A Change in Direction

After looking at the current discussion of the German school system, I've found that enough people have made the same arguments against it that I'm making. In order to contribute to the discussion of the system, I need to formulate something new. As a result, I've changed the direction of my thesis slightly. Instead of arguing for a change in the structure of the current system (which seems unlikely anyway), I'm going to put more power in the hands of the teachers. I'm going to research pedagogical methods that teachers can use to help immigrant students. Because of the tripartite system, my research will focus on primary school with the goal of increasing language proficiency before the students are tracked. This way, immigrant students will be more likely to be tracked into a higher level.

From my own study of second-language acquisition, I know of a few important factors in helping students to achieve language proficiency. First, language allows access to power. This means that even though I might think that all people have the right to employment, housing, etc. regarless of language, this is not the reality of the situation. As a result, I still have an ethical obligation to teach language. Part of this instruction can focus on code-switching; students speak differently at home than they do in a professional setting or with their friends. Placing an emphasis on code-switching rather than simply telling students that they have to learn proper English or German will help to create a more positive, constructive learning environment.

Second, language acquisition requires input. For students to have the most success, they will have to hear the target language spoken as much as possible. Many immigrant children have problems acquiring the second language because their families speak a different language at home. Therefore, elementary classrooms have to be as language rich as possible. This means interaction with teachers and other students as well as plenty of written language displayed in the classroom.

Third, children's language acquisition abilities diminish with time. According to critical period theory, children start to lose these abilities as early as age five. This means that there must be an emphasis on language development before students even start school. Concerned parents can enroll their children in daycare or preschool programs, provided that they can afford them.

I've just checked out about ten books on second language acquisition. I'll need to research how children learn language, but more importantly, how teachers can help students to acquire language. It would be useful if I could find testimonials from teachers in Germany who have had to teach German as a second language. I'm also in the process of contacting a school in Germany to interview a teacher who works with immigrants. In a crunch, testimonials from ESL teachers could work as well.

I'm going to enjoy this new approach to my thesis. It definitely has a bit of a Freirean flair to it, given that I'm empowering teachers and students in order to change a power structure from within. As I continue my research, I'll continue my posts.

Reflections on the Tripartite System

Word,
It's about time that I update this Blesis. When I initially created this site, I thought that is would be a good place to organize information that I had reading, so that when I actually began writing my thesis, I would have everything within a few mouse clicks. In theory, this was a nice plan, and I certainly think that it would work well for some students. In practice however, I found myself recording too many details, which resulted in me not wanting to do research. From now on, I'm going to use this site to discuss my opinions and feelings about the research that I'm doing.

I've been doing a lot of research lately on the German School System. Here is a diagram of how it works in Bavaria, which I found at http://www.nodai.ac.jp/cip/iss/en/full%20paper%20English/2006/2-1-4%20Germany%20fp%20Gareis%20.htm.



In a nutshell, it's a tripartite system which separates students after the fourth grade based on academic performance. Students either go into the Hauptschule, the Realschule, or the Gymnasium. From my perspective, this system seems like an effective way to categorize workers. If the system functions well, there will always be certain percentages of formal intellectuals, business people, technical workers (plumbers, electricians, etc), and unskilled laborers, all of whom are important for a national economy. In some of the German states, there is also the option to enter a Gesamtschule, which is a comprehensive school that is similar to the American high school.

During the occupation of the former German Democratic Republic by the Soviet Union, there was a movement toward a more comprehensive form of education. The downside of this was the excessive regulation of curricula by the government, which hindered true democratic thought and the free exchange of ideas. When West and East Germany reunited in 1990, the educational system of Eastern Germany began the process of transitioning to the tripartite system of West Germany. In recent years, the tripartite system has been questioned, but there is strong support for it, especially among parents from upper-class families. Many of these parents believe that their children will receive a poorer education if they are in school with less intelligent or lower-class students.

At this point, I have two main problems with the tripartite system. My first problem is with the separation of students after the fourth grade. Children in that age group vary widely in terms of cognitive development, which effects how they perform on assessments. Personally, I would have probably not been placed in the Gymnasium, and I would probably not be studying at a University today. When I was in elementary school, I struggled with math and reading. I remember crying in fourth grade because I didn't understand the differences between nouns and verb, and my teacher wasn't able to help me. When I began high school, I still had problems with grammar. As I got older, I was able to think more formally, and suddenly, I began to out perform all of my classmates in both grammar and language acquisition. Had I been in the German system, I would have already finished with high school, and I would be on my way to a technical career.

In addition to varying levels of cognitive development, students from immigrant families will have varying linguistic abilities in elementary school. For many students, school is the only place where they will have German spoken to them, and they may not have a strong enough command of German to succeed on the assessments. This is not simply a problem with the tripartite system. For German language learners (and for English language learning back here in America), there have to be plenty of opportunities for practice. These can including after-school and weekend programs which focus on language development, and more importantly, preschool programs in which students are frequently spoken to. My second problem is related to the perceived function of school itself. The tripartite system seems quite focused on social differentiation and economic success. In addition, the system operates on the assumption that it is necessary to receive vocational training while still in secondary school. I, along with plenty of developmental psychologists, would argue that socialization is the most important aspect of adolescent education. High school provides students with the opportunity to interact with many different diverse groups of people, many of which would not interact on a regular basis (such as aristocrats and immigrants). While the tripartite system allows for more student-specific learning, a comprehensive approach allows students to learn what they need to while allowing students to interact with others.

At this point, I have two directions that I can go with this thesis. On one hand, I can work from a sociological perspective, assessing the effect that the tripartite system has on immigrant populations, and what this effect has on German society as a whole. On the other hand, I can work from a psychological perspective and research the advantages and disadvantages of the tripartite system for immigrants based on how it effects their development.

Peace,
Matt

Notes for "Cultural and Social Diversity: An Analysis of Minority Groups in German Schools

Notes for: Werning, Rolf, Jessica M. Löser, and Michael Urban. “Cultural and Social Diversity: An Analysis of Minority Groups in German Schools.” Journal of Special Education 42.1 (2008): 47-54). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Alcuin Lib., Collegeville, MN. 27 June 2009 .

This article is a short summary of the problems that students from low socioeconomic and immigrant backgrounds face in the German school system. Nothing in this article is especially revolutionary, but it provides a good amount of background information for my project.

Problems with the School System

The article begins by describing the German school system as one which divides students into homogeneous groups based on academic performance. Werning, Löser, and Urban seem to favor a more heterogeneous and inclusive school system. The authors' thesis statement is as follows: “In this article, we show that the German school system still follows the traditional orientation of constructing homogeneous learning groups in different forms of schools. We also point out that this strong institutional grading leads to inequities when educating children from low socioeconomic or immigrant backgrounds” (47).

The authors provide some useful statistics about the immigrant population in the German school system. As of 2003, “9% of students in Germany do not have German citizenship, 22% have at least on parent who was born in a country other than Germany, and 8% have family languages other than German” (47). With this large of an immigrant population, the German school system is obligated to accommodate this population.

The School System Itself

For the past month, I have been looking for a source which provides an overview of the German school system. Unfortunately, this search been unsuccessful. In this article, Werning, Löser, and Urban give a brief description. Here are a few quotes that I may want to reference later:

• “Its basis is formed by 4-year primary schools, which all children aged 6 to 10 years are obliged to attend” (48).
• “After fourth grade, children are selected to attend different schools designed with different levels of education. These different types of secondary schools include basic secondary schools (Grades 5 to 10: Hauptschulen), the general level (Grades 5 to 10: Realschulen), and advanced secondary schools (Grades 5 to 12: Gymnasium)” (48).
• “In addition to the general school system, one can also find eight different types of special schools” (48).

Unfortunately, this description is insufficient for my purposes. I will need to continue to search for a more detailed summary. During my time in Germany, I listened to a speaker who discussed the school system, and he said that one of most common criticism of the system is that the system does not include those students who have special needs. The authors state that “[o]nly 12.9% of students with special needs were educated in inclusive setting in 2003” (48).

The main body of the article is divided into sections that discuss the state of both students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and students from immigrant backgrounds in both the general school system and the special education system. For the sake of time, I will only summarize the information about the immigrant students, but the information about the other students is quite relevant to my thesis as well, since both of these groups are connected by the same social forces.

Students from Immigrant Backgrounds in the General Education School System

Some statistics:

• “The first PISA study showed that in Germany, 20% of 15-year-old students whose parents had immigrated to Germany belonged to the category 'very weak reader,' 50% had not achieved the basic level of competency, and only 2% had achieved a very high level of competency in reading” (49).
• “Furthermore, this annual survey of school statistic showed that only 8.9% of the immigrant group achieved the [basic] academic certificate, in contrast to 24.3% of German students” (49).
• These statistics give numbers and percentages to what I already knew: students with immigrant backgrounds are doing poorly in the German school system. However, they do not indicate what the cause of this poor performance, nor do they suggest a solution.

Students From Immigrant Backgrounds in Special Education

Another statistic: “On the basis of official data approximately 84.5% of immigrant students attending special schools had not obtained basic secondary school certificates at the end of their compulsory schooling” (51).

From this data, the authors infer that “[t]he situation of children and their families from immigrant backgrounds can be conceptualized as multisystemic exclusion. The families' exclusion from citizenship and their marginalization in the possibilities to participate in the economic system and in their access to the labor market are linked with strong restriction in their children's potential for educational success” (51). Once again, I am already aware the this inference, but this statistic should be useful for my project.

Perspectives on Cultural and Social Diversity in German Schools

The authors conclude the article by applying educational psychology to homogeneous school settings. They write, “It can be stated that students' early segregation into different schools with different qualification levels after the fourth grade produces a homogeneous grouping within each school” (51). They then argue that below-average students learn better when they are in a heterogeneous environment and that a heterogeneous environment does not detract from the education of above-average students. They also state that homogeneous environments can cause below-average students to develop a poor self image (51-52). This stems from the fact that they go to a school which can be perceived as a school for unintelligent students. Summarizing their argument, the authors write, “Overall, it becomes evident that the German school system must develop inclusive structures to support the development of students who are from low socioeconomic or immigrant backgrounds” (52). I agree with the arguments that Werning, Löser, and Urban make, and I appreciate the statistics that they have gathered. However, they only suggest an inclusive school system as a possible solution to the problems that students from low socioeconomic and immigrant backgrounds experience. With my research, I need to determine whether or not an inclusive system is a solution that will work and whether or not it can be implemented successfully. I also need to research other possible solutions and form my own. This article has complicated my research in a wonderful way in that I now realize that I should apply my knowledge of educational psychology to this thesis. This will no doubt make this project more difficult, but the final product will be better as a result.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapters 3 and 4

It's been a while since my last blog post, and the simple explanation for this is my summer-related laziness. I found chapters three and four to be much more convoluted than the first two. While I found them insightful, I felt that they could have been written more succinctly. Anyway, instead of my normal mini-essay which summarizes the chapters, I'll simply provide some quotes that I found useful or insightful. Here's a simple summary: chapter three talks about dialogue and chapter four talks about anti-dialogue.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 3

• Dialogue is an encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world. Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming – between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them (88).
• Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people (89).
• Dialogue further requires an intense faith in humankind, faith in their power to make and remake, to create and recreate, faith in their vocation to be more fully human (which in not the privilege of an elite, but the birthright of all) (90).
• Founding itself upon love, humility, and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal relationship of which mutual trust between the dialoguers is the logical consequence (91).
• Finally, true dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking – thinking which discerns an indivisible solidarity between the world and the people and admits of no dichotomy between them – thinking which perceives reality as process, as transformation, rather than as a static entity – thinking which does not separate itself from action, but constantly immerses itself in temporality without fear of the risks involved (92).
• Many political and educational plans have failed because their authors designed them according to their own personal views of reality, never once taking into account (except as mere objects of their actions) the men-in-a-situation to whom their program was ostensibly directed (94).
• The revolutionary's role is to liberate, and be liberated, with the people – not to win them over (95).
• It is not our role to speak to the people about our own view of the world, nor to attempt to impose that view on them, but rather to dialogue with the people about their view and ours (96).
• It is as transforming and creative beings that humans, in their permanent relations with reality, produce not only material goods – tangible objects – but also social institutions, ideas, and concepts (101).
• I consider the fundamental theme of our epoch to be that of domination – which implies its opposite, the theme of liberation, as the objective to be achieved (103).
• The fact that individuals in a certain area do not perceive a generative theme, or perceive it in a distorted way, may only reveal a limit-situation of oppression in which people are still submerged (103).
• Every thematic investigation which deepens historical awareness is thus really educational, while all authentic education investigates thinking (109).
• In contrast with the antidialogical and non-communicative “deposits” of the banking method of education, the program content of the problem-posing method – dialogical par excellence – is constituted and organized by the students' view of the world, where their own generative themes are found” (109).

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Chapter 4

• The first characteristic of antidialogical action is the necessity for conquest (138).
• The desire for conquest (or rather the necessity of conquest) is at all times present in antidialogical action. To this end the oppressors attempt to destroy in the oppressed their quality as “considerers” of the world. Since the oppressors cannot totally achieve this destruction, they must mythicize the world (139).
• As the oppressor minority subordinates and dominates the majority, it must divide it and keep it divided in order to remain in power (141).
• Dividing in order to preserve the status quo, then, is necessarily a fundamental objective of the theory of antidialogical action (145).
• It happens, however, that large sectors of the oppressed form an urban proletariat, especially in the more industrialized centers of the country. Although these sectors are occasionally restive, they lack revolutionary consciousness and consider themselves privileged. Manipulation, with its series of deceits and promised, usually finds fertile ground here (148).
• For cultural invasion to succeed, it is essential that those invaded become convinced of their intrinsic inferiority (153).
• Cultural invasion is on the one hand an instrument of domination, on the other the result of domination (154).
• “Cultural revolution” takes the total society to be reconstructed, including all human activities, as the object of its remolding action (158).
• To divide the oppressed, an ideology of oppression is indispensable. In contrast, achieving their unity requires a form of cultural action through which they come to know the why and how of their adhesion to reality – it requires de-ideologizing (173).
• Cultural action is always a systematic and deliberate form of action which operates upon the social structure, either with the objective of preserving that structure or of transforming it (179).

By the way, here's some MLA stuff:

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. 30th Anniversary ed. New York: Continuum, 2000.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapter 2

In chapter 2, Freire discusses two different approaches to education: the banking approach and the problem-posing/liberating approach. In this post, I again am organizing some quotes and ideas from his work so that I can reference them later.

Banking Education

Freire begins the chapter by stating that "Education is suffering from narration sickness" (71). He goes on to describe the banking system of education by writing, "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the "banking" concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing deposits" (72).

This creates an ethical dilemma, because this type of education does not recognize the full humanity of the students or teacher. Freire writes, "For apart from inquiry, apart from praxis, individuals cannot be truly human" (72). In addition, banking education creates a situation that is favorable for the oppressors. Freire writes, "Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in "changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them"; for the more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated" (74).

Freire begins to suggest an alternative to banking education. He says that the students may eventually realize what the system is doing to them and rebel against it, but he feels that someone needs to step in before that happens. In one of the most blatantly gender neutral (in a good way) lines that I have ever read in my life, he writes, "But the humanist, revolutionary education cannot wait for this possibility to materialize. From the outset, her efforts must coincide with those of the students to engage in critical thinking and the quest mutual humanization. His efforts must be imbued with a profound trust in people and their creative power. To achieve this, they must be partners of the students in their relations with them" (75). He also emphasizes that banking education cannot succeed as a pedagogical system because it fails to recognize the humanity of those it serves: "Because banking education begins with a false understanding of men and women as objects, in cannot promote the development of what Fromm call "biophily," but instead produces its opposite: "necrophily" (77). He then makes a Fanonian argument by commenting on rebellions that happen due to the desire to act as an effective individual: "Populist manifestations perhaps best exemplify this type of behavior by the oppressed, who, by identifying with charismatic leaders, come to feel that they themselves are active and effective. The rebellion they express as they emerge in the historical process is motivated by that desire to act effectively" (78).

Problem-Posing/Liberating Education

The alternative to the unidirectional banking system is of course something more dialogic. Freire refers to this as problem-posing or liberating education. He begins with a few pedagogical statements to ground his argument. He writes, "Liberation is praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it," (79) and "Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferrals of information" (79). Freire seems to be suggesting ideas with mirror those of cognitive educational psychologists, and he seems to be refuting some of the ideas of behavioral psychologists. Problem-posing education puts people in a context, and it forces them to work out ideas for themselves rather than simply receive information from a teacher. This helps the students begin to understand the reality of their own situation. Freire continues, "Education as the practice of freedom-as opposed to education as the practice of domination-denies that man is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a reality apart from people," (81) and "In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation (83). In this system of education, students are able to see themselves as agents and are partially responsible for what they become and how they act. In banking education, the teachers have the power to prescribe what their students do, think, and become.

Summary

Freire concludes the chapter nicely by summarizing his ideas about education:

"In sum: banking theory and practice, as immobilizing and fixating forces, fail to acknowledge men and women as historical beings; problem-posing theory and practice take the people's historicity as their starting point" (84).

"A deepened consciousness of their situation leads people to apprehend that situation as an historical reality susceptible of transformation" (85).

Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Chapter 1

Notes for Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

In this blog post, I will summarize the main ideas in the first chapter of Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed and add a few comments. I am writing this post in order to organize his argument and also to collect some quotes which I have found insightful and useful in my own project.

Introduction of dehumanization and the process of rehumanization:

In the beginning of chapter 1, Freire explains the dichotomy between oppressors and those that they oppress. His argument is similar to the one that Frantz Fanon makes in The Wretched of the Earth, but in my opinion, it is much clearer. His main idea is that in a binary system of oppression, both the oppressors and the oppressed are dehumanized. According to Freire, only the oppressed can begin the process of rehumanization. He writes, "This, then, is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves" (44). Freire points out one of the problems that occurs when the oppressed begin to rebel, writing, "But almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or 'sub-oppressors.' The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors (45).

Freire then discusses the fear of freedom from which oppressed people suffer. He writes, "The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by consent, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion" (47). This is one of the problems that Freire attempts to deal with in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In one sense, it is easier to remain oppressed than to take action and fight oppression because one's actions are dictated by the oppressor. Rehumanization and the attainment of freedom require conscious action and effort.

After discussing the fear of freedom, Freire asks, "How can the oppressed, as divided, unauthentic beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation?" (48). With this question, he introduces his pedagogy.

The Pedagogy of the Oppressed

In order for the oppressed to rehumanize themselves, they must become aware of the reality of their oppression. Friere discusses this, writing, "Reality which becomes oppressive results in the contradistinction of men as oppressors and oppressed. The latter, whose task it is to struggle for their liberation together with those who show true solidarity, must acquire a critical awareness of oppression through the praxis of this struggle" (51). In pedagogical terms, this theoretical, or critical, awareness must be accompanied by action, or praxis. He states, "The pedagogy of the oppressed, as a humanist and libertarian pedagogy, has two distinct stages. In the first, the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis commit themselves to its transformation. In the second stage, in which the reality of oppression has already been transformed, the pedagogy ceases to belong to the oppressed and becomes a pedagogy of all people in the process of permanent liberation. In both stages, it is always through action in depth that the culture of domination is culturally confronted" (54). He also restates how the oppressors and the oppressed become human again by stating, "Whereas the violence of the oppressors prevents the oppressed from being fully human, the response of the latter to this violence is grounded in the desire to pursue the right to be human. As the oppressors dehumanize others and violate their rights, they themselves also become dehumanized. As the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors' power to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they had lost in the exercise of oppression" (56).

Some issues

Freire also discusses some issues that are relevant to the topic of rehumanization. The first issue is that of the oppressors needing to accept a lower standard of living after rehumanization. He writes, "But even when the contradiction is resolved authentically by the new situation established by the liberated laborers, the former oppressors do not feel liberated. On the contrary, they genuinely consider themselves to be oppressed... Any restriction on this way of life, in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights-although they had no respect for the millions who suffered and died of hunger, pain, sorrow, and despair" (57). This may be one of the most difficult obstacles in the struggle for universal human rights. In a world with total racial, ethic, and economic equality, etc., the quality of live for the average American or German would be significantly lower. (However, the rapid advancement of technology since Freire wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1970 offers hope for an increased average standard of living). This decline in the standard of living is difficult for most oppressors (including myself) to accept, since without the exploitation of others, I probably wouldn't be wearing the clothes or shoes that I'm wearing, or working on my computer while having no concerns other than my thesis and what I'm doing next weekend.

Finally, Freire introduces a new issue: people like me. He writes, "[A]nother issue of indubitable importance arises: the fact that certain members of the oppressor class join the oppressed in their struggle for liberation, thus moving from one pole of the contradiction to the other... they almost always bring with them the marks of their origin: their prejudices and their deformations, which include a lack of confidence in the people's ability to think, to want, and to know... A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust" (60). While I'm not a German, nor am I actually doing anything that will directly help immigrants in Germany (lest Chancellor Merkel actually reads my thesis), I am certainly not oppressed and I am defending a group of oppressed people. Freire offers valuable advice for me: I have to trust the group that I am working with and I have to believe that they are capable of taking action. In a certain sense, I must become one of them, not separate from them. Freire offers more advice, "Political action on the side of the oppressed must be pedagogical action in the authentic sense of the word, and, therefore, action with the oppressed. Those who work for liberation must not take advantage of the emotional dependence of the oppressed" (66). He also states that, "The correct method lies in dialogue" (67).

So far, my understanding of Freire's pedagogy is that it is a method of helping the oppressed to critically understand their situations and to understand what action needs to be taken in order to destroy the system which dehumanizes both the oppressed and the oppressors. As I continue to read the book, I'll continue to post summaries here.

The connection to India and new questions

A reflection on:

Roy, Modhumita. "'Englishing' India: Reinstituting Class and Social Privilege." Social Text 39 (Summer 1994): 83-109. JSTOR. Alcuin Library, Collegeville, MN. 9 March 2009.


Although this article seems out of place in a thesis on the German educational system, the questions posed by Modhumita are similar to those that I have already asked. In addition, her critique of the colonial educational system created by British colonizers provides a good example for how to form such a critique. Here, I will reflect on her article and its relationship to my thesis.



The biggest difference between India and Germany is the reversal of the signifier native. In India, the native population was the one that was colonized and subjugated. In contrast to India, it is the immigrants and minorities in Germany who have are disadvantaged.


One of Modhumita's main points in her essay is that the presence and function of English as a language of instruction in India is not as simple as it appears to be. She writes, "This history is inflected and informed by the social and economic aspirations of the emerging middle class and the urban elites, as well as the contingencies of a rapidly expanding empire. The institution of English as the official language cannot be reduced to the currently fashionable story that sees the imposition of English simply as a British strategy for counteracting the rebellious actions of Indians" (84). In my own work, I need to make sure to root my argument as deeply as possible in a historical and social context. At this point, I have the assumption that there is a correlation between Germany's sudden transformation into a Wirtshaftswunder (economic wonder) after World War II and the immigration of Gastarbeiter (guest workers) to Germany. Although I feel that this assumption is rather sound, I need to push it away to a corner of my mind while I research the historical and social context that has created the problems that immigrants face in modern Germany.



This article also inspired the following questions:

1. Is there some sort of hegemonic relationship between native Germans and immigrants?
   
2. What is the function of education for immigrants? i.e. What motivation do immigrants have for being successful in school?
   
3. What do immigrants have to say about the educational system?
   
4. Although not mentioned in the article, reading it reminded me of Marx and Fanon. Can the theories of Marx and Fanon be applied to the German situation?