Becoming an ‘honours student’: the interplay of literacies and identities in a high‐track class

Abstract

This paper examines some intersections among school literacy events and practices, identity formation, and the institutional practice known in the US as tracking. During a year‐long, critical ethnographic study to examine how a team‐taught, interdisciplinary curriculum impacted the development of students’ literacies, it was found that not only the literacies, but also identities, were being shaped and developed. Particular literacy events led the students to perceive that they were being encouraged to think of and comport themselves in distinct ways, based on their status as ‘honours students’. Classroom practices created a culture of privileged performativity for the students through which they came to perceive that recognition as an ‘honours student’ had less to do with deep, intellectual, and critical understanding and communication of important ideas than with the ability to perform in specific, rather superficial ways. For the participants, ‘honours’ identity was tied discursively and materially to a set of constructs that stemmed from competing and contradictory views about how one becomes an ‘honours student’. Key literacy events and practices through which ‘honours’ identity was recruited and enacted were inherently undemocratic, despite the teachers’ stated commitment to democratic pedagogies.

Keywords:

• critical theory
• honours curriculum
• integrated curriculum
• literacy
• self‐concept
• track system

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Michael Apple, Ellen Brantlinger, and Katherine McKnight for their invaluable comments on drafts of this paper. I also thank the students and teachers of Oakton High School who generously shared with me their work, ideas, and experiences.

Notes

1. E.g. Brantlinger (2007), Humes (2003), Ogbu (1995), Page (1990a, b), Pope (2001), and Taylor et al. (2002).

2. All names of students, teachers, and schools in this paper are pseudonyms. Interview data and a speaker’s responses are noted with a speaker’s initials and the date (day/month/year), e.g. HF: 17/5/00; field notes are noted by ‘FN:’ and the date (day/month/year), e.g. FN: 25/8/99.

3. For a more complete account of the programme’s effects on students’ literacies across different grouping configurations, see Smith (2001).

4. E.g. Alvermann et al. (1998), Barton et al. (2000), Edelsky (1996), Gee (1996, 1999a), McCarthey and Moje (2002), Pérez (1998), and Street (1995).

5. See Freire and Macedo (1987), Bloome and Bailey (1992), Street (2001), and Hagood (2002).

6. See Rosenbaum (1976), Oakes (1985), Page (1990a, b), and Ireson et al. (2002).

7. See Finn (1999), Oakes (1985), and Page (1989, 1990a, b).

8. E.g. Willis (1977), Oakes (1985), Wheelock (1992), Pool and Page (1995), and Brantlinger (2003).

9. E.g. Gamoran and Berends (1987), Schindelman and Szoo (1991), Talbert et al. (1993), Lindle (1994), and Slavin (1995).

10. E.g. Camarena (1990), Valli (1990), and George (1995).

11. E.g. Brantlinger (1994, 2003) and Brantlinger and Majd‐Jabbari (1998).

12. A term made popular by a song in the movie, Mary Poppins (Stevenson 1964).

13. This name was offered by a football player who explained it to the class as ‘You know, we’re jocks—we wear those big, long tube socks’. Other readings of this name are, of course, possible. First, US athletic culture often includes references to the idea that a man’s foot size and the size of his genitalia are linked. Similarly, the word ‘jock’ refers not only to an athlete but also to a male athlete’s jock strap. In either case, needing big socks—having big feet—or needing a big jock strap would indicate that one has a large penis. A more self‐deprecating reading suggests that a man less well endowed might stuff his jock strap with socks. These different possible double entendres were left unspoken. Marie later indicated that the teachers had thought it would better to downplay the situation and accept the boys’ explanation at face value rather than to draw attention to the implications. When the teachers wrote the name on the board throughout the year, they abbreviated it as ‘JWBS’ in an attempt to minimize the sexual and gendered connotations (MS: 4/9/01).

14. E.g. Garrick and Clegg (2001), Gee et al. (1996), and Senge (1990).

15. E.g. Glasser (1992, 1998) and Senge et al. (2000).

16. This same sign was, of course, visible to the students who occupied that classroom space in the afternoons, students who were part of one of the ‘heterogeneous’ sections of the programme. Although my study did not include data generated with these students, I often wondered how the sign affected them.

17. Scheduling challenges prevented Helena from completing a semi‐structured interview until May. At that point, the students and I had discussed topics related to ‘honours’ status. I find Helena’s response interesting for the fact that she simply assumes a comparison between ‘gifted’ classes and ‘normal’ classes.

18. Personal communications: PM; 25/10/05 and MW; 28/10/05.