Language Diversity in the Classroom - ymerleksi - home

84 Language Diversity in the Classroomsocial pluralism is seen to represent an enriching aspect of the largersociety, not something to be eradicated.Some researchers have questioned the frequent assertion one withwhich I concur that schools are middle-class institutions. If they arenot, might it be the case that the home-school discontinuity fordisadvantaged children is not, after all, significantly more marked thanfor their non-disadvantaged counterparts? This interesting possibilitywas noted, for example, by several contributors to a discussion ofpoverty edited by Feagans and Farran (1982), and the particularemphasis was upon linguistic variance. Tough (1982: 14) noted, forexample, that learning in many schools is a passive activity, and thatteachers’ talk dominates classroom dynamics; in that and other ways, shesuggested, ‘many schools operate in a way that is similar to thedisadvantaged home’ (i.e. where, it is alleged, patterns of communicationare frequently more authoritarian than interactive; see following chapters).Snow (1982: 258) stated that it would be hard to make a strong case‘that classrooms are much more like middle-class than like lower-classhomes’. And Farran (1982) remarked that schools are definitely not likemiddle-class homes: they are more rigidly didactic, they are bureaucratic,they emphasize rules and regulations, and so on.However, while the classroom is obviously not a clone of the familysitting room, the notion that the former is not, after all, a middle-classsetting confuses the procedures of schooling with its institutional ethosand its intentions. To claim, on the basis of procedures alone, that ahome-school discontinuity does not apply particularly to lower-classchildren is to ignore possible discontinuities based upon the purposesbehind such procedures: these soon become apparent, are more relevantthan the procedures, and may well lead to more difficulties for thedisadvantaged child.Compensatory Intervention?From a ‘difference’ perspective, the notion of compensatory educationis clearly rejected, since it implies that there is something deficient tobe improved or replaced. A difference position emphasizes above all,the need for schools to change, and to accommodate to the needs ofthe disadvantaged child: this need not mean a replacement of what thechild brings to school, but rather an acceptance of the value of allbackgrounds. Still, rejecting a ‘replacement’ policy does not rule outattempts to enhance, broaden or add to children’s repertoires; suchattempts characterize more recent language programs, for example (see