In “Dear Tupac,” Heidi Hallman illustrates an interesting alternative to teaching “at-risk” students. She emphasizes the need to incorporate out-of-class literacies into the academic curriculum. Hallman provides a powerful example of students from a school for pregnant and parenting teens who use hip-hop to practice and improve literacy skills. While I find her argument salient, especially when considering the marginalization and degradation (academic as well as societal) of teen parents, she doesn’t address too deeply a fundamental issue: academic literacy.
In my opinion, Bob Schaefer’s approach, or at least what Hallman reports of it, is not as academically inclined as it should be. The students do have an opportunity to improve their writing skills through journal writing, narrative writing and poetry, but Hallman makes it seem like these exercises are designed more for therapeutic purposes than for academic purposes. While I completely agree that students labeled as “at-risk” youth deserve the opportunity to learn and express themselves in ways more easily afforded to other students, basic skills are still necessary. It is important for students of all levels to “investigate their individual agency,” but they must also be equipped with the knowledge necessary to succeed in school and beyond. Certainly, we must be careful to not drill basic skills and rote memorization into these students’ heads. It is unfortunate that arbitrary standards are what teachers are forced to focus on in the classroom, but sadly, it is what ensures academic and future success.
I think hip-hop is valuable in that it allows students to engage with the things they’re interested in and are most familiar with. But bringing out-of-class literacies and technologies into the classroom also has the potential to be distracting. I don’t mean to impugn the value that out-of-school literacies present. They are of extreme importance when it comes to drawing students into their own learning. But in my opinion, academic learning should still be a central part of the curriculum. In no way do I mean to discredit the value of what Hallman is encouraging teachers to practice. I just wish she had clarified more specifically what was being done to prepare these students for more fulfilling and promising futures beyond school.
I would agree with Henry’s argument that the focus in Schaefer’s classroom is largely therapeutic as opposed to the necessary academic focus that we come to expect from all schools. I think this is largely a product of the function of Schaefer’s school; as an institution for ‘at risk’ students there is and should be a therapeutic focus. I would also agree that Hallman does not adequately address how to use out of school literacies in a wholly academic setting.
However, I do think that out of school literacies serve can be incredibly valuable when implemented properly in the classroom. These literacies can easily engage students who are otherwise uninterested in school. This engagement grants students personal agency in the classroom and in their own education.
Music provides perhaps the easiest example of using our of school literacies in a structured academic setting. If we view music as poetry we can use music that is personal and valuable to students to teach the important components of poetry, such as meter and rhyme. Music can also be used to engage students in social justice issues that are expressed in popular music. Using an out of school literacy such as popular music engages students and grants them agency in the classroom while providing a basic for teaching genuine academic skills such as various forms of writing and comprehension.