Bonding can be done in many ways. For many men across the globe, bonding comes in the form of sports talk or talk about women or their jobs. Yes, these are generalizations, but they’re still legitimate tactics of forming a bond. Words play a role in these situations as a means of professing one’s view on the discussion topic. But have you thought about how words themselves can unite? Let’s consider popular t.v. shows. On sitcoms like Seinfeld a list of terms are established through the episodes and characters’ experiences. You’d only know that George’s alter ego is named Art Vandeleigh if you watched the show regularly. And thus, a bond is formed.

    This bond is between you and the characters, with your shared experiences and vocabulary, and it is between you and other fans of the show. Unknowingly, you’ve created an alternate language, a type of exclusivity, for you and your group to use. In this way, you can simply and quickly relive 30 minute episodes or entire seasons with one word. You can convey a complex message, idea or relationship between characters with one phrase. I’ve often felt a false sense of comradery with those who enjoy the same television shows as I do. Though we’ve just met, I feel as if I have a history with this person, largely due to our shared knowledge of this show and its language.

    Such things can happen with movies as well. Consider the classic My Fair Lady. This was both a movie and a play, and has been popular for many years. People of both my generation, my parents’ and my grandparents’ generations can all understand what is meant by a comparison to Eliza Doollittle. Instead of discussing linguistic differences with intellectually intimidating words, one can simply bring up our dear Eliza and immediately have a better chance of conveying meaning to someone who may not have any experience studying linguistic patterns. Movies and television shows are seen by a wide variety of people, and in referencing the language they use, we are better able to make connections with one another quickly and effectively. 

​

​

​

A Prudent Program Plan

​

For schools throughout the United States to follow, so their teachers may provide fair and premium education to the nation’s youth.

​

    School is where children learn how to be citizens, and how to operate in society apart from their family unit. School is where they learn the written language, and how to communicate on paper. Yet, not all children are created equal, and it’s the instructor’s job to separate and categorize the youths in their classrooms. Before an instructor can determine how and whom to teach, they must first discover which children have an aptitude for learning, and pinpoint any behavioral issues which may arise. What follows is my proposal for how teachers may determine their students’ capabilities, separate the children, and provide them with knowledge.

    First, when the kids get to school, they should take their shoes off at the door, and put them in cubbies. The kids with holes in their socks can easily be labeled as lazy, slovenly, and careless. Additionally, since intelligence often comes from rigorous study and discipline, children who show signs of excessive laziness are likely unintelligent.  The students with holes in their socks often come from families which have a lazy mindset. This familial mindset shows what the child’s base knowledge is for learning, and how engaged they’ll be in the classroom. Since the children with holes in their socks are unintelligent and careless, there’s no sense in teachers providing them with the same instruction that they give to other students. Teaching children with holes in their socks is almost always a lost cause. Such children may even resent teachers for trying to help them learn proper English. In cases such as these, teachers are better off spending their time on the kids who have an established base knowledge of the subjects at hand, and are engaged and ready to learn. The students with a prior knowledge of the course material and a learning mindset will be those without holes in their socks. As earlier stated, the familial mindset model may help educators understand that some families prepare their children for school more than others.

    Socks are not the only way that intelligence and aptitude can be measured in the school setting. The state of a child’s socks is only an indicator, the first step in a rigorous system of learning and aptitude tests. In addition to the sock test, on the first day of school, teachers must examine the children’s nails. Depending on the color and shape of the nail, teachers will be able to discern the student’s genetic intelligence. Since variations may be difficult to determine, teachers may consult their classroom nail chart when conducting this exercise. The shapes, color, length, and texture of the nail should be taken into account. If the student’s nails are wavy, chipped, or long, they will likely have low genetic intelligence. If the nails are short, clean, and have a rosy hue, it logically follows that the child will have an excellent learning aptitude. In the 1920s studies confirmed these physical traits are indicative of human intelligence. Despite this study being discredited, many citizens still assert that those with wavy, chipped, and long nails are innately ignorant and therefore have the potential to become violent criminals, if not simply an unemployable burden to the rest of society. Often, the children with long, wavy, or chipped nails are the same as those with holes in their socks. There are too many correlations to ignore the pattern of children who are prone to laziness, a lack of intelligence, and crude behavior.

    When lunchtime comes, teachers must pay close attention to the eating habits of the students. Beyond the findings relating to a child’s familial environment and genetic aptitudes, studying how and what they eat will tell the teacher a great deal about how the child’s mind works. Therefore, teachers will want to take notes on the kinds of food the children eat, and the order in which they eat the food. First, teachers must note which children buy hot lunches from the school, and which have packed lunches. For students that buy lunch, teachers will note which items are eaten first. Since it is common knowledge that eating fruits and vegetables supports physical and mental well being, the student’s choice of when/if to eat these foods will showcase their personality and priorities. For instance, students who eat their fruits and vegetables first are apt to be more intelligent and mature than the students who eat their fruits and vegetables at the end of their meal. If the student does not eat the fruit or vegetables, they may have slower cognitive abilities, and might have difficulty listening to rules, and respecting authority. With children who bring packed lunches, the teacher will need to begin by noting the type of lunch container the child possesses.

    If the lunch is in a lunchbox, the teacher can be assured the student will be organized, and efficient in their classroom duties. If the lunch comes in a plastic bag, however, the student will likely be short-sighted and behave selfishly in the classroom. If the student brings lunch in a brown paper bag, they will almost certainly be an average performing student, with average intelligence. It may also be noted that students with paper bag lunches may be quiet and resistant to putting themselves into potentially embarrassing situations in the classroom. Such students should not be expected to raise their hands in class. After the packed lunch kids take their lunches from their lunch containers, apply the same rule to their eating habits as was used previously, with the kids who purchased lunches. Note the order in which fruits and vegetables are eaten. If there are no fruits or vegetables in the packed lunch, the child should be placed in the same group as the students that disregarded or discarded the vegetables from the hot lunch.

By following these simple tests and the aforementioned rubrics, teachers will be able to determine which students have familial/learned intelligence and good behavior, genetic intelligence, and a strong learning aptitude. These findings will allow teachers to project the future classroom behavior of their students by the end of the first school day. Teachers should use these findings to place students into the proper classes, and focus the bulk of their attention on instructing the students with a predisposition for learning.

    If students are unable to come to school with socks that do not have holes, bring lunch in a lunchbox or buy a hot lunch, eat their fruits and vegetables first, and take care of their nails, they are resigned to receive less attention from their teachers, and may leave school with less of an education than their more intelligent peers. For those who doubt this system, please consider: it is common knowledge in society that such placement tests exist. If parents take issue with these testing methods, let them be reminded that what they do at home is one thing, and how their kids behave at school is another. While one’s private life is not something the school system may control, when their children come to school, they must behave according to the school’s rules and standards. Parents will know what is necessary for a child to be academically successful, as parents themselves were likely submitted to similar tests when they were in school. Additionally, let it be repeated that these placement and aptitude tests are based on well-known societal conceptions.

    If the students who performed poorly in these evaluations are unable to be placed into classrooms which are separate from the academically gifted students, teachers must encourage the former not to talk in class so that their ignorance and bad behavior will not negatively influence the other children. This may be accomplished by correcting the former when they speak, and ensuring that any time they provide feedback in class, the teacher informs the students that they are wrong. Such discipline will show the academically gifted students what not to do, and will keep the bad students from speaking up. Though these methods may initially seem strict, they are in the child’s best interest. Remember, educators are tasked with making their students into model citizens. Additionally, teachers know what employers value, and must therefore help students subscribe to the behaviors which will lead to a good career, post academia. Also, upon receiving employment, teachers are subjected to the same tests. The school must only ask that if teachers are unable to change the color of their nails, they will paint or buff them sufficiently, so that students will not make assumptions about their teaching abilities.

 

 

Explanation of the “Prudent Program Plan”

    Jonathan Swift’s essay “A Modest Proposal” and his novel Gulliver’s Travels are helped reconstruct how I view government and society. In Gulliver’s Travels one society is described as dividing citizens based on how they eat corn on the cob. The comparisons between these groups of people become increasingly nonsensical, and are meant to parody political parties. Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” suggests that the poor citizens of Ireland eat their children so that their parents will no longer be hungry, and the children can serve a greater purpose. Swift’s portrayal of politics and his exaggerated solutions make readers recognize what is broken in systems of power, and how the rationales of reality may not make more sense than the ridiculous propositions in these works of fiction. Since Swift’s eighteenth century works, satire is still popular, with shows like the Colbert Report, and publications such as the Onion. Even the University of Michigan has a satirical newspaper. Satire allows one to make a joke out of serious topics, which in turn gives people a chance to heal, and take some power away from the things that scare them. For me, reading satire made me question the arbitrary rules and classifications of the world around me. Therefore, when tasked with advocating for language diversity and drawing attention to language discrimination, I decided to do so with satire. “Prudent Program Plan: For schools throughout the United States to follow, so their teachers may provide fair and premium education to the nation’s youth” is modeled off of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and tackles the issue of language discrimination in school systems.

    My proposal begins by suggesting that teachers separate children based on whether or not their socks have holes in them. In this example, the children with holes in their socks represent kids coming from low income families. Both socioeconomic class and race are factors in this proposal, since Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and kids from low income households have their language variety stigmatized due to their race, ethnicity, or bilingualism to the point that some would leave school being illiterate (Lippi-Green, 2012). A study conducted in 1997 which showed that education majors were associating errors in writing with laziness and incompetence (Lippi-Green, 2012). I used these findings to weave a narrative about how educators make assumptions about a child’s intelligence and level of engagement by using the child’s socioeconomic background and physical features as indicators of their abilities. Underlying much of the proposed results of the tests in the proposal is verbal deficit theory, the idea that those who do not speak Standard American English (SAE) must not be able to think as clearly as those who speak varieties of English resembling SAE. No matter the test, the result is that poor children of races other than the one in power are automatically assumed to be lazy and unintelligent.

    Near the end of the proposal I reword the primary concept behind the separate but equal motion, aiming to expose it as faux-egalitarianism which favors some students (often wealthy white ones) over others. To further the theme of some children being privileged in school, at one point in the proposal, it’s suggested that teachers keep the “unintelligent” or “bad” students from corrupting the others, by correcting their speech. When teachers continually correct certain varieties of English and not others, they effectively silence children (Lippi-Green, 2012). Part of the solutions suggested in the proposal is that the only way to successfully educate students is to make them all the same. One of the justifications for this, is that teachers discriminate because employers do, and therefore teachers discriminating is necessary if they’re going to ensure that their students get good jobs (Lippi-Green, 2012).

    Additional topics I thought were relevant to this discussion were standardized testing and free lunches. Both issues are widely discussed, and linked to the same discrimination which punishes children who’re bilingual or whose home dialect is not a prestige dialect of English. Standardized testing, though problematic, is still one of the primary ways schools determine a student’s intelligence and learning aptitude. Carl C. Brigham, creator of the SAT, was a known eugenicist. Yet, the SAT and tests like it are still used to determine a student’s intelligence, and are required for admission into community college and universities. The SAT was created with the hopes of proving African Americans are genetically less intelligent than whites. Continuing to use such tests in modern schooling is not only offensive, but ineffective. According to a recent article in The Washington Post, standardized tests “are unavoidably biased by social-class, ethnic, regional, and other cultural differences, unfairly advantage those who can afford test prep, penalize test-takers who think in nonstandard ways, [and] give control of the curriculum to test manufacturers,” amongst other things (Strauss, 2017). Therefore, by framing the proposals in my satirical essay as a set of tests, I’m hope to shed light on a few of the issues associated with the actual standardized tests being used in schools. My fictional tests, like standardized tests, are biased against kids from cultural backgrounds different from the norm, children from low economic households, kids who look physically different from the norm, and showcase the power the creator of these tests has in determining the standards. To strengthen this comparison I cite a study in the proposals which was conducted in the 1920s but later discredited, signaling the many tests associated with eugenics in America during that same time period. I then wanted to highlight the fact that even though those studies were based in racist stereotypes and yielded no scientific truths, many people in America use AAVE and wealth discrepancies to reassert the stereotypes of African Americans as lazy, unintelligent, and prone to violence and crime. In these racist descriptions present in the proposal, I use the word “burden” which was used in eugenicist literature and in Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” to refer to members of the lower class or those of less intelligence as a burden on the rest of society.

    The lunch tests in the proposal touch on the issue of providing children from low socioeconomic households with free lunches at school. Some schools refuse to give students a lunch if they have outstanding charges on their account, while others will provide such students with a cold cheese sandwich. The food that a child does or does not have when they come to school provides a glimpse of their home life. In my proposal, kids with the money to buy lunch are favored, while those with packed lunches are judged based off of the quality of their lunch container (lunchbox vs. plastic bag vs. paper bag). Another aspect to this test is if the child has access to and eats vegetables and fruits. A common stereotype is that poor people are overweight and eat unhealthy food. Yet, when one considers the cost of vegetables and fruit versus fast food or pre-packaged food, it’s clear that the healthy food is more expensive. Now add to this the fact that eating healthy food can affect a child’s physical and mental health, and their performance at school. In my satirical proposals, only half-truths are considered, which makes the arguments seem both partially convincing and entirely ignorant of reality. In the case of the lunch tests, I mention that kids who eat fruits and vegetables may have better academic performance without acknowledging the economic factors behind why some kids may not have access to these foods.

Lastly, my satire ends on the note of threatening the teachers themselves, while still insisting that their authority not be questioned. This ending is reflective of my opinions associated with language discrimination in schools. In English with an Accent, author Rosina Lippi-Green discusses teacher talk, and the fact that in the past, teachers with noticeably non-SAE accented English were not hired, or were removed from their positions (2012). This discrimination still persists, notably with graduate student instructors (GSI) at universities who’re accused of not speaking English or being unintelligible. While I wanted to draw attention to the fact that both students and teachers can be victims of linguistic discrimination, I also wanted to reassert that teachers are the ones who are reinforcing language discrimination in schools, and doing a disservice to students of color, bilingual students, those from lower socioeconomic households, and students who speak non-standard varieties of English.