Johnny Can't Talk, Either: The Perpetuation of the Deficit Theory in Classrooms

Author(s): Rebecca G. Eller

Source: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 42, No. 9 (May, 1989), pp. 670-674
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200272 .
Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:26:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Rebecca G. Eller

can't talk,
Johnny

either: The
perpetuation

of the deficit
theory

in classrooms

dents tend to experience high rates of failure in

school. This theory suggests that children from
Children labeled "verbally deficient" lower socioeconomic homes are verbally de
may simply be using language in prived due to economic disadvantage. Because

their own way tofit the situation. they lack verbal

enter
stimulation in their homes,
re
they school without the linguistic
sources needed for success.
The deficit theory further suggests that
At a recent meeting of teachers, I com children from the lower socioeconomic classes
mented that I didn't believe that any "cannot speak complete sentences, do not know
school aged child was an incompetent the names of common objects, cannot form
or
language user, unless of course the child hap concepts convey logical thoughts" (Labov,
pened to be brain damaged. I was bombarded 1985, p. 179), and consequently "ameagerness
with of quantity and quality of verbal expression
negative responses from teachers of young
children: ...serves to depress intellectual
"My remedial readers can't form functioning..."
complete sentences." "My children are unable (Raph, 1965). Thus the deficit theory claims
to use simple pronouns appropriately." that children from disadvantaged
"My re populations
medial students use short words and are intellectually disadvantaged as a result of
typically
sentences." inferior linguistic development.
Research in the early 70s essentially re
Probably unknowingly, these teachers are
what has been called the "deficit the
futed the deficit theory by demonstrating that
espousing
children from class cultures are highly
lower
ory" of linguistic deprivation. I will attempt
here to show how this theory, as it uncon competent language users when they are per
mitted to talk in their own vernacular in situa
sciously operates in the classroom,is largely
tions where they can maintain some degree of
based upon questionable assumptions about
and how it is used. control (Labov, 1985). In other words, what
language
we say and how we say it is largely determined
by what Halliday andHasan (1985) have called
Theoretical perspectives the "context of situation" in which the interac
The "deficit theory" emerged in the 1960s tion takes place: the topics being discussed, the
as an attempt to explain why disadvantaged stu personal relationship of the participants, and

670 The Reading Teacher May 1989

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:26:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the role of language in the interactive process. to demonstrate their linguistic competence
Many children, particularly those from a (Cazden, 1988; Edwards, 1982; Houston,
social class or subculture different from the 1970;Wells, 1986a, 1986b). This difficulty is
teacher's or researcher's, are likely to be reti
compounded by popular sentiments about the
cent in certain situations, particularly when superiority of Standard English over other lan
they are required to interact with an authority guage forms.
figure. Consequently, the actual deficit under
In addition, we often expect children to which some children may be operating is sim
give verbal elaborations (e.g., "use complete ply that their language may be perceived as
sentences") when responding to tasks for which deficient.
it would be entirely appropriate to use shorter
utterances.
Language use in classrooms
Thusif children respond to our queries in Most teacherswould deny that judgements
single words or phrases, it is now recognized are made about students based upon their home
that we need to look at the situation that pro
backgrounds (Haller and Waterman, 1985).
duced the response, rather than assume verbal This is understandable, for such decisions are
incompetence. generally unconscious and the criteria used are
often remarkably subtle (Mehan, 1987).
Language is symbolic Although theymay be unaware that they
Some would argue, however, that children are doing so, teachers continually the
appraise
who speak nonstandard dialects are linguisti capabilities of individual students by the way
cally deficient not because they have failed to they speak and by their ability to com
learn the rules of syntax, but because their lan municate in the classroom (Leibowicz, 1984;
guage system itself is inadequate. McDermott, 1974; Michaels, 1981; Rosen,
In the 1960s and early 1970s, for example, 1979; Wells, 1986a). I suggest that these
"
Bernstein argued that an "elaborated linguistic judgements are often based upon false assump
code?typically used by middle class fami tions about language and its use.
lies?is more useful in school settings because Consider the following scenarios:
it "facilitate^] the speaker in his attempts to
Scenario 1: The teacher and a small group
make explicit (verbally) his intentions,"
of children are looking at a wordless picture
whereas a "restricted code"-used by working book together.
class families-is not oriented toward verbal
Teacher (addressing one particular child):
expansion (Bernstein, 1986, p. 475).
Tell me what is in this picture.
Bernstein has received extensive criticism
Child: A dog.
for his failure to consider in his research the
Teacher:What else?
"context of situation" and the interactional nat Child: A tree.
ure of communication (Edwards, 1982; Labov, Teacher: There are other
things in the picture.
Child: A little house.
1985;Osser, 1983;Rosen, 1974;Wells, 1979).
Furthermore, linguists have shown that all Scenario 2: The teacher and a small group
language variations are equally systematic of children are discussing the vocabulary that
and complex (Horvath, 1977; Houston, 1970; will be found in a reading selection.
Labov, 1985). Teacher: Who can tell me what a squirrel is?
Therefore it cannot
be claimed that one Children: [no response]
is to Teacher: Has anyone seen a squirrel?
language system superior another; rather,
Children: [no response]
the differences are more symbolic in that they Teacher: Look! There's a squirrel outside in
represent social class stratification. Since that tree.
Standard English has traditionally been associ Child: Oh, you mean dat animal dat be out in
de tree!
ated with the upper class, it has been ascribed a
higher status in our society and hence in our These experiences were both recounted to
schools (Rosen, 1979; Stubbs, 1980). me recently as examples of verbal incompe
To summarize, it has been shown that all tence. Superficially, it does appear that these
children entering school are highly competent children are somehow lacking in language. In
language users; however, they may not find the first scenario, the child did not respond in
themselves in situations where they are able complete sentences; in the second instance, the

Johnny can't talk, either 671

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:26:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 children did not know the appropriate label tentially elicit a complete sentence as a re
for a squirrel. Yet it could be argued that in sponse, only question (4) requires a response in
both examples the children were responding the form of a sentence.
appropriately. I am not suggesting that these are "bad"
questions; what I am suggesting is that the pat
Right for the context tern of discourse that would ensue from such
Consider the first scenario. In natural con question-answer sequences, and one which
versations, truncated verbal sequences are typi seems fairly typical of most primary class
cal. In fact, itwould be unnatural to respond in rooms, does not permit a great deal of collabo
sentences. Responses such as "A dog ration and interaction between teacher and
complete
is in this picture" would seem artificial and student. Lacking is any real discussion or real
redundant. conversation which might take place in a less

Further, since both participants are able to inhibiting setting.

see the picture, the task itself is essentially situ I would argue that we ought not judge our
ation dependent in that the cues are available students' verbal proficiency unless we give
for reference and Murphy, them tasks that would provide a valid demon
(Simons 1986).
What is the point of telling another person what stration of that proficiency.
is in a picture when s/he is looking directly at
it? Produced, not inherent
We place children in a similar situation In the second
scenario, the teacher is as
when we ask them to retell a story that is al suming incompetence because the children do
ready known by the others in the group. Verbal not know the label for a common animal. This
elaboration is simply unnecessary, yet for a view is consistent with popular notions about
reason unique to the classroom, we expect literacy, which contend that students must be
elaboration (Golden and P?ppas, 1987). come "culturally" literate in addition to being
Even the comprehension questions found functionally literate (Hirsch, 1987).
in basal reading programs frequently do not re Certainly students will be at a disadvan
quire longer responses. The following example tage if they do not know familiar terms. We
illustrates this. (Questions have been excerpted must, however, differentiate between inherent
from Carousels, Houghton Mifflin Reading incompetence and produced incompetence?
Series, 1986, following the reading of Udry's incompetence which is created when we expect
"What Mary Jo Shared.") children from "other worlds" to be knowledge
able about "our world."
Questions and probable responses: Just as those of us from more privileged
(1)What didMary Jo share?Her father. backgrounds might find comprehension diffi
(2) How did she feel? Good, happy. cult when interacting with persons from other

(3) Did the other children think that shar cultures, we must be aware of such unrealistic
for our students. Instead of as
ing a father was a good idea? Yes. expectations
suming linguistic deficiency, we should begin
(4) How do you know that? They all to value our students' cultures at the same time
wanted to share their fathers.
we ask them to value ours.
(5) Do you think thatMary Jo's father felt
it wasimportant for Mary Jo to share
Acknowledging competence
Yes.
something? When children enter school, they are
(6) What makes you think that? Because placed in a different communicative environ
he came to school with her; because ment which has its own set of requirements and
he was willing to be shared. expectations. We assume that they will be able
to adapt to this environment and to use lan
(7) Do you think thatMary Jo will share
guage in a way new to them, and when
other things from now on? Yes. they
fail to do so, we tend to label them "verbally
(8) Why or why not? Because she was en
deficient."
couraged by the positive response The danger is that teachers' expectations of
from her classmates.
students often become self fulfilling prophecies
Although all of these questions could po (Rist, 1970). If we truly believe that our stu

672 The Reading Teacher May 1989

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:26:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
dents are verbally incompetent, then they may and with the teacher.
very well become verbally incompetent. Perhaps when classrooms become places
Further, our negative perceptions of our where valid exchanges between teachers and
students' linguistic abilities will be reinforced learners can take place, we will stop labeling
in typical classroom exchanges. In the words of children "verbally deficient" and begin to rec
Wells, "where the teacher has low expectations ognize their true competence as learners.
about a child's linguistic ability, the child's (en
tirely appropriate) behavior in restricting re
sponses to single words or phrases may provide Filer is a doctoral candidate in curriculum and
the teacher with evidence that serves to con instruction at the University of Kentucky in
firm those expectations" (1986a, p. 86). Lexington.
Current theories of reading suggest that
comprehension is a constructive process in
References
which children use prior knowledge to make
Bernstein, Basil. "ASociolinguistic Approach to Socializa
predictions and to create a model of the text as tion;With Some Reference to Educability." InDirections
read. use the inSociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication,
they Since reading and writing
edited by John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes. New York,
symbolic medium of language, the ability to
NY: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
both process and produce a text requires im Cazden, Courtney B. Classroom Discourse: The Language

plicit knowledge about the rules of the linguis of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
1988.
tic system.
Edwards, A.D. "Language Difference and Educational Fail
It is therefore difficult to understand how ure." Language Arts, vol. 59 (May 1982), pp. 513-19.
we can expect students to actively reconstruct a Golden, Joanne M., and Christine C. Pappas. "A Sociolin

text as they read if we believe they cannot ade guistic Perspective on Retelling Procedures inResearch
on Children's Cognitive Processing of Written Text." Pa
quately construct their own texts. How can we per presented at the National Reading Conference an
ask children to comprehend and produce writ nual meeting, St. Petersburg, FL, December 1987.

ten constructions if we doubt their ability to Haller, Emil J., and Margaret Waterman. "The Criteria of
Reading Group Assignments." The Reading Teacher,
produce acceptable spoken ones? vol. 38 (April1985), pp. 772-81.
I am not advocating that we abandon our Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context,
and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Per
attempts to teach Standard English to our chil
spective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press,
dren; certainly our society requires that most 1985.
adults be able to use the standard form when Hirsch, E.D., Jr. Cultural Literacy: What Every American
Needs toKnow. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.
appropriate. What I am suggesting is that we
Horvath, Barbara M. "Socioiinguistics and Reading." In
examine our own biases and avoid the tempta
Linguistic Theory: What Can ItSay about Reading?
tion to label children as being verbally inept edited by Roger W. Shuy. Newark, DE: International
Association, 1977.
when their language does not conform to our Reading
Houston, Susan H. "A Reexamination of Some Assump
own linguistic models. tions about the Language of the Disadvantaged Child."
We need to really listen to our students? Child Development, vol. 41 (December 1970), pp. 947
63.
on the playground, in the cafeteria, in their
Labov, William. "The Logic of Nonstandard English." In
own homes. When we do, we might be sur
Language and Social Context, edited by Pier Paolo
prised at the remarkable amount of knowledge Giglioli. New York,NY:Viking Penguin, 1985.
Leibowicz, Joseph. "ERIC/RCS Report: Classrooms,
about language that they have acquired in only
Teachers, and Nonstandard Speakers." Language Arts,
a few short years, and begin to reflect upon this vol. 61 (January 1984), pp. 88-91.
mystifying and phenomenal accomplishment. McDermott, Ray P. "Achieving School Failure: An Anthro
pological Approach to Illiteracyand Social Stratifica
Once we acknowledge the linguistic com tion." In Education and Cultural Process: Toward an

petence that our students bring to school, we Anthropology of Education, edited by George D.
can build upon this competence by providing Spindler. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1974.
diverse opportunities to interact in meaningful and In Interpretive
Mehan, Hugh. "Language Schooling."
situations. This would require that we have real Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad, edited
book discussions rather than merely ask chil by George Spindler and Louise Spindler. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987.
dren to come up with the answer that is in the "
Michaels, Sarah. 'Sharing Time': Children's Narrative
teacher's head; that we make creative writing Styles and DifferentialAccess to Literacy."Language in
an integral part of our vol. 10 (December 1981), pp. 432-42.
and written expression Society,
Osser, Harry. "Language as the Instrument of School So
language arts program; that we permit students cialization: An Examination of Bernstein's Thesis." In
to collaborate and negotiate with one another The Sociogenesis of Language and Human Conduct,

Johnny can't talk, either 673

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:26:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 edited by Bruce Bain. New York, NY: Plenum Press, Stubbs, Michael. Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguis
1983. tics of Reading and Writing. Boston, MA: Routledge and
Raph, Jane Beasley. "Language Development in Socially KeganPaul, 1980.
Disadvantaged Children." Review of Educational Re Udry, Janice May. "What Mary Jo Shared." Reprinted in
search, vol. 35 (December 1965), pp. 389-400. Carousels. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1986.
Rist, Ray C. "Student Social Class and Teacher Expecta Wells, Gordon. "Variation inChild Language." In Language
tions:The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy inGhetto Education." Acquisition: Studies in First Language Development,
Harvard Educational Review, vol. 40 (August 1970), pp. edited by Paul J. Fletcher and Michael Garman. Cam
411-51. bridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Rosen, Harold. Language and Class: A Critical Look at the Wells, Gordon. "The Language Experience of Five-Year
Theories of Basil Bernstein. Bristol, England: FallingWall Old Children at Home and at School." InTheSocial Con
Press, 1974. struction of Literacy, edited by Jenny Cook-Gumperz.
Rosen, Lois. "An Interview with William Labov." English Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
Journal, vol. 68 (March 1979), pp. 16-19. 1986a.
Simons, Herbert D., and Sandra Murphy. "Spoken Lan Wells, Gordon. The Meaning Makers: Children Learning
guage Strategies and Reading Acquisition." In The Language and Using Language to Learn. Portsmouth,
Social Construction of Literacy, edited by Jenny NH: Heinemann, 1986b.
Cook-Gumperz. New York, NY: Cambridge University,
1986.

? The McCrackens are

*P?N* internationally respected

<C? experts in primary education?
Their teaching methods are rich in
<rf
concept and content.
\^
4P
.* 'Words come alive and have meaning for the children
"
?P they can feel the joy and discovery within themselves.
Ar C.N., 2 teach
.eS grade
Sacramento CA

BEGINNINGREADERS
&&
?P -.?*F
RESOURCEBOOKS

POCKETCHARTS
\*
THEMES d?

The Reading Teacher May 1989

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:26:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions