Hope Kitts
University of Minnesota-Duluth Orcid ID: 0000-0003-1789-8980
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v6-i12-03Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT:
The institution of public schooling in the United States exists in the popular imagination as a primary means of achieving social mobility. It is believed that schools provide students with unbiased opportunities to earn credentials that translate into real, economic benefits. This myth of equality of opportunity in the contexts of schooling, while idyllic, does more harm than good when it comes to addressing historical inequities and serving as a means for the realization of social justice. Through a window into a larger qualitative study with practicing secondary school teachers at a large, district high school in the southwest United States, I show how discourses of meritocracy at a micro level are reflected in the language of influential teacher professional organizations. I call on these organizations to examine how their use of language promotes meritocratic myths that homogenize diverse student populations and eclipse historical, Generational inequities that persist to this day.
REFERENCES
1) Althusser, L. (2014). The subjectivity effect of discourse. In J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discourse studies reader (pp. 83-88). Benjamins.
2) Anderson, N. (2021, December 16). Harvard won’t require SAT or ACT through 2026 as test optional push grows. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/12/16/harvard-test-optional-collegeadmissions/
3) Bartolome, L. I. (2007). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers. In P. McLaren & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 263-286). Peter Lang.
4) Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (2014). Debating diversity: Analysing the discourse of tolerance. In J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis (pp. 370-377). Benjamins.
5) Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Madrid, S., Otto, S., Shuart-Faris, N., & Smith, M. (2008). Discourse analysis in classrooms: Approaches to language and literacy research. Teacher’s College Press.
6) Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An introduction. Hodder Education.
7) Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.
8) Caldwell, T. (2012, May 16). College Board selects backer of Common Core school curriculum as new president. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/college-board-selects-backer-of-common- core-school-curriculum-as-new-president/?pagewanted=print
9) Dubofsky, M. & McCartin, J.A. (2017). Labor in America: A history. John Wiley & Sons.
10) Edbuild. (2019). 23 billion. https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion/full-report.pdf
11) Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 121-138). Sage.
12) Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
13) Feinberg, W., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). School and society (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
14) Frankenberg, R. (2020). The mirage of an unmarked whiteness. In S. Seidman & J. C. Alexander (Eds.), The new social theory reader (pp. 416-421). Routledge.
15) Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (50th anniversary edition). Bloomsbury.
16) Fuess, C. M. (1967). The College Board: Its first fifty years. College Board.
17) Garrison, M. J. (2009). A measure of failure: The political origins of standardized testing. State University of New York Press.
18) Gee, J. P. (2011). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (3rd ed., pp. 23-45). Routledge
19) Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey.
20) Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books
21) Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R. & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 385-404.
22) Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Edward Arnold.
23) Hampel, R. L. (2001). The origins of the Educational Testing Service. In Johanek, M. C. (Ed.), A faithful mirror: Reflection on the College Board and education in America (pp. 247-270). College Entrance Examination Board.
24) Haney López, I. (2006). White by law: The legal construction of race. NYU Press.
25) Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2009). Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and ability grouping in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.001
26) Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-62). Sage.
27) Kaestle, C. (1983). Pillars of the republic: Common schools and American society, 1780-1860. Hill and Wang.
28) King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity and the miseducation of teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133-146.
29) Kress, G. (2011). Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in education(3rd ed., pp. 205-226). Routledge.
30) Lemann, N. (2000). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
31) Lleras, C., & Rangel, C. (2009). Ability grouping practices in elementary schools and African/American/Hispanic achievement. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 279-304.
32) Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Brookings Institution Press.
33) Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid. Harvard University Press.
34) McIntyre, A. (1995). Making meaning of whiteness. State University of New York Press.
35) Nagel, T. (1989). A view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.
36) Nakayama, T. K. & Krizek, R. L. (1995). Whiteness: A strategic rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 8, 291-309.
37) National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2018, August 27). Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017/#/nation/achievement?grade=4
38) Ng, C. J. W. (2018). Metaphor. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 215-227). Routledge.
39) Riccards, M. P. (2010). The College Board and American higher education. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
40) Rist, R. C. (2016). On understanding the processes of schooling: The contributions of labeling theory. In A. Sadovnik, & R. W. Coughlan (Eds.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (3rd ed., pp. 71-82). Routledge.
41) Rogers, R. (2011). Critical approaches to discourse analysis in educational research. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (3rd ed., pp. 120). Routledge.
42) Sacks, P. (2000). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. Perseus Publishing.
43) Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Tai, R. H., & Klopfenstein, K. (Eds.) (2010). AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program. Harvard Education Press.
44) Schudson, M. S. (1972). Organizing the meritocracy: A history of the College Entrance Examination Board. Harvard Educational Review, 42(1), 34-69.
45) Spring, J. (2018). American education (18th ed.). Routledge. Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Polity Press.
46) van Dijk, T. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Sage. van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M.Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95-120). Sage.
47) Wise, T. (2011). White like me: Reflections on race from a privileged son. Catapult.
48) Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 185-193.
49) Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-13). London.
50) Yoon, I. H. (2012). The paradoxical nature of whiteness-at-work in the daily life of schools and teacher communities. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(5), 587-613.
Volume 06 Issue 12 December 2023
There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
Our Services and Policies
Authors should prepare their manuscripts according to the instructions given in the authors' guidelines. Manuscripts which do not conform to the format and style of the Journal may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected.
The Journal reserves the right to make any further formal changes and language corrections necessary in a manuscript accepted for publication so that it conforms to the formatting requirements of the Journal.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis will publish 12 monthly online issues per year,IJMRA publishes articles as soon as the final copy-edited version is approved. IJMRA publishes articles and review papers of all subjects area.
Open access is a mechanism by which research outputs are distributed online, Hybrid open access journals, contain a mixture of open access articles and closed access articles.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis initiate a call for research paper for Volume 07 Issue 05 (May 2024).
PUBLICATION DATES:
1) Last Date of Submission : 26 May 2024 .
2) Article published within a week.
3) Submit Article : editor@ijmra.in or Online
Why with us
1 : IJMRA only accepts original and high quality research and technical papers.
2 : Paper will publish immediately in current issue after registration.
3 : Authors can download their full papers at any time with digital certificate.
The Editors reserve the right to reject papers without sending them out for review.
Authors should prepare their manuscripts according to the instructions given in the authors' guidelines. Manuscripts which do not conform to the format and style of the Journal may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected. The Journal reserves the right to make any further formal changes and language corrections necessary in a manuscript accepted for publication so that it conforms to the formatting requirements of the Journal.