine willingness to forgiveoppressors and equated their discriminatory actionsas ignorance. Forgiveness in these examples let theoppressor off the “hook.” It is critical that we continueto explore ways to help children construct a deeperunderstanding of the power issues within their talk.Children need to explore how to talk about these criticalissues and not generalize racial differences (Bolgatz,2005).

Children continually looked at power across the issuesof oppression and racism. In the oppression category,children knew what actions they had to engage in notbecoming an oppressor, and they were consciously awareof some of the issues of power. In most discussions,children grappled with the three dimensions of criticalliteracy throughout their dialogue. In most cases, theirtalk included the fourth dimension, taking action and

promoting social justice in terms of reflecting upontheir own actions and understanding others. In futurediscussions, children need to continue to think about theinstitutional influence of oppression and the role of theoppressor especially as connected to critical race theory(Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).

Children understood the issues connected to oppres-sion and the oppressor, and they needed to criticallyexamine the broader historical framework of how societyis organized and how to make change (Delgado &Stefancic, 2001).

Conclusion

Children in this study had an acute awareness aboutthese types of social issues. They didn’t want to repeatthe cycle of hurting someone else, and they were ableto take an empathetic stance toward oppression, theoppressed, and the oppressor. Many of the children hadpersonal experiences with oppression and could openlydiscuss their struggles with these issues, especiallyin terms of someone else violating their linguisticrights in and outside of schooling. Children raisedtheir concerns and ideas about the oppressed. Emotionssuch as sadness or anger were evident across thesediscussions.

Authentic and safe spaces forchildren are critical as childrenlearn to critically discuss andunravel tensions about theirideas, bias, and opinionsconnected to issues of socialjustice.

Children established their voices in democratic waysby taking multiple positions within the dialogue. Maria’sidea that people were “not thinking about thinking”gives us much to think about as educators. Authenticand safe spaces for children are critical as children learnto critically discuss and unravel tensions about theirideas, bias, and opinions connected to issues of socialjustice. Inequity and the distribution of power withinour institutional settings should be addressed withinchildren’s dialogue. We need to think about how wecan extend this dialogue and push children’s thinkingconnected to racism in broader and global contextswithout ultimately becoming oppressors as educators andas researchers ourselves.

Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 10, No. 4

207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References

Bolgatz, J. (2005). Talking race in the classroom. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Chang, R. (2002). Critiquing “race” and its uses: Critical race theory’suncompleted argument. In F. Valdes, J. Culp, & A. P. Harris(Eds.), CrossRoads, directions, and a new critical race theory.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Comber, B. (2001). Negotiating critical literacy. School Talk, 6(3), 1–2.Cox, C., & Boyd-Batstone, P. (1997). Crossroads: Literature and

language in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Crowell, C. G. (1993). Living through war vicariously with literature.In L. Patterson, C. Santa, K. Smith, & K. Short (Eds.), Teachersas researchers: A yearbook of reflection and action. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: Anintroduction. New York: New York University Press.

Delpit, L., & Dowdy, J. K. (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts onlanguage and culture in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Derman-Spark, L., & ABC Task Force (1989). Anti-bias curriculum:Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.

Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. G. (2006). What if all the kids arewhite? Anti-bias multicultural education with young children andfamilies. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fain, J. G., & Horn, R. (2006). Bilingual families’ talk aboutlanguage diversity and culture. Language Arts, 83, 310–320.

Foss, A. (2002). Peeling the onion: Teaching critical literacy withstudents of privilege. Language Arts, 79(5), 393–403.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded

theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York:

Doubleday.Leland, C., Harste, J., Ociepka, A., Lewison, M., & Vasquez, V. (1999).

Talking about books: Exploring critical literacy: You can hear apin drop. Language Arts, 77(1), 70–77.

Lewison, M., Flint, A., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on criticalliteracy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts,79(5), 382–392.

Lopez-Robertson, J. (2003). Tomas and the Library Lady: A call tosocial action. Arizona Reading Journal, 39(2), 10–17.

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: Aphilosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.

Moller, K. (2002). Providing support for dialogue in literaturediscussions about social justice. Language Arts, 79(6), 467–477.

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Criticalperspectives for a new century. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal,8(2), 15–34.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for socialchange. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not. Clevedon, Avon, UK:Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1999). Successful failure: The schoolAmerica builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Vasquez, V. (2000). Language stories and critical literacy lessons.Talking Points, 11(2), 5–7.

Children’s Books Cited

Adler, D. (1995). A picture book of Rosa Parks. New York: HolidayHouse.

Adler, D. (1999). A picture book of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York:Holiday House.

Anzaldua, G. (1995). Friends from the other side; Amigos del otro lado.San Francisco: Children’s Book Press.

Bradby, M. (1995). More than anything else. London: Orchard Books.Coleman, E. (1999). White socks only. Atlanta, GA: Whitman Books.Coles, R. (1995). The story of Ruby Bridges. New York: Scholastic.Elya, S. M. (2002). Home at last. New York: Lee & Low Books.Jimenez, F. (1998). La mariposa. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Littlesugar, A. (1998). Shake rag: From the life of Elvis Presley. New

York: Philomel Books.Lorbiecki, M. (1998). Sister Anne’s hands. New York: Penguin Putnam

Books.McGovern, A. (1997). La Senora de la caja en la carton. New York:

Turtle Books.McGovern, A. (1999). Lady in the box. New York: Turtle Books.Marzollo, J. (1994). Feliz cumpleanos Martin Luther King. New York:

Scholastic en Espanol.Marzollo, J. (1995). Happy birthday Martin Luther King. New York:

Scholastic.Ringgold, F. (1998). Invisible princess. New York: Random House.

The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education

208

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

7:55

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14