UPSET THE SETUP: EXPLORING THE CURRICULA, PEDAGOGY, AND STUDENT EMPOWERMENT STRATEGIES OF CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATORS
Mark Andrew Carnero B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2012 M.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2014
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING 2017
Copyright © 2017 Mark Andrew Carnero All rights reserved
ii
UPSET THE SETUP: EXPLORING THE CURRICULA, PEDAGOGY, AND STUDENT EMPOWERMENT STRATEGIES OF CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATORS
A Dissertation
by
Mark Andrew Carnero
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
______Dr. Caroline Turner, Chair
______Dr. Margarita Berta-Avila
______Dr. Dale Allender
SPRING 2017
iii
UPSET THE SETUP: EXPLORING THE CURRICULA, PEDAGOGY, AND STUDENT EMPOWERMENT STRATEGIES OF CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATORS
Student: Mark Andrew Carnero
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this dissertation is suitable for shelving in the library and credit is to be awarded for the dissertation.
______, Graduate Coordinator ______Date
iv
DEDICATION
To the educators and students at the frontlines of this resistance work. Makibaka! Huwag matakot!
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was born from a community of support. These words of recognition will never truly encapsulate the impact you have made on me. Thank you to my doctoral committee, your brilliance and dedication to this dissertation has been an inspiration. To my chair, Dr. Caroline Turner, thank you for your guidance, your love for qualitative methods was infectious, and you have truly strengthened my skillset as researcher. To Dr. Dale Allender, thank you for supporting this project with your critical pedagogical expertise. I am happy that our work together will not stop here, I am proud to continue organizing alongside you in the community. To Dr. Margarita Berta-Avila, it was an honor and a privilege to learn from you; your mentorship, counseling, friendship, critical intellect, and passion for social justice has been invaluable to my growth as an educator and scholar, thank you for the wisdom and constant motivation; I am excited to continue in this resistance work with you. To Dr. Manuel Barajas, your mentorship and support during my Master’s thesis gave me the confidence and knowledge to excel in this doctoral program, thank you. To my Ate, Dr. Angela-Dee Alforque, I will always consider you one of my first mentors; you made me believe that we Filipino-Americans deserve a place here in academia, salamat. To the critical social justice educators featured in this dissertation, thank you for allowing me to share your voice. Your narratives of resistance will always fuel my work. Thank you to my ancestors and elders, my Nana, Tata, Lola, Lolo, Auntie Emy, Ate Kristine, and all my family who have passed, your blessings are always felt. To my parents, Lea and Vio, thank you for all of the sacrifices you have made to get me here. I dream big because of you. Thank you for supporting all of my imaginative paths, my successes are a reflection of the unending faith you have in me. To my Mom, I am privileged to be your son, thank you for showing me how to love, and what it means to be strong; your cooking has always kept my belly and my heart full. To my Dad, thank you for your patience, love, loyalty, and friendship. To my sister, congratulations on becoming a nurse, I am excited and happy to graduate with you, and I am so proud of the woman you have grown up to be. To my Tita Lita, thank you for your generosity, the home you have given me, your constant support, and for having faith, I would not be here without your help. To my mother in-law and father in-law, Gloria and Nelson and again to my parents, Lea and Vio, you all are a wonderful team of grandparents, thank you for dedicating so much of your time, energy, and travel to help raise my son. To my wife and best friend, Trisha, thank you for your unconditional love, support, and selflessness throughout this entire process. I could not have done this without you. Your belief in me has made every one of my farfetched dreams seem attainable. I feel lucky to share my lifetime with a woman like you. Tiwala always. To my son, Makaio, no matter what I accomplish in this life, you will always be what makes me most proud. Thank you for giving me purpose. Dream but don’t sleep. vi
CURRICULUM VITAE
Education
Ed.D California State University Sacramento, Educational Leadership May 2017
M.A. California State University Sacramento, Sociology May 2014
B.A. California State University Sacramento, Sociology May 2012 Honors
Professional Employment
Specialist II, Sacramento City Unified School District 2016-Present
Lecturer in Sociology, Sacramento State University 2015-Present
Youth Services Specialist, Sacramento City Unified School District 2014-2016
Program Manager, People Reaching Out 2010-2015
Publications
“Rebirth of Slick- Ciphering in Community Spaces to Remix Educator Praxis” 2017 Journal of Educational Administration
Fields of Study
Critical Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Social Justice, Youth Development, Youth Engagement, Education, Colonization, Colonial Mentalities, The Filipino American Identity
vii
Abstract
of
UPSET THE SETUP: EXPLORING THE CURRICULA, PEDAGOGY, AND STUDENT EMPOWERMENT STRATEGIES OF CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATORS
by
Mark Andrew Carnero
This phenomenological study examined the narratives of seven high school critical social justice educators in Northern California. The study explored each educator’s social justice paradigm development, curricula choices, pedagogical approach, strategies for student self-empowerment, processes for challenging traditional schooling, and their future outlook on public education during “the 45 era.” Critical Theory
(Horkheimer, 1982) and Critical Pedagogy (Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008; Freire,
1972; Giroux, 2001; 2010; 2011) served as the main theoretical framework of this research. Rich qualitative data was taken from in-depth interviews and multiple classroom observations with each educator. The research concluded with the discovery of seven important findings: 1) Each critical social justice educator’s paradigm has been shaped, influenced, and informed by critical mentors, politicized past experiences, and interactions with their own students 2) The educators navigated three types of curricula in providing a critical social justice education: the institutionalized standards, the counter- curricula, and the protective curricula, 3) building strong relationships with students and fostering environments that built critical consciousness and opportunities for critical viii
praxis were key pedagogical strategies for these educators 4) critical social justice educators alter the physical environment of the classroom, affirm student voice and identity, and offer invaluable tools for the future to aid their students in self- empowerment 5) these educators combat traditional schooling by embodying and promoting the critical social justice educator paradigm 6) the advancement of a critical social justice educator paradigm has forced these educators to experience distinct forms of alienation, stigmatization, and discrimination at their school sites 6) these educators acknowledge that the 45 era has created a troubling socio-political landscape for many communities and has prompted an aggressive degradation of public education; however, they offer words of critical hope, challenging all educators to stay grounded in their resistance work towards social justice.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Dedication ...... v
Acknowledgements ...... vi
Curriculum Vitae …………………………………………………………………………....vii
List of Tables ...... xiv
List of Figures ...... xv
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...... ……………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………. 2
Significance of the Study ...... 7
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………... 11
Research Questions………… ...... ……………13
Theoretical Framework...……………………………………………………………13
Conceptual Model……...……………………………………………………………16
Definition of Terms ...... 17
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 21
Colonial Schooling: Exploring the Historical Mis-education of the United States. .. 22
The Colonial Era’s Key Contributions to United States Schooling...... 24
Common School Era and Beginnings of Public Schooling...... 27
Normal Schools & Collegiate Teacher Training Institutes...... 28
Colonized Classrooms...... 30
Boarding Schools, Freedmen Schools, and the U.S. Department of Education...... 34
x
Important Education Initiatives in Fast Forward...... 36
Traditional Schooling...... 42
Classrooms and Cell Blocks All One in the Same...... 46
Critical Reflections on the Education Timeline...... 53
The Theoretical Essence of the Critical Social Justice Educator Paradigm...... 56
Critical Theory, The Critical Family Tree, Educator Identity, and a Unified Vision. 56
Critical Educators...... 57
Critical High School Teachers & Critical Pedagogy...... 59
Critical Praxis...... 66
Social Justice Youth Development Theory...... 67
Never Stagnant, Always Forward...... 73
Conscientização: Critical Consciousness...... 73
Effects of Enacting the Critical Social Justice Educator Paradigm...... 75
The Impacts of Critical Social Justice Education for Teachers...... 76
The Impacts of Critical Social Justice Education for Students...... 79
Conclusion...... 82
3. METHODOLOGY ...... 84
Research Design …………………………………………………………………… 84
Role of the Researcher ………………………………………………………… ... …85
Research Questions ………………………………………………………………… 86
The Research Setting …………………………………………………………… .. …88
Population and Sample …………………………………………………………… ... 92
Data Collection Process …………………………………………………………… . 95
xi
Instrumentation & Post Interview Analysis ……………………………………… ... 96
Protection of Participants ………………………………………………………… ... 98
Validity …………………………………………………… ...... …………………100
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ...... 101
Politicized Paradigms …………………………………………………… .. ……… 104
Naming the Practice ……………………………………………… . ………………104
Social Justice Roots ……………………………………………….. ………………109
Students Teach Us...... 110
Always a Student...... 112
Reflections...... 120
The Revolution Between School Bells...... 120
Curricula: The Conscious Navigation ...... 121
Protective Curricula...... 132
Pedagogy: Shaping Social Justice Environments...... 136
Building Relationships...... 136
Critical Activities and Strategies...... 144
Student Self-Empowerment...... 151
Physical Environment...... 152
Voice and Identity...... 157
Tools for the Future...... 160
Honor in Seclusion ...... 163
Resistance in the 45 Era ...... 170
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………… ... 177
xii
Interpretation of the Findings...... ………………….…………..………………179
Research Question 1 ...... 179
Research Question 2 ...... 183
Research Question 3 & 4...... 187
Research Question 5 ...... 191
Research Question 6 ...... 194
Final Findings Model ...... 195
Recommendations...... 197
Recommendations for Future Research...... 199
Reflections of the Researcher...... 200
Final Note to the Reader...... 200
6. APPENDICES ...... 202
Informed Consent ...... 203
Example of Thematic Coding of Interview Transcripts ...... 205
7. REFERENCES……………………………………………………….. ……………… .. 207
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Ethnic distribution of CA public school teachers……………………………….….. 9
2. Interview Questions and Probe……….…………………………………….………..86
3. Crystal District Student Enrollment…………………………………………...…….91
4. Crystal District Certificated Teachers…………...………………………..…………….91
5. Demographics of Participants…………………. ……………………………....….….. 93
6. Interview Locations, Start Times, and Duration.…………………………………...…. 95
7. Robby’s Classroom……..……………………………………………………………..125
8. Bel’s Classroom…….…..……………………………………………………………..127
9. Aylah’s Classroom…………..……………………………………………………..….130
10. Antonio’s Classroom.….……..……….……….…………………………….………...131
11. Bel’s Classroom.….……..……………………………………………………….…....137
12. Tina’s Classroom...……..……………………………………………………………..140
13. Andres’ Classroom……..……………………………………………………….…….173
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The Critical Social Justice Paradigm……………………………………………………. 16
2. American Progress by John Gast…..……………………………………………………. 30
3. The Critical Praxis Model………………….……………………………………………. 67
4. Various Political Posters in Classrooms...…………………….…………………………. 153
5. We the People by Shepard Fairey…………………………….…………………………. 154
6. Various Cultural Elements from Classrooms……………………………………………. 155
7. Multicultural Authorship Library Selections.……………………………………………. 156
8. Combatting Traditional Schooling Model….……………………………………………. 192
9. Critical Social Justice Educator Findings Model….………….…………………………. 196
xv
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Study
Teaching can become a radical act of resistance when it is rooted in critical social justice principles; in the wrong hands, it can become an insidious tool for oppression.
Educators have the power to aide students in their journey towards self-liberation or conversely force them into deeper conditions of state-sanctioned subjugation.
Classrooms across the United States exist within this duality of being proletariat reproduction factories and birthplaces for social change agents. Teachers navigate the borders of this dichotomy by choice. Their character, curricula, pedagogy, and innate intentions can create two pathways for students: awake or asleep.
Sleep reflects a state of unrecognized oppression and cognitive disconnect in realizing humanity’s social problems. Sleep is the “culture of silence” which relegates people naïve and voiceless in their own oppression (Freire, 1972). Sleep is an education that stresses state mandated standards but lacks a critical perspective. Sleep denotes the apathetic docility created by traditional K-12 public schooling, which leaves students devoid of the social agency necessary to challenge power structures that benefit White
Capitalist elites (Apple, 2001; Darder, 2012; Kumashiro, 2012). “Sleep is the cousin of death (Jones, 1994).” Ending the sleep cycle requires a disruptive revolutionary awakening.
The awakened state is produced through cyclical processes of critical investigation and a persistent analysis of self-identity, societal power dynamics, socio-
2 structural inequalities, and global domination practices. Awake is a state of critical consciousness that remains attune to the universal human condition (Freire, 1972). Awake is the motivation behind the dismantling of systems which propagate worldwide oppression. “Woke” is a term, created by the millennial activist generation, to reflect the
“conscious” mind that recognizes, examines, and confronts historical and present day social injustices (Black Lives Matter, 2016). For youth to “stay woke,” requires a dedicated, well trained, teacher movement, entrenched within critical pedagogy, wholeheartedly committed to the art of teaching through a critical social justice paradigm.
Statement of the Problem
This dissertation looks extensively into the identities, perceptions, teaching philosophies, and actions of critical social justice educators. Specifically, the study poses this question: “How do Northern California high school critical social justice educators combat traditional schooling through their curricula development, classroom pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies?
This dissertation problematizes oppressive traditional schooling practices as the causal root for the phenomena of student sleep. Critical social justice educators, their curricula, and their paradigm towards teaching are integral for shifting student and societal ideas around traditional schooling and social issues including but not limited to power, injustice, race, social class, social agency, gender, sexuality, ableism, and environmentalism (Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008; Freire, 1972; Giroux, 1989;
Giroux, 2001; 2001; Kumashiro, 2012; McLaren, 2007).
3
Historically, traditional primary and secondary schools in this country were not designed to combat social issues of this nature. The United States public education institution instead has served as a conduit for strengthening some of these systemic problems through its divisive teaching practices; the system has catered to few while marginalizing many (Apple, 2001; Kumashiro, 2004). Past and present national education reforms have placed a rigid curricular emphasis on subject areas like science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and English-literacy skills while utilizing high stakes testing methods to evaluate all students (Darling-Hammond, 2007;
Kumashiro, 2015). Subject areas focusing in socio-emotional health, the arts, positive identity development, student organizing, social advocacy, ethnic and cultural pride, non-
European historical perspectives, and social justice have been pushed to the periphery.
State and federal education entities argue that student mastery in STEM and literacy will foster innovation throughout the country, raise our nation’s global competitiveness, and build a more intelligent, democratic populace (CA Dept. of Ed., 2016; U.S. Dept. of Ed,
2016). Unfortunately though, inequitable academic resource distribution, unequipped school infrastructures, and poorly trained teachers, have stunted this United States dream, creating a racial, ethnic, gender, and class based disproportionality in both opportunity and achievement within the U.S. education system (Darling-Hammond, 2012; Gregory,
Skiba, and Noguera, 2010; Lubell and Putman, 2016; Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, and
Maczuga, 2016; Howard, 2015; Reardon, 2013; Valenzuela, 1999). This disproportionality is echoed in the capitalist economic market with a hyper segmented population separated by degree attainment, subsequent income earnings, housing, health,
4 incarceration rates, and overall life outcomes (Ewert, Sykes, and Pettit, 2014; Roksa,
2011; Rothstein, 2015; Wassleman, Gee, and Ro, 2013).
Alongside this segregation of the population (happening more covertly perhaps) is the disempowerment of some students through education, especially historically disadvantaged populations (ie. Indigenous students, English Learners, Low-Income,
Urban Youth of Color, and Foster Youth) through a purposeful undoing of their social agency through multiple forms of traditional school-based oppression. Young (2014) asserts that these disadvantaged students experience a distinct process of oppression marred by marginalization, violence, powerlessness, exploitation, and cultural imperialism which immobilizes their ability to persist within the education system and the society at large. Moreover, this oppression, is normalized and blinding; students become so oppressed they cannot recognize their own oppression, let alone the oppression of others (Freire, 1972). These systemic oppressions are at the core of student disengagement, widening achievement gaps, the school to prison pipeline, and intergenerational academic disenfranchisement (De Castella, 2013; Daly et al., 2016;
Dee, 2015).
Traditional schooling consigns students to an unconscious state of sleep and indifference, leaving them uninspired to challenge the vast social problems that surround them (Castells, Flecha, Freire, Giroux, Willis, Macedo, 1999). Critical social justice educators are key agents in the student awakening process. These educators foster environments for students to liberate their own consciousness and actualize their boundless intrinsic power to challenge the education system. This is why critical
5 educators are indispensable to global social justice movements and so dangerous to the education system at large; they are both the catalyst for oppressed student’s self- awakening and the trigger for destroying the traditional schooling system they exist within.
Critical social justice educators are essentially informed by two core principles:
Social Justice and Critical Theory. Social justice can be defined in many ways. The term has origins in multiple fields of study including philosophy, education, economics, sociology, ethnic studies, and social work, all of which have similar but distinct differences in their definition. For the purposes of the study, a unification of these definitions will be utilized to represent both the possibilities and parameters of the term.
Social Justice is both a process as well as an outcome, something that can be both sought after and achieved; it is not attained easily nor is it won without struggle (Adams et. al,
2013). It is the product of change centered thinking and revolutionary actions necessary for addressing, challenging, deconstructing, and decolonizing the multiple institutions that dominate and disconnect humans in our global society (Tuck and Yang 2012; Fanon,
1963). It is born from giving the most marginalized communities a seat at the table while creating an equitable platform to share and humanize their narratives and voices (Giroux,
2011; Ringstad, Leyva, Garcia, and Jasek-Rysdahl, 2012). Democratic, collectivist, solidarity driven collaboration is paramount in any sustainable movement towards this type of justice.
Social justice can be pursued through any topic of study in the formal education institution, so long as the investigation of that subject is conducted through a critical
6 theory approach and is geared towards re-appropriating power into the hands of the oppressed. (Adams & Bell, 2016; Freire, 1972; Fanon, 1963; Said, 1979; Giroux, 1989;
2001; Giroux, 2010; James & Ginwright, 2002; Macleod, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate
1994; Rawls, 1968). Critical Theory is a conceptual framework that urges social scientists to both examine and act; first, thoroughly examine socio-historical, structural, power systems that impinge on human society, and then act against those systems for the betterment of the society at large (Horkeheimer, 1982). Educators who embrace the critical social justice paradigm, transform traditional schooling institutions into emancipatory training grounds for future social justice advocates.
The narratives and pedagogy of critical social justice educators need to be acknowledged, understood, and translated into meaningful, long-term, professional development trainings for other teachers, so that more people can understand the paradigm necessary for creating a social justice shift in the classroom and community.
Developing generations of youth rooted in critical theory and social justice thinking can create boundless opportunities for oppressed communities and can perhaps grow cohorts of future critical educators and social justice change agents.
In order to influence this next generation of social justice minded students, teachers must be provided multiple opportunities to receive critical pedagogical training.
Informing the thinking and pedagogical practices of seasoned teachers may be difficult but can be made possible through intentional, rigorous, critical preparation and ongoing professional learning (Zepeda, 2012). However, a greater opportunity may lie in developing future teachers who are still in college or are just entering the field.
7
Significance of the Study
There is a growing teacher shortage problem in California (CA). Compounded by both the recession and ongoing retirement wave, CA will need to hire more than 100,000 teachers within the next ten years (Learning Policy Institute, 2016). This figure may balloon even larger given the high turnover and burnout rate within the state; almost 20% of CA teachers leave the profession within the first 5 years, sometimes faster in high poverty schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). These statistics, though alarming, present a great opportunity.
These 100,000 new teachers could become the vanguard for a specialized critical social justice approach to education. In training, certificating, and recruiting the next
100,000 teachers needed to fill this impending shortage, there should be an intentional focus in utilizing a critical social justice based preparation curricula to inform their teaching paradigm.
Critical social justice curriculums have shown to have positive effects on both students and pre-service educators. Research has suggested that social justice based curriculums validate narratives and experiences of marginalized communities, build capacities for accepting diverse identities, creates opportunities to lift up and share student voice, decreases socio-political apathy, builds cross-demographic interpersonal relationships, strengthens bonds within and towards personal communities, and builds hope within disenfranchised populations (Canlas, Argenal, and Bajaj, 2015; Duncan-
Andrade and Morrell, 2008; James and Ginwright, 2002; Scorza, 2013; Sleeter, 2015;
8
Ginwright, 2015; Mirra, Morrell, Cain, Scorza, and Ford, 2013). These learning effects are especially important for teachers who may not share a similar racial or ethnic identity, economic reality, culture, socialization process, or lived experience with their students.
Like many other states, there is a problem with diversity in CA’s teaching staff.
Specifically, the teacher population is not representative of CA’s student’s racialized citizenry or economic background. Almost 50% of teachers in CA are lower-middle class, White females. The next largest segment is White males, representing about 17% of the total teacher population (CDE, 2016). Table 1 below details the disparity in teacher diversity throughout the state. This racial and ethnic mismatch is significant in that it presents multiple ancillary problems. First, researchers have suggested racial, ethnic, and cultural differences between teachers and students can have negative effects on academic performance, student behavior, and student discipline (Boykin and Noguera,
2012; Dee, 2005; Egalite, Kisida, and Winters, 2014; Skiba et. al, 2009). Second, researchers argue that teacher training in culturally responsive pedagogy is essential for deconstructing racial, cultural, and social barriers between White teachers and students of color (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2010; Matias, 2009; Safford and Bales, 2010). Third, since CA is having “difficulty” with racially equitable hiring practices, “whiteness” as a concept and a societal privilege needs to be addressed when preparing the White majority educator force for teaching in classrooms predominately filled with students of color
(Matias, Viesca, and Garrison-Wade, 2014; Emdin, 2016).
9
Table 1
Ethnic distribution of CA public school teachers: 2014–15 (CDE, 2016)
Ethnicity Number of Male Number of Female Total Teachers Teachers American Indian or 475 1,052 1,527 Alaska Native Asian 3,662 12,331 15,993 Pacific Islander 264 675 939 Filipino 1,134 3,173 4,307 Hispanic or Latino 15,033 39,956 54,989 African American 3,448 7,929 11,377 White (not Hispanic) 51,401 140,285 191,686 Two or More Races 648 1,637 2,285 Not Hispanic No Response 3,149 8,773 11,922 Total* 79,214 215,811 295,025
Social justice teacher training curricula can be utilized for addressing the present reality of having White, middle class majority, teaching cohorts. Perhaps more importantly, these curricula address the need to inform the paradigms of these majority
White cohorts to challenge their political positionality in relation to cultural knowledge gaps, empathy gaps, implicit biases, and White privilege (Cameron-Wedding, 2014;
Chang, 2016; Safford and Bales, 2011). Research has suggested that critical social justice teaching preparation has produced positive effects with White cohorts, building within them a capacity to address their own privilege while raising their likelihood of engaging and becoming allies to students and communities of color (Alimoa, 2012;
Mclaren, 2007; Porfilio and Mallot, 2011; Stachowiack and Dell, 2016). Critical social justice curricula has proved useful in examining these aforementioned issues stated above while also addressing systemic issues of race and power dynamics (Harris, 2012). It is
10 important to note however, that teachers of color also need and can also benefit from this type of pedagogical paradigm shift, especially if their teaching practices replicate the oppressive traditional schooling structure or White supremacist ideology (Emdin, 2016).
Most CSU single-subject teacher credentialing programs require one year of varied coursework and student teaching to qualify for a teaching credential (CSU, 2016); critical social justice training should be integrated throughout that course load to better prepare them for working with CA students. Similarly, social justice professional development opportunities have the potential to alter and affect teaching practitioners who already have multiple years of experience in the classroom. The need for retraining veteran teachers and providing them a critical social justice professional learning experience that can inform their pedagogical paradigm is vital to changing schools and education institutions as a whole.
The historical training that CA teachers have received over the past few decades has done nothing to shrink the multiple disparities between “disadvantaged” (ie. EL, low income, foster) students and their White counterparts (Boykins and Noguera, 2012; Hill and Ugo, 2016; Howard, 2015; Reardon, 2013). Recent studies have shown as much as a
70% gap in Math and English Language Arts scores between disadvantaged students and
White students in CA. A national study conducted by NAEP highlighted a 25-point difference between Black and Latino students and White students in Math and Reading
(U.S. Dept of Ed, 2014). The non-critical emphasis on standards based education practices throughout the country and CA specifically have created disproportionate achievement gaps segmented by language, race, and social class (Gregory, Skiba,
11
Noguera, 2010; NCES, 2015, CDE, 2016). Additionally, the country’s historical focus on forcibly infusing White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) culture and behavioral idealism into the education institution has had vastly negative implications on student power, youth voice, and disproportionate discipline practices (Zeldon, Bestul, and
Powers, 2011; Mitra, 2014; Redfield and Nance, 2016).
Regardless of the education reform agenda in place, these disproportionate gaps have persisted. Recent research has shown that the gap between English Learners (EL), low-income, and high-needs students has in fact widened since the inception of the
Common Core era (Hill and Ugo, 2016). CA teacher prep programs cannot keep the same trend of teacher development because it has had historically negative implications for disadvantaged students and marginalized students in urban schools (Duncan-Andrade and Morrel, 2008; Emdin 2016; Mclaren, 2007; Safford and Bales, 2011). Why not try another strategy? Why not train teachers in a way that brings power back to the disenfranchised student groups that they serve? Why not use critical social justice principles to attain educational equity?
Purpose of the Study
Much research exists on social justice as an interdisciplinary study that focuses on specific caveats like power, race, social class, gender, and sexuality (Weis and Fine,
2000; Davis, 1983; Collins, 1999; Rawls, 1968, Adams et al., 2013). Previous research has also taken focus on items like the student effects of critical social justice implementation within the classroom (Camarotta and Fine, 2008; Lushey and Monroe,
2015; YDSS, 2016; O’Conner and Cosner, 2016; Mirra, Morrell, Cain, Scorza, and Ford,
12
2013; Pulido, 2006; Canlas, Argenal, and Bajaj, 2015). Past research has also examined the critical foundations which inform these various social justice classroom approaches
(Duncan-Andrade and Morrel, 2008; Mclaren, 2007, Giroux, 2001). However, there is a gap in addressing what principles that critical social justice educators value and actually integrate into high school curricula, how they construct, deliver, and teach their curricular content specifically to high school students, what types of student empowerment strategies they employ in the classroom, and how these intentional actions combat traditional schooling. Finding ways to inform these gaps in the literature could aid in the sustainable development of high school critical social justice educators and the overall promotion of social justice for our society at large.
This study fills a gap in the critical social justice oriented literature by providing audiences with a glimpse of what practicing high school teachers view as integral elements to a social justice based education and curricula. Additionally, it highlights the pedagogical paradigm employed within classroom settings that critical social justice educators view as necessary for providing a social justice education and building student critical consciousness. Teachers and those developing pre-service preparation programs can benefit from this research because it will provide insights on the importance of utilizing critical paradigms to combat oppressive traditional schooling practices. This research could aid executive education leaders in understanding how the persistent use of historical traditional schooling strategies can create oppressive environments for students.
Additionally, education leaders may use this research to develop a new culture at their school sites centered on the promotion of social justice curricula and critical paradigms.
13
Research Questions
There are multiple research questions that are answered throughout this dissertation: First, how do high school critical educators conceptualize social justice?
Second, what do critical educators view as essential curricula to a high school social justice education? Third, how does the educator’s paradigm of social justice manifest itself through pedagogy? Fourth, how do critical social justice educators empower their students? Fifth, do these educators utilize their critical social justice paradigm, curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies to combat traditional schooling? Finally, what do these educators think about the place of critical social justice education given the current socio-political climate?
To answer these questions, a qualitative, phenomenological approach was used.
Personal interviews and classroom observations were the main sources of qualitative data. Merriam (2009) highlights that this type of methodology focuses on the lived experiences of the participants of the study. The goal of analyzing these interviews and observations was to find the core themes that conjoin or differentiate the realities of these educators. This method is the most equitable and inclusive, in that, the educators themselves were given the opportunity to validate their own narrative through their own choice of words and expressions.
Theoretical Frameworks
In understanding this phenomena of critical social justice educators, two main theories have been employed: Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy. The main tenets of
14 these theories are discussed in short summation below but will be elaborated in detail in
Chapter 2.
Critical Theory
Critical Theory is presented as the foundational theoretical perspective which underpins this entire dissertation and all subsequent theories that are discussed throughout. Critical theory is a conceptual process which problematizes and challenges structures of power. The theory revolves around the idea that the all socio-historical context is integral for understanding present day power imbalances and inequalities
(Horkeheimer, 1982). Integral to this theoretical perspective is the idea that theory should be used for the advancement of social change for oppressed groups.
Critical Pedagogy
Critical Pedagogy is a teaching paradigm and the application of critical theory to the field of education. Central to this approach is the idea that teachers are responsible for creating learning environments which can be used as platforms for challenging multiple systems of power (Duncan-Andrade and Morrel, 2008; Giroux, 1989, 2001;
McLaren 2007). Multiple strategies to enact a critical pedagogical approach are also included in literature review.
Within Critical Pedagogy, the sub-theories of praxis, critical consciousness, and social justice youth development theory are introduced also. It is important to note however, that these theoretical components are discussed in this dissertation as sub-points to critical pedagogy and not stand alone theoretical frameworks. These sub-theories are discussed in short summation below.
15
Praxis. The theory of Praxis as presented by Friere (1972) is process of shifting critical thought into action. Praxis represents the catalyst for sparking social movements.
This theory also provides a foundational basis for the social justice youth development theory highlighted below.
Conscientização: Critical Consciousness. Critical Consciousness theory describes what can be accomplished after students receive a critical education. It is the cognitive recognition of a world of oppressions both experienced individually and shared with other members of society. Freire (1972) reminds those that have reached this mental state that it is not enough to just know, that knowledge must be acted upon for the betterment of oppressed people.
Social Justice Youth Development Theory. The Social Justice Youth
Development (SJYD) Theory as presented by James and Ginwright (2003) uses 5 key principles when collaborating with youth: Making Youth Identity Central, Embracing
Youth Culture, Encouraging Students to Analyze Power in Social Relationships,
Promoting Systemic & Social/Institutional Change, and Encouraging Collective Action.
The SJYD theory was developed with the idea that the educators should use social justice fundamentals in all interactions with youth whether it be in a classroom space or collaborative setting. SJYD theory lifts up the idea that youth have power, assets, and intelligence, all of which should be elevated and utilized for the advancement of their communities and surrounding environments. It is important to mention that the SJYD theory incorporates other theoretical concepts within each of its five principles.
16
Integration of Theories
The theories above represents the essential components to a critical social justice educator paradigm. Critical theory and Critical Pedagogy are integral theoretical bases for educators who hope to disrupt systems of power through teaching. These theoretical frameworks inform the practice of critical social justice educators and in turn affects how they impact societal institutions.
Conceptual Model
Figure 1. The Critical Social Justice Paradigm Model.
17
Figure 1 highlights the interplay between the two main theoretical frameworks, the educator, students, traditional schooling, and the broader society. The model shows
1) the symbiotic relationship between teachers and students 2) how teachers and students work together to make institutional change 3) how critical theory and critical pedagogy affects the ways in which educators and students work towards institutional change and
4) how traditional schooling, the direct environment, and the broader society serve as the oppressive context for working towards social justice.
Definition of Terms
Critical- A paradigm which analyzes and challenges systems of power (Horkeheimer,
1982)
Curriculum- The ways in which teachers attain student learning objectives (Salehi &
Mohammadkhani, 2013)
Education- is the process by which teachers assist students in learning specific sets of knowledge, skills and cultural processes. Education frequently takes place under the guidance of educators, but learners may also educate themselves (Dewey, 1944).
Social Justice- the critical thought and action necessary for addressing, challenging, deconstructing, and changing the multiple institutional and systemic barriers that both oppress and disconnect humans in our global society (Adams et. al, 2013; Friere, 1970;
Giroux 1989; 2001; 2007; James and Ginwright 2003; Ladson-Billings 1994; Rawls,
1968; Ringstad, Leyva, Garcia, and Jasek-Rysdahl, 2012; Tuck and Yang 2012).
Social Justice Education – a curricula that is centralized in critical theory, critical pedagogy, and social justice principles (Adams et. al, 2016).
18
Oppression- Freire (1972) argues that oppression is any instance where an individual has their humanity taken from them. Humanity he describes, includes a host of things including but not limited to: freedom, labor rights, political rights, civil rights, human rights, access to resources, ancestral land, and the ability to write history (Freire, 1972;
Borunda, 2012).
Pedagogy- the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept (Bruner, 1960; 1966; McNamara, 1994).
People of Color- humans who identify and/or are classified by race or ethnicity as Non-
White. Importantly this designation links groups of people together through shared experience, specifically experiences rooted in systemic injustices of power and oppression (Borunda, 2011).
School- the physical location where formalized, traditional curricula are taught and received (Giroux, 1989).
Teacher- a person who provides an education to students.
Traditional Schooling- the transmission of formalized and traditional curricula which is rooted in standardized academic content, work skills, and behavioral conditioning
(Giroux, 1989).
White- humans who do not identify nor are classified as People of Color. This form of identity connotes a societal position and place of racial privilege (McIntosh, 1989).
Youth- a person whose age is between 15-24 years old (Unesco, 2014)
19
Limitations
This study focuses on self-identified critical educators, who have membership to one or more social justice collectives, within Capitol District, Plains Land District, and
Crystal District, all situated within Nor-Cal County. The participants in this study were selected using a purposive judgmental snowball sampling technique. In using this method to select teachers, I leaned heavily on referrals from critical social justice educators living and working in Nor-Cal County. This sample is not representative of all critical social justice educators in the field. As this is a qualitative study, the results will not be generalizable to larger populations.
I am making several assumptions as the sole researcher of this dissertation. First,
I am trusting that the critical social justice educators who have volunteered or were referred are truly involved in social justice education promotion in a Nor-Cal County high school. Second, I am trusting that the social justice educators included in this study are implementing the curricula and pedagogical strategies they describe during the interview process. Third, I am trusting that the multiple classroom visits and teaching observations that I made with each educator are a realistic representation of their everyday practice.
As the principal investigator, I have several biases that must be disclosed. First, I am a 31 year old, 2nd generation, Filipino-American, lower-middle class, cis-gender, able- bodied, heterosexual, male whose intersectionality has shaped my ideals as well as my life experience. Second, I am both a K-12 educator and a college lecturer in the field of
Sociology; I have almost ten years of experience in the field of youth development and
20 three years of experience in college teaching. Lastly, I consider myself a critical educator and have created sociology based social justice curricula that addresses topics of power, injustice, race, social class, culture, gender, and sexuality.
It should be noted though that one of these stated limitations can be seen as strength. Since the study takes an explicit focus on critical social justice educators in Nor-
Cal County, findings from this research can be used to inform the paradigm development for educators working in within this school county and can also be utilized to prepare the paradigms of pre-service teachers at the nearest universities.
Preview of the Next Chapter
The following chapter will offer readers a historical summary of how traditional schooling was developed in the United States, the oppressive effects that this type of schooling has had on students, and importantly, why these negative consequences support the need for critical social justice educators. Chapter two will also provide a thorough presentation of research that explains the theoretical foundation of critical social justice educators. Lastly, the chapter outlines the political purpose of upholding a critical pedagogical paradigm and the notable empirical research about the effects of engaging this paradigm in the classroom.
21
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter provides an overview of literature that works to substantiate the need for critical educators, critical pedagogy, and social justice curricula in public education.
The chapter is divided into three sections: 1) Colonial Schooling: Exploring the
Historical Mis-education of the United States, 2) The Theoretical Essence of the Critical
Social Justice Educator Paradigm, and 3) Effects of Enacting the Critical Social Justice
Educator Paradigm. The first section begins with the presentation of several important time periods that have helped to shape the current state of the traditional schooling system in America. This section argues that the social agency and power of young people has been degraded and purposely stifled overtime through a series of institutionalized control mechanisms instated since the colonial era. The socio-cultural effects and implications of this timeline are discussed in its relation to the educational inequities experienced by historically disadvantaged students. The second section offers a theoretical base for understanding the critical social justice paradigm which fuels this anti-traditional schooling movement. Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy are presented as the main theoretical frameworks that underscore and inform the critical social justice educator paradigm. The third section highlights current research which discusses the effects of enacting this critical social justice paradigm in the classroom.
This section includes current research on how both teachers and students are impacted by the presence of a critical social justice based education experience.
22
Section One
Colonial Schooling: Exploring the Historical Mis-education of the United States
We did not weave ourselves into this condition, this tapestry of misfortune. The manufacturing of our deficits and the artful crafting of our caricatures was destructively intentional. They imagined us less, so that we became. The deep chasms between us were artificially implanted, assumed biologically real, worsened through government policy, and made tangible with every traditionally schooled generation that followed.
Their system of traps was made to induce our failure. Every book, every bell, every test, every grade, arranged and played in a choral fashion against us. Deceitful
White magic, tricking our children into the belief of fair chances. This equal playing field was designed with landmines that could only be triggered by toes of color and the missteps of the poor. We were designed to be their comparative; measured and used to substantiate their narrative of superiority and dominance. They convinced us of our idiocy by forcing us to adopt their systemized measures of intellect. We weren’t stupid until they put us in their schools.
Education. Education had long since existed in the Americas. Elaborate forms of socio-cultural, linguistic, mathematic, and scientific education systems flourished within the Indigenous communities of North, Central, and South America centuries before the arrival of European colonizers (Johnson et al., 2005; Lauter, 2002; Urban and
Wagoner, 2004; Yeboah, 2005). The institution of “schooling” in the present day United
States was an inherited European ideal brought forth during the formation of the first 13 colonies (Giroux, 1989).
23
The formalized European construct of education and school as a social institution, immigrated with the colonizers, touting a 1000-year developmental history established in
Europe. Foundationally, this conception of school is rooted in Roman Catholic ideals from the Middle Ages (500-1600AD) (Woods, 2005). School as an institution was born from Catholic dogma, mimicking the structure of churches; teachers like priests and students like devoted congregations (Blainey, 2011). This example is both literal and figural, in that the majority of the first schools were taught by male monks who specialized in Latin and religious theology. Under this model of schooling, teachers, were perceived as “masters,” who were all-knowing and unquestionable in their own right (Riche, 1974). Pieces of this idealism carried over into the creation of countless
United States schools.
Boston Latin School was built in New England by Puritan colonizers as the first public school in 1635 (BLS, 2016). Shortly after the establishment of this school, a
Massachusetts law was created, stating that any town with more than 50 families should have an elementary school (Comer, 2004); this promoted the spread of public education and the Puritan religious ethic. The founding of this school and law would become the catalyst for the development of dozens of other schools in the first United States colonies along the Atlantic Coast (Axtel, 1974). Schools in the Northeast stressed Puritan idealism which was centered on self-discipline, individualism, hard work, and responsibility to self and God. Puritan educators focused primarily on providing schooling exclusively for young White males; this inequity in offering education based on race and gender would have huge implications on education access for centuries to
24 come. “Proper education” they argued, should focus on the Bible, grammar, ethics, and behavior (Axtel, 1974). Dependent upon the colonial region, there were major differences in access, curricula, purpose, structure, and size.
On the Mid-Atlantic coast, colonial schools were being developed by Jesuit priests (O’Donnell, 2017; Steiner, 1894). These schools focused primarily on the preservation of the Latin language and Catholicism. Like the Puritan schools, these institutions would place heavy emphasis on clean, pious, and righteous behavior above all other curricula focuses (O’Donnell, 2017; Dolan, 1985).
In the Southern colonies, education access was highly segregated. Academic education was reserved predominately for the children and families of upper middle class and wealthy White elites. These schools were held in the homes of the rich and were run primarily by private tutors and teachers (Barnard and Burner, 1975; Knight, 1922; Pruitt,
1987). These private educations were focused on grammar, math, science, and plantation management. For families who could not afford private tutors, parents became the main source of education (Starr, 2010). These educations consisted primarily of trade-based skills that could be used to support the family unit. These stark divisions in access to certain types of education would help to further segregate social classes in the region.
The Colonial Era’s Key Contributions to United States Schooling
The first colonial schools set the foundation for all future generations of United
States students. These schools swept through the country with a devastating force, mirroring the colonizers who created them. Native communities and their systems of education were expediently destroyed and replaced by these new structures of academia.
25
This era, so often portrayed innocent through patriotic folklore and Disney perversions of
Pochahontas were actually the starting point for the plague like spread of traditional schooling and all of its consequential social effects. There are four major permanent impacts that this era has made, each are described below and will be expanded on throughout this chapter.
First, the idea of a free public education for all that was first established in
Massachusetts’ Boston Latin School has become central to the American system itself.
The word “all” however, has rarely included women, people of color, the poor, the non- able bodied, or those labeled as mentally challenged (Noltemeyer, Mujic, and
McLoughlin, 2012).
Second, the colonial era curricular focuses on European language arts served to establish the trend for prevalent views of Euro-centric cultural dominance in literacy and general education in the United States. The original colonial curricula showed no emphasis or concern for learning the languages or culture of the indigenous populations that may have shared or once inhabited the land that they were occupying. Said (1978) adds that European colonizers often utilize this strategy to create a socio-cultural hierarchy between them and those they subjugate, purposefully making foreign what was once indigenous and turning the colonized into the “other.” The remnants of this strategic cultural erasure and hierarchical positioning can still be felt throughout the United States education system with Euro-centric paradigms situated at the top and all others fighting beneath for representation and inclusion. This colonization tactic has had horrid effects on the marginalization and cultural perceptions of new immigrants and students of color.
26
Third, strict religious based behavior reinforcement practices are nearly universal in all United States schools today and in some ways are immovable from the system at large. This colonial curricula focus is a cornerstone to modern day behavior expectations in U.S. K-12 spaces (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Importantly, this enforcement of behavioral standards emphasizes the idea of teacher dominance and student subjugation to institutionally imposed codes of conduct in schools. In recent years, the same behavioral value system has been used as the foundational crux in the disproportionate targeting, racial profiling, suspension, and expulsion of Black, Chicanx, and Latinx students (Eaton and Daulari, 2010; Fuentes, 2011; Heitzeg, 2009; Noguera,
2003; NAACP, 2005; Skiba; 2003; Smith and Harper, 2015; U.S Department of
Education, 2014; 2016). A thorough discussion of these negative implications for
Black, Chicanx, and Latinx students will be discussed in the school to prison pipeline section of this chapter.
Fourth, divisions between national regions in regards to learning objectives, academic opportunity, and segmented work force preparation, are still evident as they were in the past. This seemingly pre-destined placement into specific sectors of the capitalist system are echoed in modern day public school tracking, labor skills and career technical education placement, junior military recruitment, and the segregation of college prep vs. “regular” students (Davis, 2014; Malamud, 2011; Southworth, 2007; Kleykamp,
2006; Hagopian and Barker, 2011). The original colonial model set the stage for socio- economic segregation based on identity, national region, family resources, vocational training, and educational attainment, which in turn diminished the social agency of youth
27 and their families in the equitable navigation of the economic institution in the United
States (Gordon, 1999; Spivak and Monnat, 2014; Hanuschek, Kain, Rivkin, 2009).
Common School Era and Beginnings of Public Schooling
The 1820’s and 30’s brought forward the rise of the Common Schools. The
Common Schools movement was presented by the Whig Party, a political entity whose goal was to grow the government’s oversight and influence over public education
(Kaestle, 1973). Horace Mann would become the main proponent of the movement, famously coining the phrase “education as the great equalizer.” This mantra would play backdrop to Mann’s personal philosophy for providing universal education to the United
States populace, even to women, poor Whites, and free Blacks who had been historically excluded. Despite this egalitarian philosophy, there exist many conflicting historical accounts about Mann’s personal views, motivations, and character (Falk, 2014).
Horace Mann was a lawyer and education reformist from Massachusetts. He was instrumental in the development of public schooling systems in that state and worked diligently to spread his reforms to other states. (Wagoner & Harlow, 2002) Mann believed that there should be uniformity in the type of educations that citizens receive.
Moreover, that education should be one that fosters at minimum, basic literacy and a support of United States idealism, and transferable skills to the United States
Industrialization movement (Falk, 2014). This model of education was a tool for effectively assimilating and conditioning the many immigrants coming to the United
States as well as “properly” educating the indigenous communities already established in the country (Adams, 2014). Mann convinced other state leaders to develop tax
28 supported, state controlled, public education systems with standardized curricula instituted within each of its schools. His conceptual system of state controlled schools was adopted from the Prussian education system model (Groen, 2008).
The Prussian model stressed uniformity across curricula, schools, teachers, and administration (Jeissman, 2006). This would be the first time in United States education history that talks of “state standardized curricula” would come to fruition. Under Mann’s reforms, schools would be used as sites to transform and shape future generations into an ideal American citizenry who could intelligently participate in a state centralized democracy.
Aside from his leadership in education reform, Mann played an important part in building the role of teaching as a credible profession. The Prussian education model that he adopted and pushed emphasized the need for consistency in teacher development. He and fellow education reformist and abolitionist Harriet Beecher created one of the first formalized systems of teacher training which stressed content knowledge and pedagogy, the Normal School (Lamphier and Welch, 2016).
Normal Schools & Collegiate Teacher Training Institutes
As Horace Mann and other education reformers inspired the Common Schools movement throughout the colonies, almost simultaneously “normal schools” began to emerge. Normal schools were essentially teacher training institutes whose sole purpose was to prepare graduated secondary students for a profession in teaching at Common
Schools.
29
Normal Schools became the mechanism for standardizing teacher knowledge and classroom teaching strategy. Previously, teachers would essentially recall from their own school experiences to inform their own subject expertise and teaching style. Normal schools elevated future teachers beyond the basic grammar school level into a more structured curricula which focused heavily on language, math, and science (Mondale,
Sarah, and Patton, 2001). The prevalence of normal schools was short lived however, as the majority of teacher training programs moved into colleges and universities. However, these curricula elements of language, math, and science would remain central in K-12 teacher preparation and credentialing programs for centuries to come.
Through this connection to higher education, the teaching profession became more substantiated as a viable career. It was also at this same time, that more women were increasingly allowed into collegiate spaces to fill the growing need for elementary and secondary teachers. Colleges were still extremely discriminatory and segregated at this time though, as gender was used as a basis for differentiation in college majors, subsequent occupations, and inequitable pay differences (Madigan, 2009).
This allowance of women into college would catalyze the feminization of the current and future demographics of the United States K-12 teacher force (Boyle, 2016).
More specifically, the presence of White, middle class, female teachers became the norm in schools. As WASP idealism created the United States education institution itself,
White, middle class women, would become protectors and enforcers of its hegemonic values in the classroom (Utt, 2015).
30
Figure 2. American Progress by John Gast (1872).
White female teachers became primary indoctrination agents in classrooms throughout the United States, especially during the military occupation of the West. The painting shown above, titled “American Progress” by John Gast (1872) embodies this phenomena of the White female colonizer. The subtle imagery of indigenous people running in fear from this deceivingly innocent White woman, serves as a disturbing metaphor for the enduring predatory relationship between United States schools, indigenous communities, and all students of color.
Colonized Classrooms: Post-Common School Era for Indigenous, Mexican, and
Black Youth
Since European colonizers arrived on the eastern shores of this country, the culture, histories and communities of indigenous Americans have been slowly eradicated.
31
Native families were violently removed from their lands through illegal federal mandates and an onslaught of brute force by military troops (Cave, 2003; Dodds, 2002; Takaki,
2008; Wilkins, 2016). What America termed “westward expansion” or “Manifest
Destiny” was merely a politically correct blanket statement used to describe the colonization and extermination of indigenous peoples from the east to west coast (Kakel,
2011). As a result of this process, the indigenous populations of the current day United
States have been decimated to 1.2% of their former population in 1492 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2016). In accordance with the United Nations (2016) definition, this has been a clear example of genocide.
During the 1800’s, the remaining children who survived this genocide were stolen from their communities and forced to adopt the ways of European colonizers through involuntary assimilation institutions called Boarding Schools (Dawson, 2012). These schools sole mission was to condition native youth to assimilate and accept the new
European culture that occupied the society around them (Montez de Oca and Prado,
2014). American Indian youth were subjected to harsh treatment, repeated physical and sexual violence, and a deliberate process of cultural butchery at the hands of White teachers and White religious zealots (Evans-Cambell, 2008; Smith, 2007; Smith, 2015).
Students were stripped of their traditional clothing and forced to wear Americanized garbs. Youth were forbidden to speak in their native languages and were physically beaten to reinforce the rule (Magagnini, 1997). Their length of their hair, which had a significant cultural importance, was drastically cut to support a more “appropriate”
Americanized length. Any spiritual ties to their tribal community and its belief systems
32 were broken (Coltman, Schultz, and Robbins, 2004). Atop all this was the rampant federal and state neglect of countless molestation and rape incidents perpetrated on young indigenous boys and girls by teachers, religious leaders, and school administration
(Smith, 2015).
These youth were this nation’s first public school victims of colonization and cultural imperialism. Moreover, this generation was the first test group within the
American education institution’s pilot launch of using schools as a conduit to impose dominant hegemonic White culture on students of color.
The Indian Boarding school movement and the U.S. public school movement began to flourish simultaneously throughout the 1800’s into the early 1900’s; droves of
English language and cultural annihilation systems once designed solely for American
Indian Youth were now being used on newly colonized Mexican youth as well (Ngai,
2004). The model’s mission was clear: cleanse the “savages” and fortify the idea that
WASP culture is at the top of the racial and social hierarchy.
Forced assimilation to White idealism and education became normative practice throughout the country’s public schools. The degrees to which the model was implemented varied throughout the nation and its resultant psychosocial effects would differ in impact and severity from student to student. Psychological problems like self- hate, depression, low self-esteem, loss of language, negative perceptions of in-group ethnic members and other people of color, and a preference for White culture were all residual effects of this colonial indoctrination process in schools (Bombay, Matheson , and Anisman, 2014; David and Ozaki, 2006, 2010; Rondilla, 2009; David, 2013). This is
33 seen in Indigenous youth today, who experience a distinct societal disconnection, a vast array of mental and physical health disparities, high rates of depression, and the highest rates of suicide in the nation (Tingey et al, 2014). Researchers add that these issues are the direct result of a sustained process of intergenerational trauma caused by colonization, systemic racism, and a history of genocide (Ehlers, Gizer, Glider, Elingson, and Yehuda, 2013).
Like the Mexican and Indian Boarding schools, segregated Black schools were also the target of WASP cultural and intellectual colonization. By the end of 1865, the
Freedman Bureau established more than 1000 schools for Black youth in the South
(James, 1988). More than half of the teachers were White women from the formerly seceded Confederacy. Krowl (2011) argues that the majority of Southern teachers taught from a position of socio-economic necessity not a genuine interest in racial equality, reparation, public service, or concern for the education of free Blacks; there were simply no other jobs for White women in the South at the time. White teachers from the Union
North, who constituted the next largest teacher population, were motivated by a different agenda. Butchart (2010) adds that many of these teachers were sent on religious, humanitarian, and abolitionist missions by their colleges or host organizations in the
North. Regardless of the teacher’s intent, the curricula focus on WASP culture, English literacy, proper behavior, and Euro-centric historical perspectives remained the standard
(Krowl, 2011). Importantly, their arrival to the schools served as the basis for the all too familiar White Savior narrative established in these colonized schools and later popularized in United States media and print propaganda (Brown, 2013; Cann, 2015;
34
Emdin 2016). In instances where Black educators were allowed to teach in these schools, their expected job was to deliver the same curricula that upheld the White status quo.
Topics like reading, writing, “rules of proper decorum,” Christian idealism, and Abraham
Lincoln were common subjects of study (Hansen, 2008).
Though there existed a mandated curricula, Gist (2010) and Butchart (1988) argue that many Black teachers entered the teaching profession with a powerful and spiritual calling to serve the Black community of the South in a way that empowered them.
Griffin and Tackie (2014) argue that Black teachers utilized their racial and cultural identity to build and strengthen Black students positive connection to the education institution itself. Importantly, many of these teachers offered an additional critical counter perspective meant to problematize the oppressive experience of Black youth in the South, emboldening them to challenge the racist White power structure through education (Rabaka, 2009). To achieve this, Black teachers historically and presently have served as “warm demanders,” empathizing with the inequitable social realities of
Black students while still holding high expectations for their achievements in the classroom (Ware, 2006). These teachers served as an important protective buffer between Black students and the assimilationist machine of United States public education.
Boarding Schools, Freedmen Schools, and the U.S. Department of Education
Interestingly, though Native, Mexican, and Black students were segregated in poorer facilities, taught with sub-standard resources, and miniscule federal fiscal support, the U.S. government made sure that their cultural and educational indoctrination process
35 was intentionally WASP centric. Though the idea of youth of color receiving a free public education and gaining skills in literacy was an important institutional “privilege” at the time, the type of education they received was in no way meant to emancipate them from their socio-economic condition or to empower them to challenge the White power structure.
The development of these segregated schools was a far cry from Mann’s vision for equal education during the Common School era. This division acted as a brash reminder of the country’s position on racial integration in the education system.
Importantly, these schools served as evidence for the longstanding, historically sustained, disconnection of students of color from the same education resources and social agency as the majority White population.
In 1867, the Department of Education (DOE) was created to oversee the development of all public education institutions throughout the United States including entities like the Indian and Mexican Boarding Schools and Black Freedman Bureau schools (USDOE, 2016). The DOE’s primary role was relegated to data collection during its early years of operation. Initially, the DOE was instructed to gather data that would highlight the nation’s progress towards advancing public education. The instructions were essentially disregarded, leading to a data gap in academic performance that persisted for nearly 100 years (Rothstein, 2013).
These 100 years of missing data would prove to be largely damaging to students of color who faced sustained placement into sub-par, underperforming, low resource schools, with no official federal oversight or tracking of how these factors affected their
36 overall quality of education or subsequent social mobility (Rothstein, 2013). Official published data on the glaring gaps between students of color and White students would not be seen until the DOE’s commission of the “Equality of Educational Opportunity” report (Coleman, 1966). The report analyzed a sample of 650,000 students nationwide and found that an 85% gap in academic performance existed between Black and Latinx students in comparison to their White counterparts. This would be the first formal document of education disparity to be ever be released by the DOE.
Important Education Initiatives in Fast Forward
The role of the DOE would shift dramatically from data collection to curricula development in the late 1950’s. The 1957 launch of the Sputnik satellite not only ignited a Cold War but birthed the National Defense Education Act which in turn authorized funding to create a new, centralized, national curricular focus, on science, mathematics, and foreign language. This would be nation’s first introduction to STEM standardization.
Though the U.S. wanted more scientists and engineers, it also wanted to maintain the race and gender ratios of those permitted in the field. Equitable placement of women and people of color into high school programs, college majors, or professional positions in
STEM areas at this time was a rarity; a type of systemic exclusion that is still highly prevalent and problematic today (Hill, Corbett and Rose, 2015).
The next major event after Sputnik happened in 1965 was the signing of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which mandated the apportioning of new federal funding, called Title I funds, to be allocated into school districts to support the educations of low income students; importantly, this act included the development of
37 bilingual education and special education. Also in 1965, the Immigration Act is established, ending decades of discriminatory blockage of Asian and Latino immigrants to the country; almost immediately the United States populace began to diversify, breaking the homogeneity of many education spaces (Starkweather, 2012). This had huge implications on U.S. education institutions. Education policymakers were suddenly faced with the complex situation of determining how to serve millions of students from different racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds, all at the same time, in the same schools.
Almost 20 years later, in 1983, former President Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education publishes “A Nation at Risk,” which demanded massive education reform in the country. “The commission included 12 administrators, 1 businessperson, 1 chemist, 1 physicist, 1 politician, 1 conservative activist, and 1 teacher
(Babones, 2015, p. 1). ” This Commission’s authors were highly critical of the current state of American education, insinuating that the institution’s “mediocrity” could be viewed as an “act of war” against the country itself (US Dept. of Education, 1983). This report served as justification for a massive push in the direction of curricula standardization, more standardized testing, and outcomes based learning. In this decade, we see the racialization of standardized assessments results to prove the supposed IQ deficit and inferiority of students of color (Hernstein and Murray, 1994).
2002 marshaled in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the epitome of a standards based education model, which served as an update of ESEA act of 1965, ultimately leading to increased federal oversight on school accountability nationwide
38
(Klein, 2015). NCLB took a specific focus on attempting to improve educational outcomes specifically in Math and Reading for English Language Learners, special education students, low-income students, and students of color. NCLB altered the way in which Title I funds were distributed to schools, insisting that schools report testing results on these specific populations. In addition, NCLB required constant standardized testing to be administered and reported on all other populations as well, emphasizing a heavy focus on Math and Reading. In order to track these testing efforts, a system called
Adequate Yearly Proficiency or AYP was developed. Schools were allowed to set their own goals in academic proficiency standards and determine their own paths towards reaching those proficiency goals. If goals were not met over time, schools faced harsh sanctions with financial implications on their Title I funding.
2014 marked the end of NCLB but its long term effects were far reaching. NCLB created a dangerous culture for teaching towards federal and state imposed academic standards testing. Teachers were focused on teaching for tests instead of true comprehension, exploratory learning, the arts, or culturally relevant subjects, fearing state and federal consequences. The wide scope of liberal arts curricula began to diminish slowly as schools took explicit focuses in Mathematics and Reading Skills only. Social sciences, physical education, and the arts exceedingly fell to the wayside.
As NCLB began to phase out, the Common Core era increasingly crept into the nation’s schools. Common Core is led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governor’s Association which are federal entities charged with crafting state education standards. However, the startup funding, marketing push and infrastructure
39 development that brought Common Core into fruition has largely been made possible through private industry and “philanthropy.”
The top-giving venture philanthropies include a broad mix of foundations from
family fortunes: the Broad Education Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Michael and Susan Dell
Foundation, the Donald and Doris Fisher Fund, and the Lynde and Harry
Bradley Foundation.
Kumashiro (2012) explains these partnerships between private industry and public education become dangerous when financial backers have the power to shift the education landscape to create profits, pointing specifically to the modification of public schools into privatized charters. Darder (2012) explains that Common Core is nothing more than a liberal disguise hiding content standardization, streamlining students through an education that acts as a feeder to the capitalist market.
Common core implementation across the United States has been rather polarizing as some schools have opted out of this nationwide reform because of its highly centralized feel. Though NCLB has ended, its standardized ghosts are still very much alive within the Common Core education system and current United States education policy.
Happening alongside Common Core, the 2015 Reauthorization of ESEA reinstated the federal mandate for obligatory standardized student assessments for 3rd to
8th graders nationwide with repeated mandated testing in 10th and 12th grade (USDOE,
2016). The United States is more ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse than it
40 has ever been in history; it is puzzling why policy makers continue pushing education reforms that mandate universal curricula and standardized testing, when its student populace is no way homogenous. The academic interventions and curricula necessary to improve the literacy, numeracy, and overall educational attainment of the most disadvantaged students will vary from state, city, neighborhood, and school, yet Common
Core and reauthorization of ESEA insists that we use the same curricula standards and test measurements to teach and assess all students.
Some education reformist claim that Common Core is still too “young” to be properly analyzed and critiqued. However, its recent implementation in CA has shown more of the same standards based testing and focus being utilized to evaluate its effectiveness on students. It seems as though the only difference in the assessments is that the standardized test went from analog to digital; this transition has not been cheap.
California (CA) along with many other states has adopted the Smarter Balance
Assessment Consortium, (SBAC) as its newest way to evaluate students on a computerized standardization scale. Interestingly the same entities that backed Common
Core’s implementation are some of same computer and software developers and tech conglomerates that are profiting from the digital assessment switchover (Delevinge,
2015).
The adoption of Common Core in CA has been costly for the state yet very profitable for a few select companies. The most current CA education budget issued
$1.25 billion for Common Core implementation statewide (LAO, 2016). Also, CA invested $26.7 million throughout the state to increase internet and broadband
41 connectivity at disadvantaged school sites, updating the school’s infrastructure to perform computerized assessments on each student. It is important to mention that this structural change was prompted by the need to better assess students not to improve communities that lacked internet access. Meanwhile, publically traded education, communication, and tech companies like Apple, Comcast, Pearson, McGraw-Hill McGill, Houghton-Mifflin
Harcourt, and Scholastic have all benefitted from this CA implementation; once again highlighting the controversial and conflicting relationships Kumashiro (2015) described between for-profit companies and United States education institutions during this
Common Core era.
While these companies profit, disadvantaged students are failing out with no state accountability measures to hold CA school district’s responsible. A recent example of this can be seen with the results of newest CA standardized test, the SBAC. Hill and
Ugo’s research (2016) which compiled SBAC scores from all students in CA statewide, highlights glaring inequalities in SBAC test scores that assess Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). Specifically, the research highlighted an important problem: The
SBAC scores of English Learners (EL), Economically Disadvantaged Students (EDS), and High Needs Students (HN) (ie. foster youth) indicate there are academically “further behind than educators may have thought (p.1).” In many instances, SBAC scores between EL, EDS, and HNS, and their White students have widened in comparison to the previous California Standards Test (CST). For example, the researchers found that
English Learners had an 80% gap in Math scores and 79% gap in ELA scores between them and White students. Hill and Ugo’s (2016) research emphasizes the idea that even
42 with billion dollar funding interventions, a new curricula reform, and new testing method, there have been no real improvements for disadvantaged groups student groups in CA.
These findings are the hauntings of ghosts that remain from the colonial era, a type of inequitable evil that has never quite left the system. How have these inequities persisted in the system? Through the sustained adherence to a system of schooling which perpetuates social inequality: traditional schooling.
Traditional Schooling
The rationality that dominates traditional views of schooling and curriculum is
rooted in the narrow concerns for effectiveness, behavioral objectives, and
principles of learning that treat knowledge as something to be consumed and
schools as merely instructional sites designed to pass onto students a “common”
culture and set of skills that will enable them to operate effectively in the wider
society (Giroux, 1989, p. 6).
The quote above details the summation of the main ideals which undergirds the current state of mainstream United States public education. The traditional schooling model is one that is built on a foundational history whose cornerstones are information retention, cultural assimilation, economic entry, and social conditioning (Dewey, 1938).
In this system, teachers are enforcers of state mandated standards in academic content and American societal norms (Beck, 2009). Within this model of schooling, students are merely fleshy blocks to molded, shaped, and pipelined into the next institution; whether that place is college, an occupation, or prison.
43
The traditional schooling model is best suited for a homogeneous society. More specifically, the model, in its application to the United States, works best for students who are White and middle class with normative learning capabilities. Because of this, the model has created an unequal arena that measures all students, even the most disadvantaged, against the optimal White majority without regard for the structural obstacles or resource inequalities that make the comparison inequitable (APA, 2014;
Gilborn et. al, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 1998). Regardless of this unbalanced comparison, the model proposes a falsehood of fairness.
The traditional schooling model reinforces the idea of meritocracy from a young age. The concept of meritocracy emphasizes the American ideal that if you go to school, study hard, develop strong “abilities,” and get a good job, you will ascend into a proportionately higher social class (Young, 1958). Conversely, if you do not work hard, go to school, or get a job, you will go nowhere. To those with privilege, this belief in unlimited individual potential makes complete sense. To others, who understand the limitations created by inequitable structural power, this idea is farfetched and outdated.
Regardless of one’s position, the traditional schooling model brainwashes children with the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” mentality every day. The ideal stresses rugged individualism while simultaneously shaming social collectivism. This ideal emphasizes to students that if they succeed or fail out of the system, it is their own fault, no one else’s; wherever they end up is a direct reflection on how hard they tried
(Wiederkehr, Bonnot, Krauth-Gruber, and Darnon, 2015). Under this guise, teachers are
44 merely state mandated gatekeepers, certificated to constantly assess who can pass and who cannot.
In the traditional schooling model, regardless of how the process is sugar coated or romanticized, the teacher’s role is to get (some) students to the next level. State standardized curricula helps to establish guidelines and inventories of what should be learned from one grade to the next (CA Department of Education, 2016). Common
Core’s CA standards are impressed upon students as early as Kindergarten and are imposed all the way into the 12th grade. In order for students to transition from one grade to another, assessments of the student must be completed daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, by semester, and/or yearly. These evaluations measure the student’s ability and aptitude in recollecting, rewording, or applying, the information they were taught
(Scriffiny, 2008). Regurgitation and reclamation are used to prove a state mandated level of intelligence. Dependent on how well the student does in relation to these evaluations, they are either graduated to the next level, failed, or held back. The next expected level after K-12 traditional schooling could either be college or the workforce. Regardless of which of those destinations come first, the traditional schooling model expects the student enter into some type of profession to participate in the broader economic society
(Gysbers, 2013).
Occupationally, traditional schooling stresses that students are expected to have learned some set of skills, applicable to a specific trade that will foster their movement up the social and economic ladder. Whether those skills require tough physical labor or strong analytical skills, employers expect that those traits be learned partially or
45 completely in school. During the industrial revolution, public schools churned out docile, bell driven, productivity concerned factory workers (Stokes, 2013). Throughout the Cold
War there was high demand for technical thinkers with mechanical engineering and scientific skillsets (Shipley, 2012). Now, the current economic trend places a high emphasis on business skills, wide technology based skills, coding, and software development (Adams, 2015). Traditional schools have served as feeders for the capitalist system, showing flexibility in keeping with the political agendas of each presidential reform and the rapidly changing demands of the economic market.
The traditional schooling model stresses meritocracy and opportunity through education but lacks the societal pathways to provide it. Traditional schooling is void of any discussions about systemic racism, opportunity and achievement gaps in K-12 public institutions, quota based college admissions, the exponential rise in college tuition, preferential hiring practices, gender based income and professional glass ceilings, the volatility of the job market, or the prison industrial complex which preys on those who do not adhere to the meritocratic mythology (Boykin and Noguera, 2012; Ezzedeen,
Budworth, and Baker, 2015; Gass and Laughter, 2015; PBS, 2014; Young, 2012). These power based structural issues are too often times masked as an individual’s personal inability to be successful in the United States.
So what happens to students who do not fit the typical mold of academia or the workplace? What does traditional schooling offer those students?
Even if students do not make it to college or secure a job, they will at least be trained behaviorally. Traditional schools serve as a mechanism for reinforcing ideal,
46 normative, societal behavior (Skinner, 1948; McLeod, 2007). Equally, it acts as a sorting mechanism for those who belong in society and those who should be forcibly removed
(Redfield and Nance, 2016).
Traditional schools stress obedience to law and instruction. The rules are often emphasized with commands that are usually expressed in a variation of “kid friendly” ways: “Keep your hands to yourself,” “Be quiet,” “Don’t talk back,” “Don’t talk when others are talking,” “Wait your turn,” “Stand in a straight line,” “No cheating,” “Don’t be disrespectful,” and the list goes on. These directional cues are most usually spoken by irritable teachers who use a range of volumes and tones depending on the infraction.
These rules stress order, rigidity, and conformity to social power (McLeod, 2007). Most students learn quickly that if they do not “behave” they will be “in trouble.”
Unfortunately, some students are getting in trouble more frequently than others and are being punished more severely.
Classrooms and Cell Blocks All One in the Same: The Colonial Era’s influence on the School to Prison Pipeline
The colonial era’s religious based fervor for forcibly controlling student behavior has had disastrous, far-reaching, permanent effects. Centuries of traditional schooling had conditioned, empowered, and entitled teachers to punitively address any signs of disobedience from unruly students. In coupling this uncontested power with the pervasive nature of systemic racism, societal prejudice, and implicit bias, Black and Latinx students have been targeted openly. Seamlessly working in unison, traditional schools overtime have become feeders for the prison industrial complex.
47
Black and Latinx children are being pushed out of the classroom and pushed into the California prison system. Students of color have become targets of flawed “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that favor punishment over education. In the 2012-2013 school year, Black students represented 6.3% of the total enrollment in California schools, but made up 16.2% of the statewide suspensions. In addition, Latinx students represented 52.7% of the total enrollment but made up 54.6% of the suspensions. In comparison, White students represented 25.5% of total enrollment but only 20.9% of suspensions (Torlakson, 2014). Unfortunately, these statistics are an improvement from years past. Current research shows that students who are suspended and expelled have a significantly higher chance of not graduating and entering the juvenile delinquency or prison system (Fuentes, 2011; Heitzeg, 2009; Noguera, 2003; NAACP, 2005; Skiba;
2003; Eaton and Daulari, 2010).
Zero Tolerance. Since the 1990’s, “zero tolerance” discipline policies have been normative practice across United States public school campuses (Reynolds et. al, 2008).
Zero tolerance is a philosophy rooted in anti-drug strategies of the Reagan Era, which enforce predetermined discipline consequences on offenders who break established rules
(Heitzeg, 2009). Regardless of the singular offense, the strategy provides guidelines for punitive treatment of the offender or student (Reynolds et. al, 2008). These policies serve as clear-cut mechanisms for quick student removal, allowing for no argument from the student or the student’s parent or guardian. Zero tolerance policy advocates argue that removing disruptive students is the most effective way to sustain a positive learning environment (Ewing, 2000, Skiba et al., 2003)
48
Some recent incidents involving zero tolerance policies can be seen in the following examples: In May 2014, more than 160 Dallas, Texas high school students were given out-of-school suspensions on the same day, for dress code violations ranging from “missing belts,” “untucked shirts,” and “piercings.” (NBCFD, 2014) Even worse, is the example of a Colorado 3rd grade student who was suspended for violating a school’s
“hair policy” by shaving her head in solidarity with a classmate suffering from cancer and chemo-therapy (CBS News, 2014). Even more strange, is the September 2014 incident of a California elementary school student receiving an in-school suspension for sharing a sandwich with a friend who could not afford lunch because it violated the school’s districts “food sharing policy” (Harwood, 2014). The list goes on.
Zero tolerance policies have done more than just create ridiculous news stories like these; they have created horrible nationwide statistics. A recent (2014) study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights (USDECR), using data collected in 2011-2012 from every public school in the United States, showed that approximately 6.95 million students of the nation’s 49 million student population, or nearly 15% of U.S. students had been suspended. Dependent upon your stance on student discipline, this figure may seem relatively small or alarmingly large. However, when these statistics are disaggregated by race and ethnicity, the numbers become exponentially discriminatory and obviously unfair.
In the same USDECR (2014) study, research showed that Black students represented 18% of preschool enrollment but made up 48% of preschool students receiving an out of school suspension. In addition, the study found that Black P-12
49 students were three times as likely to be suspended than White students. The research also showed that Latinx students had disparate amounts of suspensions and expulsions in comparison to other students as well (United State Department of Education for Civil
Rights, 2014). Are students of color behaving worse than White students?
Student Treatment. Skiba et al. (2011) argue that behavior is not the issue; it is the unequal treatment of Black and Latinx students in comparison to White students that is affecting these lopsided discipline trends. The researchers (2011) used a descriptive and logistic regression analysis to study patterns within office discipline referrals of 364 elementary and middle schools. Their analysis showed that Black elementary school students were 2.19 times more likely to be referred to the office for discipline than their
White peers, and were 3.78 times more likely if they were in middle school (Skiba et al.,
2011). Additionally, the report found that Black and Latinx students were more likely to receive harsher punishments than White students like expulsion and out of school suspensions, for the same behavior incident (Skiba et. al, 2011). These findings are consistent with previous published research starting from 1970’s to 2000’s, suggesting a historical trend of unfair discipline towards Black and Latinx students (NAACP, 2005;
Wald and Losen, 2003). Nationwide, there has also shown to be a consistent finding that the schools with the most suspensions have high populations of students of color, specifically students of Black, Latinx, and Native American backgrounds (Skiba et al.,
2003).
Some researchers argue that at the root of these discipline referrals is inherent racial prejudice (Heitzig, 2009). Researchers argue that teachers, like most of the
50
American society, have been conditioned to treat Black and Latinx students through a lens of racial stigma (Zirkel, 2005). Centuries of propaganda starting from the 1600’s onwards, including caricature representations in print and media, hysteria and fear building on news television, and racial profiling have all worked to create an extremely negative image of male persons of color (Walker, Sphone, and Delone, 2007; Entman and
Rojeki 2001) The negative bias of these images can become a partial foundation for disproportionate negative treatment by school officials and other authorities of power
(Entman and Rojeki, 2001;Zirkel, 2005).
In some schools, suspension and discipline referrals for Black and Latinx students have become so rampant, federal investigations have been started. Most recently, the
Oakland, CA school board voted in favor for a five-year investigation and federal monitoring program ran by the U.S. Department of Education (Kuczynski-Brown, 2014).
The school district has hired federal investigation teams to discern whether Black students and other students of color are being given tougher discipline referrals than
White students (Kuczynski-Brown, 2014). The Oakland school district is one of many, utilizing federal support to critically examine racial inequities in student discipline. The concern prompting these investigations nationwide has been fueled by the growing amount of statistical proof that Black and Latinx students are being disciplined with the most severe options possible.
Working to address these injustices in discipline, Secretary of Education Arne
Duncan in collaboration with Attorney General Eric Holden developed the Supportive
School Discipline Initiative in 2011 (United States Department of Justice, 2011). The
51 initiative was a collaborative effort between the Department of Justice and the
Department of Education to address the school to prison pipeline. The initiative made it possible for school districts like Oakland, CA to use federal funding to investigate suspected civil rights violations related to school discipline practices. More recently, in continuance of their initiative, Duncan and Holden publicly released findings from a 15- year longitudinal study, which placed federal attention on the link between student treatment, student removal, and incarceration; this linkage is commonly referred to in research as the school to prison pipeline (Skiba et al., 2003; Skiba et al., 2003; USDECR,
2014).
Defining the School to Prison Pipeline. The school to prison pipeline can be defined as the succession of negative life events experienced particularly by students of color, starting from the classroom and ending in the juvenile justice or prison system
(Walden and Losen, 2009). Researchers note these “events” can start as early as pre- school, when toddlers begin to receive negative labels by adults and school officials
(Colangelo and Brower ,1987).
Negative Labeling. Some child development researchers argue that this labeling and categorization of children can in some cases have a “self-fulfilling prophecy effect,” or in other cases a “forcible-prophecy effect,” where students are continuously treated according to their label (So, 1987). These labels come in many forms, all of which are recorded and detailed in student files kept by school districts. Negative terms like
“defiant,” “lazy,” “unmotivated,” “slow learner,” “special needs,” “combative,” and
“disruptive” are just a few of the words used to justify certain types of negative treatment
52 for students (Henley and Algozzine, 2008) These terms come with an array of consequences for students: repeated verbal warnings or threats, detention, suspension, expulsion, tracking, being held back in grade, physician referrals for behavior altering medication, physical restraint, police referral, or police arrest (Henley and Algozzine,
2008; Sugai et al. 2000; Wald and Losen, 2003). Arguably, all of these consequences are detrimental to a student’s educational development, personal identity development, their transition into adulthood, and their stigmatization from peers and adults (Phinney, 1989).
This process of labeling in the school can prompt the start of a student’s school to prison track (Skiba et al., 2003).
Linking Disciplinary Action to Prison. Most if not all school based consequences resulting from negative labeling are rooted in some type of disciplinary referral, utilized to control or remove the student from their unwanted behavior (Skiba et al., 2003; Sugai et. al, 2000) “The single greatest predictor of future involvement in the juvenile justice system is a history of disciplinary referrals at school. (Fowler, 2011, p.
16)” In a study published by the Public Policy Institute of Texas A&M (2005) researchers found that students with more than one disciplinary incident were almost 24 times more likely to be referred for juvenile incarceration. Researchers have noted that once a student is suspended they most likely become repeat offenders, or become repeatedly targeted
(Constenbader and Markeson, 1998). It is this repetitious cycle of suspensions and expulsions that are strongly correlated with future predictors of incarceration (Skiba et al,
2003).
53
Students who receive multiple detentions, suspensions, and expulsions are more likely to drop out of school (Lee et al., 2007). In addition, disciplinary practices like suspensions and expulsions promote feelings of exclusion, negative feelings towards schools systems, and negative feelings towards school officials, which are also strong factors for dropping out (Rumberger, 1995). In California, dropouts are three and half times more likely to get arrested and eight times more likely to be incarcerated than high school graduates (Lee et. Al, 2007). Latinx and Black students represent two of the highest populations in California who drop out of high school (Kidsdata.org, 2014). The effects of this drop out statistics are echoed in the demographics of the California
Juvenile Justice system.
According to the California Department of Justice in 2011, out of the 34,192 youth who were detained, 18,720 were Latinx, 7,524 were Black, and 6,295 were White.
When combined, Latinx and Black youth represent more than 70.4% of the youth incarcerated in the state of California. Sadly, nearly 2,000 of these youth were arrested and referred directly from a school campus (California Department of Justice, 2011).
Critical Reflections on the Education Timeline, Its Longstanding Effects on Modern day Traditional Schooling, and the School to Prison Pipeline
In attempting to analyze the United States timeline of education holistically from the colonial era to Common Core, a theme can be deduced: control and power reduction.
From the education institution’s inception in America to present day, a certain type of
54 idealism has been threaded through each successive year, every passing century, and throughout every public reform. This idealism is at its very core built on a White Anglo-
Saxon Puritan (WASP) belief that education is the best tool for social conditioning, shaping citizenry, and regulating a growing populace (Axtel, 1974). The longstanding permanency of the Prussian model adopted from Europe by Horace Mann was chosen explicitly for its ability to indoctrinate its students with a content regulated, state imposed curricula which emphasized English Language, STEM, a patriotism to the country, and a behavioral obedience to structural power (Jeissman, 2006). The stringent emphasis on these elements has not allowed space for an intentional curricular focus on important social justice oriented topics like race, class, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ableism, or environmentalism.
The forcible assimilation of students to these non-social justice based curricular standards and WASP idealism has been regulated by teachers who are historical reflections of the system itself; White, “classically” educated, and Middle Class. Even in instances where teachers identify outside of these demographic markers, the WASP culture has become so pervasive throughout American education institution that many teachers become enculturated and socialized into its ideals and norms, thus subconsciously mirroring it in their own oppressive teaching (Emdin, 2016; Ravitch and
Vinovskis, 1995). In order for these teachers to enforce WASP dominance over every generation that passes, a federally regulated, standardized paradigm of teaching needed to be built: traditional schooling.
55
The Traditional schooling paradigm has been sustained to impose control over all students and subsequently reproduce the same types of education inequalities that have been longstanding since the colonial era. Traditional Schooling in combination with compulsory education laws ensures that all young people in this country are programmed with the same hegemonic WASP idealism, strict behavioral conditioning, standardized
STEM intelligence, and a meritocratic, individualistic, non-collectivist, work ethic.
The school to prison pipeline is the punitive consequence for students who refuse to conform to the traditional schooling model. Though it is not the main focus of this dissertation, it is presented as an important ancillary problem that has been produced by institutional racism, implicit bias, and the historical usage of traditional schools as behavioral conditioning spaces (Ladson-Billings, 1997; Cameron-Wedding, 2016;
Giroux, 1989). The school to prison pipeline exemplifies the inescapable spectrum of limited options created by traditional schooling: students must forfeit their power, obey to survive, assimilate to excel, and deny their oppression to move forward within the education system.
After almost four hundred years of traditional schooling in the United States, the institution has become nearly indestructible. However, there exists a movement to end the tyrannical stronghold instated by colonizers centuries ago. Section Two details this global effort towards a non-traditional, anti-oppressive, de-colonial, critical social justice, transformative education.
56
Section Two
The Theoretical Essence of the Critical Social Justice Educator Paradigm
Amidst the oppression, the resistance exists. No fanciful heroism, no saviors, it has been a collective counter attack, a united struggle linking educators and students.
Classroom battlegrounds, employing subversive guerilla tactics, fighting alongside each other, sunken into the trenches of an education revolution. Conjoined by their oppression, they are intrinsically connected by a mutual refusal to be controlled by the system. This disobedience exists at the very core of their revolutionary practice; a purposeful commitment to defying the physical, mental, spiritual, and academic impositions of the colonizer. Fueling their rebellion is the mindset needed to incite systemic change: the critical social justice educator paradigm.
This section presents the theoretical foundations of this dissertation project. More importantly, this segment details the conceptual footings that inform the pedagogy of critical social justice educators. Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy are staged here to highlight the foundation on which these educators stand. These theories are not selected by happenstance, rather they are an essential collection, vital for combatting the sinister nature of traditional schooling.
Critical Theory, The Critical Family Tree, Educator Identity, and a Unified Vision
Critical Theory is the foundational basis for all anti-oppressive societal work.
Critical Theory is derived from the Frankfurt School of thought. Theoretical underpinnings from the Frankfurt school were heavily inspired by the contributions of sociologist Karl Marx (Elliot, 2008). Marx’s thoughts on the society and capitalism
57 became the cornerstone for future critical theorists, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin,
Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse all of whom compose the
Frankfurt school of Critical Theory.
Critical theory is a way to problematize the social world. As traditional academic theories seek to only give explanations of the social world, critical theory differentiates itself by providing a social critique on specific oppressive social phenomena while also offering a plan of how to challenge and alter that oppression. Horkheimer (1982) argues that critical theory is demarcated by its effort “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.”
Critical theory has a few core tenets 1) critical theory should engage history holistically, in that, it looks at all of the causal events that lead to the specific time period of the study and phenomena 2) critical theory should be interdisciplinary in nature, pulling from all social sciences including: sociology, psychology, political science, history, economics, and anthropology and 3) critical theory should be societally transformative, aiming to shift inequality to a truly equitable democracy (Felluga, 2015).
These tenets are the key principles which inform the paradigms of critical educators.
Critical Educators
“I'm not saying I'm gonna change the world, but I guarantee that I will spark the brain that will change the world.” –Tupac Shakur
If critical educators are the spark, then their students are indeed the molotov cocktail aimed at systemic oppression. Critical educators are the agitators of change, the intermediaries between the next generation of the resistance. They are motivated by a
58 paradigm of justice; a mindset that refuses to lay complacent to hegemonic cultural domination. They are fighters, organizers, community builders, and cultivators of a collective critical consciousness.
Current day critical educators have no specific typology in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, nationality, income, etc. The founders of the field of Critical Theory though, were all European men, from middle class backgrounds, with collegiate level educations. The critical schools of thought and the leading theorists that spawned from these founders though, now represent a vast variety of demographic categories. Today, the critical theory and critical pedagogy movement is continued by a coalition of educators that are representative of many geo- social locations and identity markers. Their political paradigm however is the one universal characteristic that conjoins them on the education frontline.
The central idea within this paradigm is that power and domination should never remain unchecked or unchallenged. The first Critical theorists saw this power exercised through capitalist elites, who appointed a small bourgeoisie group to control and exploit the majority working class population (Marx, 1898). The next generation of theorists saw that power manifested itself through the control of mainstream thought, cultural ideology, and the maintenance of knowledge that preserved the status quo (Horkeheimer,
1982). Subsequent thinkers of critical theory applied this paradigm to the social constructs of race and gender analyzing how different social institutions (like the judicial system) upheld the power of White, capitalist elite, heterosexual, men (Bell, 1973;
Matsuda, 1987; Crenshaw, 1988; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings and Tate,
59
1995; hooks, 1995). Different iterations of critical theory were developed overtime and applied to a spectrum of topics like religion, the environment, colonization, technology, the prison industrial complex, militarism, globalization, immigration, education, and teacher pedagogy (Bashan, Belkins, and Gifkins, 2015; Davis, 1997; 2016; Duncan-
Andrade and Morrel 2009; Fanon, 1952; Foucault, 1975; Freire, 1972; Sandler and
Pezulo, 2007; Siebert, 2015). The political paradigm that upholds all of these versions and applications of critical theory is the communal responsibility to respond to all forms of injustice through a series of collective, calculated actions, aimed at dismantling oppressive power structures, institutions, and ideologies.
Critical High School Teachers & Critical Pedagogy
This dissertation’s focus is centralized on high school educators whose practice is informed by Critical Theory and its various focal areas. Through a critical view of education, critical teachers understand that education is a vehicle that can support the oppressed in their process of self-liberation (Freire, 1972). Critical educators are blacksmiths who create tools for the disempowerment of the power structure. These teachers understand that they are not saviors of the oppressed, instead they are partners in a symbiotic relationship; the oppression of students is the oppression of the teacher and similarly the emancipation and freedom of the student is emancipation and freedom of the teacher. They foster environments for students to self-actualize their own liberation.
They commit wholeheartedly to the idea that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere…Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. (King, 1963)” The critical educator understands that societal oppression is shared and it should be combatted
60 collectively in the classroom and out in the community. The ways in which teachers inspire their students to challenge societal power and domination through education, is the foundation of critical pedagogy.
Critical pedagogy focuses deeply on building alliances and breaking the historical power based relationship between teachers and students (Giroux, 2010). For various reasons like age, race, ethnicity, custom, culture, or social status, students have been historically less powerful than their teachers (Jamieson and Thomas, 1974). Zeldon,
Bestul and Powers (2012) argue that this is commonplace in relationships with young people and adults. Though students are the main stakeholders and recipients of public education, their opinions are too often disregarded. Katz (2014) argues that a critical pedagogical approach hinges on teachers developing meaningful relationships with students that allow for this type of respect and knowledge of each other’s identity and life experiences. Discounting these student voices reinforces a form of institutional oppression which overlooks the importance of the narratives and experiences of certain people because of their identity, age and perceived ability (hooks, 1994).
This discrepancy in power has created a one-sided learning experience where students are merely consumers and recipients of teacher content. Students historically, have been seen as empty, untrained, and void of any pre-existing knowledge (Freire,
1972). This view was mirrored in the colonial conception of schooling that European colonizers brought and promulgated throughout the country. The Banking Model of
Education works to explain this historical relationship of assumed student inferiority.
The model asserts that students are empty receptacles to be filled by the knowledge of
61 teachers (Freire, 1972). Traditional Teachers interact with these students through a lens of deficit, seeing them as though they are always lacking “something.” Critical pedagogy is a radical rebuttal to the Banking Model of Education (Freire, 1972).
The critical pedagogy paradigm assumes that students arrive to classrooms with valuable intersectional identities, distinct lived realities, and inherent cultural wealth
(Yosso, 2005). Critical educators view students as culturally rich, highly intelligent, limitless in potential, and extremely resilient (Duncan Andrade and Morrel, 2008).
However, the paradigm does not deny or shy away from recognizing and addressing the fact that many students enter learning spaces with a “mis-education,” in varying states trauma, battling internalized colonization, victimized by poverty, feeling damaged and tired from living and fighting within a maze of systemically oppressive systems (EJR
David, 2006; Camangian, 2015; Ginwright, 2015). Critical educators understand that living amongst these social toxins may impede progress towards traditional measures of success like consistent attendance, strong GPAs, and high SAT/ACT or SBAC scores
(Garbarino, 1999; Hill and Ugo, 2016). Educators with a critical paradigm understand that young survivors of trauma are capable of growth beyond their present condition yet they are realistic in their understanding that the path towards that change can be a messy one.
Critical educators realize that “behavioral incidents” that may result from this trauma should not be treated as moments to exercise punitive disciplinary action (Yang,
2009). They understand that sending students out of the classroom, detention, suspension, and expulsion are tactics that feed into the school to prison pipeline and
62 larger systems of institutional racism (Nance, 2016). These educators understand that these outward negative expressions of behavior may be manifestations of past traumas in relation to situational triggers (NCTSN, 2016). For many students in these situations, critical educators are regarded as the only adults who are trusted enough to walk with them through their healing process (Ginwright, 2015). Untrainable characteristics like genuine respect for young people, sincere concern, trust, honesty, love, and audacious hope, are what set critical educators apart (Duncan-Andrade, 2009; Daus-Magbual and
Sudaria, 2011; Ginwright, 2016). These intrinsic qualities are essential to a critical pedagogical paradigm and are importantly, in many ways, counter to the mainstream practices of traditional educators. Embracing this critical paradigm though is merely the first step in enacting a critical pedagogy.
The second step, harnesses multiple classroom practices to engage students in a process of critical investigation. One of these classroom practices is critical literacy.
This examination can happen in any field of study but the process hinges on analytical reading skills. Shor (1992) states that critical literacy is
Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface
meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional
clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning,
root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action,
event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass
media, or discourse (129).
63
The strategy encourages students to realize that all language based information represents a subjective truth complicated by power relations. Truth, they learn, is more so imposed, than it ever is proven (Luke, 2012). This classroom strategy engrosses students in a dialogic relationship with all textual information, encouraging them to examine power’s effect on propagating or challenging the validity of any information as factual (Freire and Macedo, 1987). It is more than second guessing supposed fact, it is the process of navigating multiple truths and ideologies confounding certain topics. For example, in a CA, fourth grade, social science classroom, it is deconstructing and problematizing the differences between saying “Manifest Destiny,” “Westward
Expansion,” or “Native American Genocide.” It is the responsibility of the critical educator to build an active curiosity within in their students, that poses questions like
“Who benefits from these words? Who is left out? Why are these words different? What do these words hide? Whose words are these? Where is this language rooted?”
Critical literacy reminds students that the nuisances of language are highly political and are steeped in power dynamics that both overtly and covertly work to devalue, dehumanize, and eradicate the truths and histories of oppressed people (Comber, 2015).
This is reflected in another tenet of critical pedagogy which leans on this critical literacy tool of validating multiple narratives and experiences. Central to this idea is the student’s understanding that too often those who have been colonized, subjugated, or oppressed, have lost their power to recall, present, or define their own narratives and histories (De los Rios, Lopez, and Morrel, 2015; Giroux, Lankshear, McLaren, Peters,
2013). In instances where state mandated curricula advances mistruths, or spreads
64 incorrect or unfair portrayals of oppressed people, critical educators are tasked with bringing in outside texts, finding counter narratives, affirming the counter narratives of students, or altering curricula entirely. A level beyond that would be organizing political and institutional change, or demanding curricula reforms at the state or national level. At the heart of these actions, is the educator’s understanding that the identities of all humans, especially those who have been historically oppressed, must be survived and pushed forward.
In creating a platform for student’s identities and histories to be seen, critical educators can begin the process of debunking individual and group oppressions. Freire
(1972) argues that oppression is any instance where an individual has their humanity taken from them. Humanity he describes, includes a host of things including but not limited to: freedom, labor rights, political rights, civil rights, human rights, access to resources, ancestral land, and the ability to write history (Freire, 1972; Borunda, 2012).
Researchers argue that oppression can happen both externally, internally, and systemically (Shiasko, 2015; David, 2013; Young, 2014). Importantly, Freire (1972) notes that the oppressed are sometimes just as much oppressors themselves as those who oppress them. He insists that one of the most threatening acts committed by the societal elite, is creating and sustaining multiple systems that allow for the oppressed to willingly and sometimes unknowingly dehumanize themselves and others. It is in this critical examination of these many oppressions that educators must submerge their students. A critical pedagogy approach insists that teachers must make their students cognizant of their oppression to the point in which they can identify how they are affected and may
65 affect others (McLaren, 2007). The topic of oppression must be problematized in such a way that the student is not removed from the responsibility of the issue. Doing so requires situating the student at the center of a problem or issue instead of the periphery.
This centering of the student identity and examination of their societal position in relationship to oppression, is another key strategy in critical pedagogy (Macrine,
McLaren, and Hill, 2010). Educators must foster student centered classrooms where intersectional identities are both valued and problematized. In this type of setting, student experiences become comparative texts, which can be used to challenge and/or affirm what is being taught or discussed. This affords the student a place as both learner and expert dependent upon the topic of study. This shift in how teachers view students is essential for giving students back power to be active participants in their own education.
Educators who can create this type of classroom environment can inspire healthy discourse, stimulate diverse thinking, and build community amongst students (Hill,
2009).
Building community is an integral tool for a critical pedagogy approach (hooks,
1994). There are many social ills within neighborhoods and cities that too often divide communities and students from one another. In some school districts, these fractures can be born from poverty, violence, or gangs. In other districts these splinters might result from racial tension, religious strife, or political ideology. Critical educators work with their students to examine these conflicts in hopes of mediating these divisions.
Researchers have found that acknowledging and recognizing individual voice and narrative is key in building bridges between divided communities (hooks, 1994). These
66 voices not only fuel healthy, reparative dialogue between students but they work toward an understanding of empathy and solidarity. It is through this classroom discourse that students find linkages to one another and create community. This idea of student collectivism is paramount to critical pedagogy. Freire (1972) argues that one of the most dangerous works of the oppressor is their ability to create divisions between groups of oppressed people. Critical pedagogy confronts this tactic by advocating for first, the acknowledgement of individual oppressions, second the recognition of shared oppressions, and third, the development of plans towards collective action against systems which oppress (Braa and Callero, 2006).
Critical pedagogy insists that students take informed actions towards change, that are calculated, aimed at removing institutional obstacles, or eradicating systems of oppression all together (Bruenig, 2009). Critical educators have a major responsibility in helping to enact this process. It is not enough to get students riled up towards change; educators must provide students with a solid foundational understanding of community organizing and a knowledge of the various political processes of the institutions they are trying to change. The process useful for enacting this type of education is critical praxis.
Critical Praxis
Critical Praxis is the ongoing relationship between critical reflection and action
(Freire, 1970). The term describes the process of moving students from the classroom into an organized front. The steps to this process are cyclical in nature: investigate a topic, understand how oppression is connected, study the systems that created the oppression, plan towards reforming and changing of those systems, act towards those
67 plans, and then re-investigate and re-plan accordingly (Duncan-Andrade and Morrell,
2008; Furman, 2012). The process reiterates the importance of stepping away from learning models that are based purely in consuming information. The student is always encouraged to consider, “how can this information be used to improve society?” Critical theorists add that critical praxis is what separates commonplace learners from real social agents of change (Sonoda-Pale, 2016). A model for Critical Praxis is highlighted in
Figure 3 below.
Figure 3. Critical Praxis Model, (Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008).
Social Justice Youth Development Theory
Born from this need to enact critical praxis and move students from the classroom to creating institutional change, the Social Justice Youth Development Theory (SJYD)
68 was created. This is the last theoretical framework used to describe the critical social justice educator paradigm. (SJYD) Theory as presented by James and Ginwright (2003) uses 5 key principles when collaborating with youth: Make Youth Identity Central,
Embrace Youth Culture, Encourage Students to Analyze Power in Social Relationships,
Promote Systemic & Social/Institutional Change, and Encourage Collective Action.
The SJYD theory was developed with the idea that the educators should use critical theory, critical pedagogy, and critical praxis in all interactions with youth, whether it be in a traditional classroom space, expanded learning setting, or any other collaborative site. SJYD theory lifts up the idea that youth have power, assets, and intelligence, all of which should be elevated and utilized for the betterment of their communities and surrounding environments. It is important to mention that the SJYD theory incorporates other theoretical concepts within each of its five principles.
The first principle, Making Youth Identity Central, embraces the idea of intersectionality. Intersectionality is the concept which acknowledges that the humans have the capacity to have multiple identities. These multiple identities may be based in classifications such as race, ethnicity, gender, social class, sexuality, immigration status, religion, occupation etc. The concept of intersectionality recognizes that each of the identities have specific oppressions and privileges attached to them (Collins, 2016).
Those working in youth development must always be cognizant of youth they work with, understanding and studying the history and nuisances of each of their multiple ascribed and assumed statuses and identities. Educators must tailor their curricula, pedagogy, and language, in acknowledgement and respect of their youth cohorts.
69
The second principle, Embrace Youth Culture, acknowledges and respects that being a “youth” is an identity unto itself. Youth culture is distinguished by “The language, beliefs, values, norms, behaviors, and material objects that characterize a group and are passed from one generation to the next (Henslin, 2015 p.30).” The principle cautions and explains that youth have the capacity to have multiple cultures dependent on their social location (Brake, 2013). Youth development practitioners are encouraged to study the youth culture so that they may better engage youth, improve communications, and understand barriers.
The third principle, Encourage Students to Analyze Power in Social
Relationships, uses a critical theory and conflict theory approach in teaching students.
Under this principle, youth development educators, regardless of the topic or subject matter in discussion, should be helping youth to identify, examine, and analyze the societal forces that impose ideologies and positions of power. It is through this examination of power that youth begin to investigate their own oppression as well as the oppressions of others. The principle reinforces the idea that it is essential for youth to acknowledge that when social power is not shared or justice oriented, it can become the causal root for multiple forms of oppression. Dependent on the class focus, youth development educators can choose any social institution to investigate and deconstruct.
The fourth principle, Promote Systemic & Social/Institutional Change, is the concept that mobilizes youth from a position of inquiry and analysis into action. This concept reaffirms the Freirean (1970) idea that those with critical knowledge have a social responsibility to become advocates for change. There is a spectrum of possibility
70 when mobilizing youth towards a certain goal of change. The primary focus should be that the action be youth driven and directed towards dismantling the systems of power that directly affect youth. Youth development educators are encouraged to leverage their adult partnerships and connections in the interest of advancing youth action initiatives.
The fifth principle, Encourage Collective Action, details the need to build bridges across communities of oppressed people. This principle stresses the need for creating coalitions and achieving solidarity with other youth. Importantly, the principle stresses that idea of collectivism across identities, group affiliations, and communities to achieve common goals.
Though these five principles are seemingly simple in nature, this process can take significant amounts of time dependent on the topic of study. Some recent examples of social justice youth development and critical praxis at work are detailed below to provide readers with examples of what is possible through this approach.
Flint, Michigan. The Flint, Michigan water crisis which was exposed in 2015, permanently poisoned thousands of kids, women, and men. Government officials, seeking to save $5 million dollars overtime, switched the city’s water source, knowing that new water was contaminated and extremely toxic. Disregarding thousands of citizen complaints, petitions, and scientific reports, former Governor Snyder consciously permitted the use of the contaminated water source (Hanna-Attisha, LaChance, Sadler, and Champney Schnepp, 2016). Later reports would determine that source of the water contamination was linked to governor’s failure to address refitting and updating old pipes in an attempt to save money. The savings would lead to the permanent mental
71 disabilities, severe illnesses, and untimely deaths of many of children and adults (Butler,
Scammell, and Benson, 2016).
Droves of class action lawsuits were filed against the city for their money motivated, unjust mismanagement of public utilities (Chambers, 2016). The evidence that would be used in court to uphold and substantiate these lawsuits were produced from a group of college students, enrolled in an engineering ethics course. These students were tasked with scientifically examining the Flint water crisis. Students, in collaboration, with their teacher and other scientists, tested Flint water for various corrosive elements. In addition, they conducted ethnographic studies of the Flint community who were previously disregarded and ignored by government officials. Their findings provided undeniable scientific proof of water contamination that was supplemented by the horrid stories of sickness cataloged during their qualitative study; all of this data was ultimately raised in court as evidence (Nelson, 2016). This process, which started in the classroom, led to the development of many court cases, provided the grounds for financial reparations to affected families, and the scientific proof need to argue for the switching of water source infrastructures for the Flint community (Burke,
2016).
San Francisco, CA & Sacramento, CA. The histories of people of color have been absent from the major discourse within American K-12 classrooms since the inception of the United States public school system. For centuries, people of color have fought to have their histories and scholarship to be included within textbooks, classroom curricula, and state standards. A notorious example was seen in 2012, when Mexican
72
American Studies was completely banned by State Superintendent John Huppenthal, in
Arizona’s Tucson Unified School District (Wanberg, 2013). Another recent example was seen in Texas’ adoption of a middle school textbook that dismissively downplayed slavery in the Americas by rampantly omitting historical injustices perpetuated against enslaved Africans (Finger,2015). CA has been a special historical battle ground for this type of ethnic inclusion in history classrooms and the broader movement of critical ethnic studies.
A profound example of this fight for inclusion was seen in the SF State Student
Strike of 1968. The Third World Liberation Front, composed of critical scholars and activists from Filipino, Black, and Chicano communities, organized a movement demanding equitable representation in hiring practices, college admissions, and college course offerings. This strike effectively shut down the university for five months, ultimately leading to the development of the first-ever College of Ethnic Studies in the country (Molly, 2008). Almost 50 years later, students across CA have reawakened this struggle for the political inclusion of people of color’s ethnic history throughout the state.
In 2015, in Sacramento City Unified School District, students from the district’s
Student Advisory Council created a district wide survey across all 13 of their high schools in order to gauge perceptions regarding their experience as students (Carnero, 2015). The findings from about 1000 students surveyed highlighted that there was a lack of culturally relevant curricula within the district, amidst a host of other problems that were discovered in the results (Carnero, 2015). Able to recognize the same historical injustices of curricular exclusion happening in their own classrooms, these students organized, a
73 youth-led, community backed movement, which demanded a U.S. history curriculum that was more representative and inclusive of the contributions of people of color. Students spent an entire year, gathering signatures, lobbying school board members, and eventually writing and passing Resolution 2845. This resolution mandated that an Ethnic
Studies curricula be created by critical educators, introduced as a pilot class the following school year, and instated as a high school graduation requirement by 2020. In the pilot implementation of the class this 2016-2017 school year, almost 400 high school freshman were enrolled in a culturally empowering, critical based, social justice oriented, ethnic studies class.
Never Stagnant, Always Forward
It is easy for educators to become complacent after experiencing success in the classroom. The two examples highlighted above illustrate both the processual struggle towards change and the end products of that struggle which are often celebrated. There is much work after “winning.” The road is harder, more arduous, and spiritually demanding. It is a humbling process that forces critical educators and their students to realize that change is an ephemeral experience. The preservation of change is the continuance of the fight, the unceasing counterattack against traditional schooling. It is not enough to spark change; the flames of change must remain burning and kept ablaze.
Conscientização: Critical Consciousness
The theory of Conscientização was developed by Friere (1972) to illustrate the concept of becoming conscious of the world around you. The word is Portuguese in origin and translates to “conscious raising.” The term is analogous with “critical
74 consciousness,” a term which was popularized in Freire’s (1972) seminal work,
Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Critical Consciousness theory describes a mental state that is achieved through a process of reading, learning, and re-educating oneself. It is the process of de- colonization. It is the result of unteaching the impositions of traditional schooling.
Freire (1972) argues that the oppressed must utilize their critical consciousness to continuously investigate and examine their multiple oppressions and create plans of action to liberate themselves and other oppressed people. These emancipatory strategies require a reinvestigation of the social, political, and economic systems that entrap and sustain people in their multiple oppressions; it is the restart of the critical praxis cycle
(Duncan-Andrade and Morrel, 2008). The critically consciousness do not return back to oppressed communities as saviors; they come back as empowered comrades ready to organize the next collective resistance.
Critical consciousness is a state of mind as well as a social responsibility. It is an internal sense of accountability born from empathy for other oppressed people. The theory asserts that a critical consciousness is meant to be used as much as it is to be achieved. Freire (1972) emphasizes that it is not enough for the individual to achieve this enlightened mental state, they must remain committed to the communities from which they emerged from. It is the practice of going back, the course of action which forces the woke individual to wake others from their oppressive slumber.
Critical social justice educators have the obligation of becoming emancipatory agents for others who are oppressed, using their knowledge as a conduit for others to
75 escape their own oppression. For them, the education institution becomes the main channel to operate within. They are tasked with the treacherous responsibility of confronting and destroying, the same traditional schooling system that provides them employment, steady income, and health care. Critical Social Justice Educators are confronted with the daily commitment to accepting this high-risk scenario. Do not mistake this dedication as an altruistic self-sacrifice, it is the settling of a neve-ending social debt acquired from achieving a critical consciousness. It is more than paying it forward, it is the active choice to remind students of their deep-rooted power; the most significant factor in restoring balance in the inequitable structure of traditional schooling.
Teaching then, in itself, becomes a radical act; a collaborative revolution which is continued by educators and students who work towards structural transformation and the permanent dismantling of the oppressive traditional schooling system.
The next section highlights the effects this revolutionary process in the classroom.
The research asserts that educators and students benefit greatly from this progressive consciousness raising. The implementation of a social justice curricula that is informed by a critical paradigm can achieve considerable positive outcomes.
Section Three
Effects of Enacting the Critical Social Justice Educator Paradigm
What happens in a Critical Social Justice classroom? Researchers argue that there are great benefits to engaging students in a critical social justice education. When a student is intentionally engaged within a critical social justice education experience, great personal growth can be attained. The benefits are presented below in two subsections
76 which highlight the vast array of advantageous possibilities for both the students and the critical educator.
The Impacts of Critical Social Justice Education for Teachers
The shift from teaching through traditional paradigm learned in credentialing programs to a critical social justice paradigm can be difficult. Critical teachers often times meet ideological resistance from their school institution’s competing vision, conservative leadership or traditionalized teacher force (Morrison, 2016; Ligget, 2011).
However, making a critical change in the pedagogical mindset in the classroom has shown to huge impacts on teachers and their practice. Some important findings are discussed below.
First, critical teacher training creates opportunities for veteran educators to critically analyze their teaching approach. In a qualitative auto-ethnographic study conducted, Vavrus (2009) examined the effects of a Sex/Gender and LGBTQ focused critical teacher training curricula on 38 elementary and secondary teachers. Vavrus
(2009) found that through the curricula, teachers were able to confront their own deep seeded biases, problematize the intersectionality of their own identities and their student identities, confront their role in continuing heteronormative oppressive practices at their school sites, analyze the guilt they felt in enacting dominant group privileges, and challenge their complicity in spectator discrimination. Through this process, Vavrus
(2009) notes that these teachers slowly began to change their classroom environments to promote “open and safe classrooms,” altered curricula to be more inclusive, and built
77 teacher communities around critiquing the fear involved with going against mainstream practices.
Second, critical teacher education preparation programs have shown to affect teacher language. Lazar, Edwards, and McMillon (2012) found that the critical social justice training shifted teacher’s usage of oppressive language against students. This finding is highlighted, in a qualitative study of 42 undergraduate pre-service teachers,
Murdock and Hamel (2016) found that after rigorous, ongoing, critical pedagogical immersion, pre-service teachers were able to develop a more intricate and complex language base to address issues of diversity in specific relation to culture, stereotypes, race, sex, gender, and other identity categories. The LGBTQ movement has popularized this shift in training educators to be conscious of their use of pronouns when addressing their students (GLAAD, 2010). Simple adjustments from common phrases like “hey guys” to “hey folks,” counter hegemonic views of patriarchy, the upholding of the gender binary, and the forced engendering of young people. Taking this idea a step farther, educators can prompt classroom activities for students to declare their own titles, names, and pronouns, empowering them to express the fluidity of gender through their choice of expression (Elizondo, 2015). Similarly, when addressing topics of race in the classroom, critical educators can use ethnically specific titles instead of broad racial categories to disrupt the common amalgamation of multiple ethnic cultures into one racial group. For example, the purposeful switch from “Asian” to “Filipino, Cambodian, Vietnamese,
Hmong, Chinese, Japanese, etc.” Or the purposeful use of “Black” vs. “African-
American” to denote the political stance of the educator on racial power structure of the
78
United States. Whether discussing race, gender, or some other topic, critical social justice educators learn to be hyper-cognizant and intentional with their language choice, especially if they are in a group of privilege.
The deconstruction of racial and class privilege in White teaching cohorts is the third thematic impact. Since the White teachers are the numerically majority throughout state (75%) and national (85%) teaching populations, the effects of critically pedagogical training on these individuals must be discussed (NAEP, 2014;CDE, 2016). There is often times resistance when training pre-service or in-service White teachers about the educational inequities which stem from social institutions like race and social class (Gay
& Kirkland, 2003; Sleeter, 2002). In many teacher preparation programs, White students are critically confronting their own identities, biases, and privileges for the first time
(Stachowiack and Dell, 2016). Moving White teachers from a place of naivety or denial to an acceptance and debunking of their own privilege can be difficult, especially when that privilege has gone unexamined or unchecked for 20+ years (Butin 2005). In an ethnographic study conducted by Porfilio and Mallot (2011) which examined the implementation of critical pedagogical training on White pre-service teachers, researchers discovered several findings: 1) that some teachers shifted their conceptions of being
“neutral” to injustice in the classroom 2) teachers developed the ability to identify, name, and examine types of societal oppressions facing students of color, and 3) teacher cohorts were able to problematize how their own identity may be proliferating the oppression of their students. Similarly, Tarif, Ricks and Oates (2016) found that some White educators
79 were able to complicate, grow, and expand their conceptualization of social justice as it related to institutional and individual oppressions.
The Impacts of Critical Social Justice Education for Students
First, researchers have found that in many instances, critical social justice curricula has aided in the the development of more empathetic students. For example,
Wessler and De Andrade (2006) concluded that notable declines in verbal harassment were achieved at their research site with the implementation of critical literacy programs that debunked the racism, sexism, classism, and sizeism in everyday language used to bully classmates. Researchers Hazlett, Sweeney, Reins (2011) argue that the inclusion of literature that focused on characters of LGBTQ and physically and mentally disabled backgrounds into middle school and high school classrooms helped teens to build acceptance for people in marginalized groups. Through student’s connection to the universal experiences that the characters went through, a humanistic linkage was developed to the character and not their societal status as gay or disabled. Cruz (2012) found similar findings with her implementation of a project she entitled Testimonio in her work with at-risk LGBTQ youth. Her method of critical pedagogy focused on lifting up the narratives of LGBTQ high school students to become central texts within the classroom and then customized her classroom reading curricula to supplement the narratives of the students she was working with. Her qualitative study found that students felt empowered, connected, and more accepted by a larger group of people because her approach. Similarly, Sleeter (2011) found that the ethnic studies curricula, when taught critically, worked to build empathetic attitudes in high school students in
80 issues surrounding stereotypes, race, racism, and discrimination. In their work with EL students, Reyes and Brinegar (2015) found that the simple act of allowing their students to present their own narratives and experiences regarding their struggles with literacy aided in developing a more inclusive environment in their classroom. Students with obstacles in literacy were made to feel normal because they were able to vocalize the obstacles they experienced in the education institution. Critical pedagogy influenced environments are some of the few places where students, who have been historically marginalized can have their cultures affirmed and viewed through a lens of value instead of deficit (Yosso, 2005).
Second, critical social justice curricula allows students a platform to evaluate and alter systems of power. A recently popularized form of evaluation is seen with “youth participatory action research” or YPAR. YPAR gives students the opportunity to investigate a broad spectrum of social problems which affect them with the main goal of creating evaluation projects which aim to disrupt the institutions which cause those problems (Camarotta and Fine, 2008). Lushey and Monroe (2015) found that engaging their foster care students in critical praxis through participatory evaluation research gave them the tools to evaluate, assess, and report on the foster care institutions they were apart of. Their findings were used to guide youth led protocols on the regional foster care system where their study took place. Similarly, Youth Development Support Services
(2016) in SCUSD, in their pilot study based on a critical curricula centered on youth and teacher power dynamics, found that when given the proper tools and training in staff evaluation, students were able to intelligently assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the
81 teachers they interacted with in their expanded learning programs. These staff evaluations were used in the retention, re-hiring, or rejection of the staff for upcoming school year.
Third, this power and individual agency to affect various institutions and systems of power is another important finding of current research in the implementation of a critical education. O’Connor and Cosner (2016) found that through critical curricula, youth in their qualitative study were able to raise their agency in fighting for education reform and policy change. Mirra, Morrell, Cain, Scorza, and Ford (2013) found that critical education aided in the development of student’s care and concern for the public democratic process, which in turn affected their participation within the broader system itself. Additionally, they found that students made gains in the growth of personal agency within their own communities by campaigning and advocating for specific change to actually happen.
Lastly, perhaps the most important finding of current research shows that a critical education can build social collectivism between diverse groups of oppressed youth. Pulido argues that (2006) solidarity is born from enduring similar societal oppressions within communal neighborhoods and cities. A beautiful example of this was seen in 2015, with the Berkeley High walk out of nearly 1000 students who were protesting in inter-racial solidarity against a threatening hate message left in a computer lab targeting Black students. A similar event happened recently with the statewide convening of hundreds of Black and Brown youth who were recently suspended or expelled, protesting in solidarity at the CA state capitol, calling for an end to the school to
82 prison pipeline. Canlas, Argenal, and Bajaj (2015) argue that these mass solidarity movements start in the classroom, with projects that foster critical discussions centered on recognizing our shared humanity and our need to attain fair treatment through an equitable distribution of human rights.
Conclusion
The current version of schooling spread through the United States today was born from the colonial era. It is a perverse system of schooling built on Christinan idealism, behavioral control, cultural imperialism, and forcible assimilation. The system has proven overtime, to maintain WASP ideology and capitalist power structures while degrading the social agency and culture of students of color and poor Whites. This traditional schooling system thrives on standardization and universalized assessments; both of which enact racial and culturally biased divisions.
Critical Social Justice Educators are the resistance towards this traditional conception of schooling. Through their pedagogical strategies and critical paradigm they foster environments for students to become critically conscious and awakened to their endured state of oppression. These educators create classrooms for oppressed students to liberate themselves from the societal structures that encage them. The multiple pedagogical strategies they enact in the classroom are all aimed at disrupting the power structures which subjugate oppressed students and communities.
These critical social justice strategies have shown positive results when enacted in the classroom. Current research suggests that both students and teachers can achieve empathetic attitudes, usurp societal power, grow personal agency, build community, and
83 grow solidarity amongst diverse communities. In addition, research highlights that teachers are also affected in positive ways such as: becoming student and community advocates, altering oppressive behaviors, addressing and deconstructing their privilege,
The many benefits of enacting this critical educational approach should incentivize current and future educators to integrate these strategies into their personal classroom practice. This dissertation project serves as a testament to these inherent benefits and impacts as research participants will share their experiences surrounding the implementation of their own critical social justice curricula.
The following chapter details the methodology section of this dissertation. The chapter will outline for audiences the qualitative research design employed for investigating high school critical social justice educators in Northern California.
84
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the methodology employed in examining this research question: “How do Northern California high school critical social justice educators combat traditional schooling through their curricula development, classroom pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies?” A qualitative approach was used to study seven critical educators to provide insights about their curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies. In addition, multiple classroom observations were conducted with each of these seven educators. The justification for employing a phenomenological method and purposive snowball sampling technique will be discussed at length within this chapter. The chapter details the entirety of the research design, the role of the researcher, the specific research questions, the research setting, population and sample, instrumentation and materials, the data collection process, a description of the analysis and the protection of the participants involved.
Research Design
This study employs a qualitative research design. Merriam (2013) asserts that qualitative designs help to humanize scientific research by shifting the emphasis on quantifiable numerical data and instead highlighting the richness of the research participant’s lived experiences. Phenomenology, a form of qualitative research, allows for this type of investigation into the human experience.
In conducting phenomenological research, qualitative scientists seek to understand social phenomena and experiences through the lens of human actors who are
85 most intimately involved (Gronewald, 2004). Phenomenology is used as a way to validate the human experience as a form of tangible data that can be scientifically problematized and analyzed in depth (Merriam, 2009).
Phenomenological research creates a space for the voices of critical educators to be valued. This approach elevates research participants to an “expert level,” acknowledging that a participant’s expertise is specialized and validated by their societal titles and the complexities of their lived experiences (Lester, 1999). This form of critical inquiry helps illuminate themes and phenomena that exist specifically within the reality of being a critical social justice educator.
Phenomenological studies help to situate and contextualize the social realities of research participants within the broader context of the Critical Theory and Critical
Pedagogy. This approach was adopted to support the central theoretical premise interwoven throughout Chapter 2, which was Freire’s (1972) belief that all people, regardless of demographics or circumstance, have within them, an embedded, special, cultural knowledge that must be acknowledged as significant, especially if that knowledge is counter to the power structures and hegemony of the society that encompasses it.
Role of the Researcher
I am the sole investigator and researcher for this qualitative study. As the sole investigator I undertook the role as the recruiter, interviewer, and observer for all seven research participants. I made sure to receive no assistance during the interview process in an effort to protect the anonymity of my participants.
86
I transcribed all of the data from each of the individual interviews myself and subsequently coded each of the transcriptions thematically. I used an open coding system that allowed me the freedom to discover thematic evidence throughout my review of the transcriptions. After the transcriptions of all of the given data, I personally secured the data in a safe electronic storage device.
Research Questions
The main research question of this dissertation is “How do Northern California high school critical social justice educators combat traditional schooling through their curricula development, classroom pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies? In an effort to answer this question through one-on-one interviews, a semi-structured list of questions and probes were created. These questions and probes are highlighted in the table below:
Table 2
Interview Questions and Probes
Main Interview Questions Probes How do you define social justice? -What are some key words that stick out to you? -How has the field of education shaped your beliefs about social justice? Why do you consider yourself a -Are these qualities that are inherited? critical social justice educator? -Where did you learn these qualities from? -When did you first accept this title? -How do you think people perceive this title? -Do you think there is a distinction between you and other educators? What elements are integral to a social -What are some key components in your justice education? field of study? -Are these universal throughout the
87
subjects you teach? -Do you emphasize some more than others? -Is there an element you believe that is most important? How is social justice reflected through -How does your belief in social justice your classroom pedagogy? affect how you discipline students? -Have you received training in critical pedagogy, when? duration? How long? Etc. -What specific exercises/projects have you done in the past that reflect your social justice approach? -How did you learn this approach to teaching? -Is this counter-intuitive to what you have learned in your credentialing program? -How do the students feel about or receive this approach? -How do you think your pedagogy affects traditional schooling practices? How do you empower your students? -How much power do you think students have? What kind of power is it? -What do you think affects a student’s agency? -What are you doing as a teacher to empower your students? -What techniques or strategies can you share about student empowerment? -What effects have you seen in your students?
It should be noted that in lieu of the 2016 United States Presidential Election results that were declared during the development of this project, a sixth question was added to this interview list. The question simply stated: What do you think about the future of critical education given our new political climate?
88
The Research Setting
The location of this research project is Nor-Cal County. This specific location was chosen because of the strong relationship I have with the multiple school districts, its executive leadership, and its teachers. I have worked previously in partnership with three of the school districts within this county as an outside provider through a local non-profit organization more than four years. In December 2014, I was hired as a full time employee within one of these school districts and have since been closely involved with the development of several social justice centered programs in the county. Throughout the participant recruitment process I relied on the positive relationships and connections I have built over the years. A description of all three school districts (Capitol District,
Plains Land District, and Crystal District) included in this study are provided below.
Capitol District
Capitol District stretches across multiple towns, neighborhoods, and cities within
Nor-Cal County. The district was established in 1854 and is one of the oldest school districts on the West Coast. There are approximately 44,000 students in this school district spread across 75 campuses.
Capitol’s students reflect the rich diversity that is the hallmark of Sacramento’s
central city. Our student population is 37.1 percent Hispanic or Latino; 17.4
percent Asian; 17.7 percent African American; and 18.8 percent white. About 5.3
percent of students are of two or more races or ethnicities.” (Capitol, 2016)
89
Alongside this diversity are the many ethnicities, languages and cultures within each of the broad racial categories. There are more than 40 languages spoken within the school district and about 38% of students and families do not speak English at home.
The parents and families of this student population are primarily working class.
More than 70% of the entire school district receives “free or reduced lunch.” This percentage is higher than the county and the state’s free and reduced lunch population which is roughly 59.0% respectively (CDE, 2016).
Like the majority of the teaching population within the nation, more than 70% of teachers in Capitol District are primarily White females. The number of African
American teachers is a cause for concern, as they represent barely 1% of the entire district teaching staff. Latinx and Asian teachers represent about 25% collectively.
Plains Land District
Plains Land District is the bordering county and city nearest Capitol District. A description taken directly from their website has been provided below:
The Plains Land District (PLD) is the fifth-largest school district in California
located in southern Nor-Cal County. PLD covers 320 square miles and includes
65 schools: 40 elementary schools, nine middle schools, nine high schools, four
alternative education schools (including a virtual academy), a special education
school, a charter school and an adult school. Offering a multitude of educational
programs, in-cluding over 40 career-themed academies and pathways within 14
industry sectors, we prepare our students for college and career by supporting
them with the means to be creative problem solvers; self-aware, self-reliant, and
90
self-disciplined; technically literate; effective communicators and collaborators;
and engaged in the community as individuals with integrity. We integrate rigorous
academics with career-based learning and real world workplace experiences and
ensure that Every Student is Learning, in Every Classroom, in Every Subject,
Every Day.
At this school district, there are almost 63, 000 students enrolled. There are 13%
African American, 1% American Indian, 23% Asian, 6% Filipino, 26% Hispanic or
Latino, 2% Pacific Islander, 21% White, and 9% multiple race students.
Like Capitol District, the teaching population does not represent the student body, however there is more diversity. There are 5% African American, 1% American Indian,
6% Asian, 2% Filipino, 10% Hispanic/Latino, 1% Pacific Islander, 70% White, and 6% multiracial credential teachers.
Crystal District
Crystal district represents the bordering county and city to Capitol District and
Plains Land District. A description of the district taken directly from the district website is provided below:
Created in 1960 with the merger of six school districts, Crystal District has a rich
tradition of helping students find academic success and achievement. The district
serves a 75-square mile area covering the communities of A town, B town, C
town, D town, E town and F town. Today Crystal District is the 11th largest
school district in California with an expenditure budget of more than $387 million
used to employ more than 5,000 individuals and to educate more than 46,000
91
students in our early learning, TK-12 and adult programs. San Juan Unified
offers a variety of high quality education environments to serve the learning needs
of every student.
A description of their students by ethnicity is shown below, the data is taken from ed-data.org (2017).
Table 3
Crystal District Student Enrollment
Enrollment by Ethnicity 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 American Indian or Alaska Native 629 590 524 490 461 Asian 2,262 2,313 2,377 2,393 2,759 Black or African American 3,696 3,662 3,857 3,805 4,268 Filipino 634 638 615 650 713 Hispanic or Latino 9,058 9,623 10,349 10,783 11,102 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 421 433 447 421 439 None Reported 65 67 76 77 95 Two or More Races 852 1,218 1,564 1,825 644 White 29,628 29,208 29,226 28,670 29,083 Total 47,245 47,752 49,035 49,114 49,564
A description of their teachers by ethnicity is shown below, the data is taken from ed-data.org (2017). As highlighted with Capitol District and Plains Land District, the teaching population does not represent the student body.
Table 4
Crystal District Certificated Teachers
Teachers By Ethnicity 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 % American Indian or Alaska Native 21 22 22 20 0.9% Asian 76 77 81 82 3.7% Black or African American 32 37 37 33 1.5% Filipino 1 1 1 1 0 % Hispanic or Latino 129 127 142 156 7% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 1 2 0%
92
None Reported 72 88 71 62 2.8% Two or More Races 3 2 4 5 0.2% White 1,845 1,823 1,862 1,876 83.9% Total 2,179 2,177 2,221 2,237 100%
Population and Sample
Research participants were selected using a purposive snowball sampling technique. This style of sampling allows the researcher to seek out specified groups of people with certain defining characteristics. Once a small group of these participants are identified, these participants then aid in the recruitment of other individuals with identical group traits.
I selected this sampling technique to address issues of access and identification.
The critical social justice educator community throughout Nor-Cal county high schools is rather small and segregated by school and subject area. All of the critical social justice educators included in this study are part of small school collectives with the words
“social justice” included in their title. There are four different social justice collectives represented in this study, whose organization names are purposely omitted to preserve the anonymity of each group.
In order to find these critical social justice educators and gain trust within their tightknit community, I relied on word of mouth invitations from critical social justice educators within the school district who I have worked with personally on various Nor-
Cal County social justice initiatives.
I looked for individuals who were self-identified, critical educators, who had membership to a social justice collective, who teach in a Nor-Cal county high school,
93 with more than three years of teaching experience. There were no stringent identity- based classifications (race, gender, class, etc.) used to recruit these educators. However, quite luckily perhaps a diverse sample of educators was represented in this study. Table 6 on the next page highlights the demographic profiles of each of these educators.
Given that most educators do not openly state their status as a “critical educator” or “social justice educator” on resumes or applications, identifying this population through Nor-Cal County Human Resources would have proven impossible. Trochim
(2006) asserts that the snowball sampling techniques aids in accessing groups who can be challenging to pinpoint or reach. Symon and Cassel (2012) add that in situations where groups are hard to identify, this style of sampling aids in both gaining entrance to the population as well as building trust within the community through a third party who acts as a buffer between the researcher and other participants.
Table 5
Demographics of Participants
Participant Gender School District Grade Subject # of Level Taught years taught Andres M Capitol City Capitol 9-12 -Law and 8
School District Policy
-Government
-Political
Science
Antonio M River Rock Plains 9 & 11 -AVID 3
94
School Land -English
District
Aylah F Old Town Crystal 9 & 10 -Ethnic 3
School District Studies
-World
History
Bel F Old Town Crystal 9-11 -English/ELD 3
School District -Ethnic
Studies
Nicki F Tree Land Capitol 9 -English 3
School District -Ethnic
Studies
Robby M River Rock Plains 9-12 -AVID 18
School Land -Math
District -Physics
-AP Physics
Tina F River Rock Plains 9-12 -AVID 13
School Land -English
District -AP English
95
Data Collection Process
All interview locations were set by the participants of the study. These locations varied between office spaces, classrooms, community organizing spaces, and coffee shops. Times and locations were selected based on the participant’s personal schedule.
All interviews lasted no longer than one hour. To ensure the confidentiality of the location, these meeting places and times were undisclosed to other people.
Table 6
Interview Locations, Start Times, and Durations
Participant Interview Location Start Time Interview Duration Andres Classroom 8:10 AM 53.2 minutes Antonio Faculty Copy Room 8:00 AM 57.4 minutes Aylah Classroom 12:15 PM 49.2 minutes Bel Community Org. 5:30 PM 56.3 minutes Nicki Classroom 9:00 PM 47.8 minutes Robby Coffee Shop 10:00 PM 59.1 minutes Tina Classroom 2:00 PM 43.4 minutes
Once participants determined their meeting locations, semi-structured, one-on-one interviews were used to extrapolate data. Edwards (2013) insists that semi-structured interviews as opposed to structured interviews, aid in creating more natural conversational spaces between researchers and participants. The more comfortable and natural that participants feel, the likelihood of their sharing personal information increases (Turner, 2015). All of the questions posed during the interview process were open-ended, allowing for the participants to divulge diverse responses with varying
96 degrees of information. All main research questions were supplemented with additional exploratory questions to prompt more information from participants.
In addition to these semi-structured interviews, I conducted multiple classroom observations with each educator while they were teaching. Each observation lasted an entire class period. During these observations, I sat in a location chosen by the educator and did not move unless my seated position interrupted the classroom process. My observations consisted of taking detailed notes on my laptop, focusing on the educator’s interaction with students, teaching style, language use, activities, exercises, handouts, and assignments for the day. I remained silent during all observations and did not interact with the students. I only spoke to the teacher during the observation if they engaged me in casual conversation, other than this I tried to keep my presence as non-intrusive as possible.
Instrumentation & Post Interview Analysis
There were few instruments used in the data collection process for this research study. I utilized two recording devices simultaneously during every interview with the full consent of the research participants. I used a digital voice recorder and a cell phone to record all of the interviews in their entirety. Throughout the interview, I used a laptop, and a pen and paper to take notes.
Data was analyzed and coded using Auerback and Silverstein’s (2003) qualitative coding framework. These researchers argue that seven steps must be enacted when coding data: 1) raw text, 2) relevant text, 3) repeating ideas, 4) themes, 5) theoretical constructs, 6) theoretical narrative, and 7) research concerns (Berner, 2012).
97
The first step involved converting all audio data taken from interviews into “raw text,” All interviews were transcribed and reviewed multiple times for authenticity and exactness. After several listens, audio verifications, and text confirmations, I felt like I became familiar with the interviews in their raw form. I then began annotating in the margins of text, marking important time stamps for points of interest, leaving myself directions to return to certain areas to investigate specific ideas that needed more attention.
Next, I separated all relevant text away from the body of the full interviews so that all non-related, conversational side talk concerning items like dinner plans, weekend highlights, and football game scores were excluded. However, I made sure not to permanently delete any of these sections so that I would be able to return to it for any reason in the future. From this point, I changed the color, size, and typeface of all relevant text, and systematized all excerpts in accordance and relation to each of the six research questions.
I then conducted a stringent analysis of the relevant text as they related to the research questions. I printed out all of relevant text and highlighted and circled words phrases that were commonly used. Phrases and ideas that had numerous repetitions were highlighted in a different color with stars drawn in the margin for easy location on the next run through.
After identifying all relevant text, I categorized each of the repeated words, ideas, and phrases into thematic categories and inter-related sub-themes. I re-located each of the highlighted commonalities and repeated words in the digital transcriptions and began
98 copying and pasting each into a digital excel table organized by question. I sought out connections between these themes and cross-examined them with the theoretical frameworks posited in Chapter 2. Specifically, the transcriptions were analyzed through the theoretical lenses of Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy. In centering my analysis through these two frameworks, I expected to discover how participants rationalized their involvement as critical social justice educators and its relation to confronting systems of power in the broader society. Through this analysis, I aimed to garner new understandings about the identities of critical social justice educators, their curricula, their pedagogy, and their strategies for empowering their students.
Each of these themes and sub-themes were then organized into broader thematic constructs and sections. Each construct and section was developed into a theoretical narrative to highlight what findings were elucidated from the interview and analysis process. The narrative married the concerns of this research dissertation with the authentic voices of each educator. Direct quotations were weaved together to create a narrative which highlighted all of the important thematic elements derived from this research.
Protection of Participants
Identifying names were not included on any documents other than the consent forms, and pseudonyms were put in place for participant’s real identities as well as organization affiliations. Also, there will be no leading information to reveal their identity such as occupation, family, or regional origin, etc. Personal addresses and the like were never disclosed. Consent forms were kept separate from interview transcripts.
99
Participants had the right to exclude any information or themselves from the records at any time; participation was completely voluntary and withdrawal from the research was available at any time with absolutely no consequence. Written notes and recordings of responses to the open-ended and demographic questionnaires were kept until data analyses were completed but to were held no longer than time of the dissertation project completion. Personal information, research data, and all related records were stored in a secured location that was accessible only to the investigator and was destroyed and discarded after completion of this dissertation.
To ensure the confidentiality of the participants, I created a systematic process for the handling of all gathered data from interviews. As mentioned previously, a written contract was created between myself and the interviewees to ensure that no duplications of the interview tapes were made. Furthermore, that none of the interview information be used for any other purpose than this study, and that no identifiable information was released about the interviewee or the organization (all names and organization name was changed). Second, all tapes were marked with labels as “interviewee 1, 2, 3 etc,” making sure that no actual names were attached to the tapes themselves. These numbers were attached to names in a log that was kept in a secure and locked file and discarded after transcription. Third, I was the only person transcribing data received from the recorded conversations to ensure that no one else heard or used the information. Finally, once all transcriptions were made, I kept the tapes in a locked safe, inside of a location that remained undisclosed to any parties either indirectly or directly affiliated to the research project. The tapes, logs, and any other research related material with personal information
100 on it was destroyed and discarded after the completion of this thesis research project, which was estimated to be May 1, 2017.
Validity
In order to validate and substantiate the data collected during this dissertation, I employed several strategies. All of these strategies were utilized to aid in increasing the trustworthiness, authenticity, and credibility of the data collected.
First, I conducted a “member check” with all of the participant’s involved in the study. Creswell (1998) states that this technique is useful in that participants are given a second opportunity to review their transcriptions and the analysis of their interviews to ensure that their perspective was properly presented. Second, I used rich thick description in the presentation of my data analysis. This technique allowed me to provide the necessary analytical depth to highlight the participant’s actual experiences. Third, throughout the dissertation I have reiterated my researcher bias to make clear to audiences how my intersectionality has affected both the interview process and the interpretation of the data itself. Fourth, I presented all of the discrepancies in participant responses openly throughout the data section of this dissertation. Fifth, I used an external auditor who was unconnected to the project, the school district, and any of the participants to ensure that that the transcriptions were presented verbatim throughout the entirety of this dissertation.
101
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The United States education system was historically designed to institutionalize the thinking and behaviors of all young people (Axtel, 1974; Wagoner and Harlow, 2002;
Jeissman, 2006). Traditional schooling, specifically, has served as a devastatingly effective mechanism for oppressing multiple generations of poor and working class students of color within this country (Duncan-Andrade and Morrel, 2008; Giroux, 1989;
2010; 2011). California (CA), much like other states within the nation, continues to show a disproportionate trend of academic failure when comparing its historically disadvantaged students (ie. Indigenous, English Learners, Low-Income, Urban Youth of
Color, and Foster Youth) to privileged White counterparts (Hill and Ugo, 2016). The system has proven to serve as a divisive conditioning apparatus, useful for preparing and segmenting populations to maintain a societal structure built on capitalism, colonization, racism, sexism, religion, and prison. (Darling-Hammond, 2012; Daly et al., 2016; Davis,
2016; De Castella, 2013; Dee, 2015; Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera, 2010; Lubell and
Putman, 2016; Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, and Maczuga, 2016; Valenzuela, 1999;).
There are educators though, who refuse to participate in this systemic intergenerational oppression of students. These educators have committed themselves to a form of resistance work that is critical, empowering, liberating, and hope driven. Their work is centered on fostering environments for students to self-inspire towards a critical consciousness; a mindset necessary for dismantling oppressive systems. The purpose of
102 this study is to recognize and advance the contributions, ideologies, pedagogies, and student empowerment strategies of these critical social justice educators.
This chapter has been designed to offer some insights to the world of critical social justice education. The narratives of seven educators from multiple Northern
California school districts help to construct this understanding. In addition, multiple classroom observations with each of these seven educators works to validate and highlight the strategies useful for decolonizing the traditional classroom spaces they navigate daily. A qualitative phenomenological approach was essential for validating the rich lived experiences of these educators (Gronewald, 2004; Merriam 2009). Through in- depth interviews and numerous classroom observations, a vivid snapshot of their contributions was developed. The illustrative capacity of a qualitative phenomenological method brought forward findings that may have proved elusive to a standardized statistical quantitative approach (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007).
The following chapter has been constructed into four separate sections which serve to answer the main research question of this study: How do Northern California high school critical social justice educators combat traditional schooling through their curricula development, classroom pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies?
Each of the four sections represents an integral theme useful for theorizing an answer for this main question. The sections are presented in a specific successive order.
The goal of this selected order is to walk readers through the process that critical educators undergo in combatting traditional schooling. It should be noted however that this is not a static process; the order can change dependent on the educator. The process
103 starts from the development of their social justice paradigm, to classroom praxis, to the social consequences, and finally to their thoughts on the future. Each of the four sections is described in summation below.
The first section, Politicized Paradigms, offers insight to how each educator describes the highly debated, often times institutionally misunderstood, term of social justice. Each of the educator’s specific explanation of the term is highly relevant to the ways in which they operate within the school space.
The second section, The Revolution Between School Bells, contains multiple themes that highlight the specific curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies utilized by the educators. The first segment speaks about the intentional choices made by each educator to navigate, utilize, and move beyond standardized curricula to promote a critical social justice education. Given that each of the educators teach in separate subjects, the section is helpful in understanding how social justice is integrated within each of the multiple topics of study. Also offered within this section are the pedagogical strategies and student empowerment approaches employed by each educator within their classroom spaces.
The third section, Honor in Seclusion explores the social and professional consequences of adopting and promoting a critical social justice paradigm in the classroom. This section explains the problematic issues that educators confront while
“doing this work.”
104
The fourth section, Resistance Work in the 45 Era details these educator’s thoughts on the importance of a critical social justice education in this current United
States socio-political landscape.
Politicized Paradigms
As made evident throughout the literature review, the term social justice is multi- faceted. Diverse interpretations of this term have led to several schools of thought in both academia and the social world; each way of thinking is marked by its own ideological standpoints, political views and consequently its own forms of action.
The educators in this study have admittedly grappled with their own conceptions of the word throughout the course of their life. When prompted with the question “how do you define social justice?” Many of the educators expressed their difficulties with arriving at one solid definition. Phrases like “That’s tough…” “That’s a hard one…”
“There’s so many ways to say that…” were commonplace reactions to this question.
Robby, one of the more seasoned teachers, jokingly stated “I think it's a really complicated question. I think it evolves over time right? Like when I was in college 20 years ago there was multiculturalism, no one even said the word social justice…it didn’t exist…”
Naming the Practice
As the educators worked to construct their own definitions, the answers ranged in depth from person to person. Each response reflected similar verbiage and common political and ideological perspectives. For educators like Tina, the answer was straightforward and goal driven. She stated “I would define social justice by saying it is
105 being politically active by understanding what's injustice in society and then working towards straightening that out.” Aylah retorted this same sentiment but added the caveat of personal and social identities, saying:
We are really talking about lives and how it connects with the larger society…
and what are some inequalities…so if I were to analyze social justice…it’s really
just realizing what’s going on in your society and making a change... making it
better…whether it’s for your group or the social identities you believe in or who
you identify with.
This idea of delineating a clear boundary between social justice, injustice, and inequality seemed to be important to many of the other educators as well. This process of stating oppressions, labeling social problems, and identifying injustices is necessary to create a vision and a path; a clear starting point and an end goal in the work towards social justice. How can you work towards what you can’t see or describe? The messy part about working towards social justice with intersectional diverse communities is that not every one “sees” or feels the same. Ayla’s idea about personal and community identity as being linked to understanding injustice is adamantly supported by Andres. In the following passage, he problematizes this idea about how identity creates individual standpoints of social justice:
We gotta realize this world is made of two parts. Privilege and oppression. Some
folks get to live their whole lives without understanding the subtle heartaches,
microagressions, and at times straight up violence we gotta put up with in this
world cus of who we are, who are parents are, and who our ancestors are…Social
106
justice is about calling that shit out…those fuckin’ social problems that folks with
privilege can’t see…and straight up refuse to see sometimes…I mean that’s how
privilege is maintained right? (laughing)… we gotta start there …noticing that our
society is much bigger than general haves and have nots…some folks got power
and some folks are disempowered daily…to get to a real definition of social
justice, we gotta see the inequities, oppressions, and fuckin’ institutional violence
that our communities experience on the daily…without that, what are we really
aiming towards fam?
The acknowledgement and creation of this dichotomy between social justice and injustice is something that these educators agree is only the first step. Before moving into action, those challenging injustice must be specific in pinpointing the oppressions and institutions they are attempting to confront. Without this specificity and focus, a movement’s energy and direction can become easily misguided and misplaced. Nicki highlights the importance of removing injustice out of its broad terminological context and being specific in how it is addressed. In framing this idea, she states:
I think in terms of like people having human dignity... I think you know…that’s
like a core thing…Being able to name and have self-determination...Access to
clean air and water and food… and housing… basic normal human needs....
Ensuring that all people have access to those things…and that considering the
many inequities that exist…that those core things are accessible to people…I
think that's what social justice is…Or thinking about our school orientation
towards social justice we have to actually be explicit about what the injustices are
107
so that we can deconstruct them…and acknowledge the actions that we can do to
ensure that those core things like food, water, and education are
provided?...Basically ensuring that the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights is met for people …but the giant missing component is how do we make it
happen?…
Nicki’s final thought of addressing the “how,” is an integral piece of many of her fellow educators’ perceptions of social justice. There must be a marriage between identifying specific social injustices, understanding conceptual social justice theory and moving into collective action against oppressive institutions. At some point, there must be a transition out of the classroom; a critical consciousness without action is ineffective for creating change. Bel supports this point saying:
So for me, its understanding the theory and understanding the institutions and the
way they are created... how white supremacy was created…how it’s still instilled
in the system… for me, it’s about challenging those systems of the institution…
those isms that are socially constructed… I challenge it in my teaching and work
but also in practice…being out there organizing…Doing sit ins and protests… in
many ways that’s what I bring back to teaching…that for me is social
justice…that you are challenging that current…that you are going against the
current…you know it can knock you down…but it’s the work you have to do…
the action for me is very important.
For educators like Antonio, addressing and acting against these oppressive institutions or “the current” as Bel stated, is key for providing the “how” to social justice.
108
However, Antonio introduces a significant key element into conceptualizing social justice while serving as an educator and working with young people as he says:
Social justice work…I view it as making institutional change. I feel a lot of folks,
especially with the novice teachers, or the credential folks, view social justice
work as teaching ‘critical lessons’…and maybe?…but I disagree…I view social
justice work as making systemic institutional change for the betterment of young
folks and also eliminating, not decreasing, but eliminating, institutional
oppression and barriers to the success of young folks…That's what I would look
at social justice as…making institutional change within schools and the
communities…within the schools, it could be at the department level or school
wide…it could be through course work, policies, anything institutional that
makes the learning experiences for young people better.
Andres provides an intersectional perspective on this same thought, saying:
That’s why its hella hard to provide a solid definition on this term…because
depending on the community you’re talking about, you gotta alter it a little
bit …justice can’t be universal…because the oppression affects folks different…
there’ll always be those core things about redistributing power…breaking
oppressive institutions…But If I’m talking about social justice in the classroom…
that’s kinda’ different…because the injustice the young folks experience is
specific to their home life, community life, their environment…and who they
are…Social justice for all these youngsters is gonna be hella different…so for me,
it’s about reminding them of that inherent power they got… social justice in the
109
classroom specifically is helping them see those institutional oppressions and
building that agency within those youngsters to tackle that shit collectively…to
emancipate themselves, free themselves from those oppressions…
Andres’ thoughts about social justice in relation to the classroom brings forward the final idea that emerged throughout the educator’s responses when providing a definition for social justice: freedom. The idea of freedom was relayed as something born from social justice work, something to be strived towards, a lofty end goal perhaps.
Robby provided a presentation of this idea as he stated:
In the most basic sense, it's fighting to make sure everyone is as free as possible. I
think that for me, fighting for social justice is fighting to make people free and I
mean truly free…I think when you’re free you have the greatest degree of
choice…And removing barriers to those choices is what we would want to do as
educators, what we want to do as people. We want to remove barriers so people
can have greater degrees of freedom… my version of social justice is fighting
against any barriers that inhibit the freedom of others…You know like seeking to
be truly free. The maximum number of choices the maximum freedom for
everyone. And I think that’s definitely how I think of it as an educator…
Social Justice Roots
In reflecting on sources of these educators’ definitions, follow up questions were posed to each of them in various forms. Generally, the main question in response to their stated social justice definition was “what has informed your definition overtime?” The responses to this follow up question acknowledged two life experiences, (1) the
110 educator’s interaction with their own students or (2) their own experience as students being taught by peers, family, mentors, or teachers. These life experiences will be described as sub-themes useful for understanding how each educator has shaped their definition of social justice. Each sub-theme is explained in the sections below.
Students Teach Us. Aylah describes this first sub-theme by reflecting on how her definition of social justice has been shaped by the students she teaches. She states:
I think my students really gave me the perimeter of what social justice is…they
helped me understand what their own identities are and what are some things to
fight for…without knowing that… I mean everyone believes it’s a perfect world
for everyone else…except for them…So I think with them…they really got me to
see the different challenges and issues they have and it’s helped me see the
intersectionality between what I went through, what the students are going
through, and how even you know…I don’t think I’m that old…(laughs)…but [in
comparison to] even 15 years ago things are different…
Students provide educators with another lens to analyze and reflect on their own fixed knowledge. Diverse student cultures have distinct norms, values, and beliefs, all of which affect the ways in which they receive what is taught to them. Couple that with the complexities of student intersectionality and interpretations widen even more. When teachers are receptive to the differing opinions and viewpoints of their students, they have the capability to grow as learners themselves.
Antonio supports Aylah’s idea about his own understanding of social justice being shaped by students with a reference to a specific example in his classroom. In
111 reflecting on this idea, Antonio discussed his student’s involvement in a YPAR project where his students protested and campaigned against the school’s schedule. The Social
Justice Collaborative (SJC) team, a group that his students had formed, conducted extensive collaborative research with Antonio and learned that the school’s master schedule played a huge factor in disproportionately affecting the dropout rates of Latinx and Black students. After several months of collecting data and surveying teachers, the students challenged the school’s discriminatory scheduling structure, and forced a teacher vote to happen, ultimately shifting the school’s master schedule into a block schedule; a decision that recognized student demands and validated the important YPAR project of the SJC. In reflecting on this moment, Antonio stated:
…Through that, that's how I feel I became more politicized as a teacher because I
saw the kids doing critical work to make institutional change…Before that I feel
in my mind, it was just ‘OK’ I'm doing YPAR…I'm doing critical pedagogical
lessons…You know, this is good work… I'm giving them a mindset with the
YPAR and I'll give them an opportunity to do a little bit of activism…But before
that…I had never seen it become…or be organic… coming from students like
that...And then them making institutional changes that bettered their lives and that
of their friends… I think that really informed me just seeing young people be able
to make institutional change and have teachers work with young people…
As Antonio cites his students as being highly influential to his conceptualization of social justice, he does not want to discredit the work of his mentors or favorite authors.
The youth have evolved his present day definition of the term but his foundational
112 conceptions of the idea’s application to education were built in college. Similarly, Aylah made sure to acknowledge the role that her college professors played in building her knowledge of the concept. However, these two made it a point to mention their daily work with their students continuously “alters” and “informs” the ways they understand social justice. In a traditional schooling setting, this reversal of power would not be possible. If Aylah and Antonio had perpetuated the traditional expectation of one sided classroom experiences, where teachers teach and students listen, they would have inevitably have missed out on this significant learning opportunity. Their humility and resistance to the status quo expanded their knowledge base and simultaneously empowered their students to re-shape the traditional learning environment.
Always a Student. Though the other educators did not explicitly mention their involvement with students as correlated with their understanding of social justice. Their first conceptualizations of the term were built through a similar teacher-student dynamic.
For these educators, their framing of social justice was rooted more within their own experience as youth being guided by social justice peers, mentors, and teachers within their direct community.
Tina’s narrative details the importance of having teachers who can weave and connect empowering identity based cultural elements into an elementary education as early as Kindergarten. She reflects on her earliest notions of social justice as something that was learned through culture and community. She admits that her teacher shaped her own perceptions of social justice which in turn empowered her into action. This idea of
113 culture and community as a source of empowerment and social action is discussed here in
Tina’s point:
I had progressive teachers where I grew up in elementary school and I remember
it was during the time of the Panthers...That's going to date me though
(laughing)… a lot was going on in Oakland…And remember I was like in second
or third grade and my teachers were very progressive and they had us get involved
in the local politics…right with the Black Panthers…I remember we visited their
headquarters and they made it known that our voice could make a difference…
my teachers exposed me to my history as an African-American and I was able to
read about African-American authors….We went to see plays… my whole life [as
a child] was about enriching myself through my culture…
Tina’s situation may be viewed as an anomaly built simply on good timing. She was at epicenter of the radical 60’s, in Oakland, situated near the Black Panther headquarters, being taught by a politically active teacher who identified as a White ally to the Black struggle. That situation is hardly commonplace. Other educators were not as fortunate to have been serendipitously placed into that type of socio-political context so early in life.
For educator’s like Bel, high school and college were key times and places integral to her politicization and introduction to social justice. In this excerpt she reflects on the emotions and mindset that fueled her high school experience into college saying:
I remember the mentors that I’ve had… and my experience going into my first
ethnic studies course that I ever took…in high school actually in MEChA…they
114
took me to meetings at the college level with other college students that were in
MEChA at time…I was already an angry teenager because I knew the inequities
that were happening right around me, to my family, to my peers, to my brother…
because just thinking about my own education in Stockton…for so long we were
taught that we couldn’t or that we didn't have a voice…that was just part of our
culture… this idea of culture deficit on our families and communities…
Everything that was happening created a sense of anger… and I knew it was
wrong…I knew that these teachers that were in front of us, allowing us to sleep all
period was not right…You know?… how can I get an A if I didn’t do
anything? … I didn’t learn and so just with that anger and being able, to filter it in
that way was very powerful for me…and then taking the ethnic studies course my
freshman year in college, helped me contextualize it…
Bel raises a key point about the seeing the contrast between a superficial education and the critical education that she was receiving through MEChA. Her reflection on her experience highlights the idea that students, even at young ages, can identify learning environments that are oppressive to their own growth. In this case, her teacher’s passivity and low expectations were stunting her development as a student. Her involvement in MEChA helped her to juxtapose two types of educations: oppressive traditional schooling and an empowering critical education. Importantly, it built within her a critical curiosity about her oppression that trickled into action during her college years. She explains this by saying:
115
…And then I took ethnic studies with one of the professors, Eric Vega. He
actually invited us out to our first protest and that just completely changed my
life…He was always about what ethnic studies has at it's heart…that you can go
out there and create change in the streets…you’re out there challenging that
current…It's not just you learning about it and sitting here with it…like you go
out there and do something about it… I learned that through him…That's how I
got connected to Sol Collective, under his wing. I learned that also through
Margarita actually. She was our MEChA advisor at that time as well…So, she
helped us organize a lot…She modeled a lot of that…and that provided a lot of
tools and a lot of courage…To be able to stand up… and so being exposed to that
made me realize that…oh my gosh…this is it… social justice… this is how social
justice looks like…when you’re going against the current…
Andres echoes Bel’s story, sharing that he too became politicized and oriented towards social justice first in high school and deeper later on in college. Like Bel and
Tina, his introduction to resistance movements happened through mentors that were organizing with or in solidarity with their ethnic groups. Ethnicity and culture became an entry point for their mentors to teach them about social justice; a way to contextualize their oppression and struggle with a broader community. Like Bel, Andres explains that his curiosity and critical development needed guidance from an older social justice minded mentor. Andres shares the story of his introduction to social justice here:
…I remember back in 2001, when the whole 9/11 thing happened…I was a junior
in high school…that shit really shook my understanding of the world…especially
116
in regards to race, racism, and xenophobia…Around that same time, I just so
happened to be kickin it a lot with my cousin who was in college at the time…she
was an economics major over at UC Santa Cruz…and she was super active in the
community, volunteering with hella community orgs, performing in the local
Filipino art theatre company…like really discovering herself as an artist and
conscious person…I would always jack books from her shelf to use for my
reports in my Sophomore and Junior English class…learning about folks like Bel
Hooks and James Baldwin and getting introduced to terms like ‘neoliberalism’
and ‘globalization’ kinda early…that shit sparked something…but I still couldn’t
claim to be really social justice oriented yet…I mean it helped…but I didn’t know
anything about social justice or whatever…probably had never even used the
word yet...
Andres, like many of the other educators, speak about these random important events, occurrences, and obscure memories as “building block” moments that that were integral to forming their critical consciousness. Adding onto the recollection of this important turning point in his life, Andres explains how one other specific event catalyzed his understanding of social justice.
I remember she decided to take us to a community event…It was for Filipinos
who were rallying to bring awareness to the military occupation of the
Philippines…but all of this was happening post 9/11 so all of that type of anti-war
rhetoric was in the air…but what made that event dope was that the organizers
there had contextualized this whole issue of being conscious about our roots, our
117
homeland, the military occupation here and abroad, the generations of
colonization we experienced, and like…solidarity with folks who were in similar
situations…all that kinda stuff…but it was through the lens of Hip Hop culture
and spoken word…so you had these young conscious college folks, speaking on
all these injustices that were happening to our people…my people…Filipinos
specifically…talking about it in a way that I understood…and could feel at the
time…cus I wasn’t on some give me all the best books and knowledge shit back
in the day (laughing)…I was into Hip Hop… and Hip Hop had always been based
in that type of social consciousness, especially with the emcees I was listening to
at the time…but… it was different cus those cats were speaking on the Black
experience…so I was always on the outside looking in…this was the first time
where I felt like folks in my community were calling out injustices that I could
really connect to…long story short…that night ended with folks marching around
in the Mission…for hours…with drums, chanting for an end to the occupation of
our country and an end to the war that had just been started in the Middle East…it
was powerful to see that...all these things converging…Hip Hop, being Filipino,
and being socially conscious…it was a trip…I felt like I discovered what social
justice could look and feel like that night…I didn’t immediately become an
activist or anything…but those ideas of justice and calling out injustice started to
build my consciousness.
For educators like Andres, Tina, and Bel, the connection to social justice was spawned through mentors within their own cultural communities and an understanding of
118 their ethnicities’ communal strengths and oppressions. These early mentors introduced them to spaces and environments that helped them to grow into their own consciousness.
As we see through all of the previous narratives, none of these educators were forced to become social justice advocates, they were merely introduced to and engaged within settings that allowed them to self-evolve their critical consciousness.
Importantly, these community experiences that promoted this growth in consciousness was also supplemented with an opportunity for action and protest. This element ultimately shaped the educators’ perceptions about “how” social justice is achieved. Without this element of action, these educators could have easily adopted a
“theory only” approach which could have carried on later into their career as educators.
This missing link would have affected the ways in which they taught their own students about how to create institutional change.
Unlike Andres, Tina, Bel, educators like Robby were not privy to having any social justice mentors in primary or secondary schooling. Robby did not hear of or get involved into social justice training until college. He stated that most of his schooling up until that point had been quite traditional. He admitted that up until college, his conceptualization of social justice was minimal at best; in fact, he did not recall the word being popularized in education until his post collegiate experience. He reflects on this and the first classes he took during his undergraduate days in college.
When I went to USF…we took two courses intercultural dynamics and cross
cultural communication and then we met weekly with lots of meetings with our
advisors and we lived on the same floor together… and so I think that was sort of
119
my baptism in critical thinking…critical multicultural thinking… I spent a year
with some really amazing people…thinking about privilege…discrimination…my
eyes just peeled open … and I came from a diverse community… I was in a
diverse school, but I didn’t really know how to relate myself to that…as a White
person, I didn’t really see how I fit in and like how my privileges affect other
people, I didn’t understand. And after that year, I just kept taking classes…
Later in the interview, Robby states that these classes helped him to critically reflect on his years as a youth in elementary and high school. This suggests the power of a critical education; it develops a lens useful for contextualizing how one’s social identity influences past, present, and future experiences. Additionally, it helped him to problematize how his experiences of privilege existed within a broader system of White supremacy. Robby goes onto explain how this later shaped his first conceptions of social justice:
I had all these really interesting experiences through high school… where I was
the only White kid…but there were African Americans, Latinos, Native
Americans…Samoans… I had White friends… but it's interesting the people I
hung out with…I got to see some of the things they experienced second hand and
it wasn’t fair at all…and that just sort of grated against my core sense of
fairness… your life is supposed to be fair and equal…we’re in the United States
right? Supposedly. When you’re a kid, you don’t realize all the hypocrisy…but
coming up, you think this is supposed to be fair, everybody is supposed to have a
fair chance…Then you see that it's not fair…And then once you go down that
120
road… once your eyes are open they can’t be closed. Not unless you willingly
close them...Once you start to understand that there are challenges that some
people face and others don’t… how can you turn your back on that? I think that
once you have your eyes open its hard to close them again and it wouldn’t matter
if you were a person of color or White person…Once you have that critical
consciousness ignited you can’t back away from it…
Reflections
The narratives of these educators remind audiences about the fluidity in developing a definition and approach towards social justice. The conceptualization of the term and how it is reflected outwards shifts dependent upon the community or individual who is framing it. These educators demonstrate through their reflections, that the word is constructed in three parts, through a theoretical understanding, a personal identity and community based connection, and action.
The way in which these educators conceptualize social justice serves as a foundation for the remainder of the thematic findings presented. In the next section, the educators explain how their views on social justice informs their work in the classroom.
The Revolution between School Bells
All educators walk into the teaching profession with their own paradigms. These philosophies are built on the educator’s intersectional identity, their lifelong socialization process, their education, their teacher credential training, and their many biases amongst other things. The next section is composed of three sub-themes: curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies. Each sub-theme will detail how the previously
121 discussed critical social justice paradigm is imbued into each. Using their foundational paradigm of social justice, the following section describes how these critical educators navigate decisions about their selected curricula.
Curricula: The Conscious Navigation
Many of the educators argued that there are generally two types of educations that are perpetuated in their schools: the institutionalized standards and the counter-curricula.
In reviewing the data collected, the institutionalized standard refers to any topic areas that are mandated by the CA Common Core State Standards or the specific objectives demanded by site administrators. The educators explained that these standards and learning objectives were “things that maintained the status quo.” In comparison, the counter-curricula represents any forms of information or knowledge that the educators said “challenged,” “critiqued,” “moved against,” or “move beyond” dominant ideologies and oppressive institutions.
Given that these educators teach in different subject areas and are essentially held to different expectations in milestone learning objectives, there are varying degrees to how much the state standardized content can be creatively built upon. Similarly, there are variations in how much the educator’s believed that their subject area allowed for the integration of social justice topics. For example, the rigidity of what students need to transition from one Math course to another is quite strict. Commenting on this idea,
Robby states “I’ve heard a lot of people tell me what I’m supposed to do, like as a social justice educator teaching math…There’s no way to make polynomials multicultural…it’s disorienting…it doesn’t exist.” Robby argues that this inflexibility in standardized
122 knowledge is also seen in sciences like Chemistry and Physics. Robby’s position on the integration of social justice into Math and Science voices a common debate within critical education: Can social justice exist in STEM? The answer is yes. Though
Robby’s positionality reflects his current stance on the issue, many other educators and researchers who teach within the same subject areas in high school argue against his stance (Bartell, 2013; Emdin, 2010; Kumashiro, 2015; Sleeter, 2015). Many educators who adopt a critical social justice paradigm would maintain that there are always opportunities to create learning environments that foster a critical consciousness that challenges oppression. Though other core classes, like English and History, may seem like more inviting spaces for counter-curricula, many critical educators would contend that the counter-curricula can and should exist in all subject matter.
During interviews, the educators referenced this binary between the institutionalized standards and counter-curricula by using different descriptive phrases.
Tina, when referencing the state mandates as a whole said “I think it’s really an indoctrination system.” Aylah describes the standards as “you know…their ‘facts’
(laughing)…and what they need to know for the standardized tests.” She juxtaposes that by describing counter-curricula as “the questions…and the reflection necessary to make their lives better.” Antonio jokingly addresses this dichotomy when he states “OK…we all have ‘the curriculum’ we have to use here…Right?...(laughing)…and then we have the integration of my stuff into it.” Bel adds to this similar idea as she says “I have my ways of learning how to negotiate those lessons.” Andres deepens this same thought with saying:
123
There’s the things they need to do for the SBAC…CAASP scores or whatever for
state compliance and then there’s those ideas they’ll take with them…those
tools...those intrinsic strengths we help them re-discover…the things they lose
from doing all that super regimented stuff…the shit you can’t put on a rubric or
grade…that power…that comes from critically assessing and validating their
lived experience…
In this passage, Andres suggests that the institutionalized standards are only the starting point, the bare minimum of what educators should be providing. He, as well as the educator’s quoted before him, stress that that there must be an additional set of resources offered to students. They argue that these additional resources are essential for balancing negative effects that traditional curricula may have on historically disempowered students.
What Andres and the other educators are essentially alluding to, in problematizing the institutionalized standards vs. the counter-curricula, is the pivotal choice that critical educator’s make in deciding what to teach and how to teach it. Happening simultaneously is the educator’s navigation of these different curricula while continuously teaching towards social justice. Can you stay within the bounds of state mandated standards while still promoting a critical social justice perspective?
Robby reflects on this idea by arguing that social justice can be attained by understanding the necessity of embracing some state mandated objectives and expectations, especially in the subjects of Math and Science he teaches. He understands both the drawbacks and benefits of taking a standards only approach. In the following
124 excerpt, he offers a critical explanation that these expectations of the state are used as oppressive obstacles for some and advantages for others. He points to the historical discriminatory segregation practices that alienate certain students from even experiencing state standardized curricula in certain classes. He says:
Math is a barrier that keeps certain groups from having choices. If you don’t
embrace Math, if you don’t have a Calculus class that’s diverse as your
school…then you limited the choices of a great number of students…A Calculus
class filled with African American and Latino students is an act of
resistance…You know, that’s where I mean those students will have radically
different choices in college…Those students are prepared to go to college…Those
students now can use their critical thinking and the new skills that they gained to
attack problems that they wouldn’t be able to attack before because they don’t
have the understanding…
It should be noted that Robby is taking many extra steps to ensure that the classes he is referring to are filled with Black and Brown students. He actively recruits students for these courses, offers extra hours of tutoring outside of class periods, and teaches remedial course work so that more students can qualify for the course.
Importantly, reflected here in Robby’s previous statement and explanation of the extra steps he takes is this idea that one’s perception towards their responsibility in teaching will drive the forms of social justice they are able see or work towards. For
Robby, social justice happens when marginalized students learn and adopt the skills necessary to create academic, social, and economic mobility. Though he chooses not to
125 include a critical pedagogical approach into his Math lessons, his critical analysis of his student’s historical lack of representation, informs the daily classroom practices he engages in when working towards inclusion and justice with and for those same students.
Table 7
Robby’s Classroom I had the opportunity to watch Robby’s Physics class during my visit with him. I was immediately shocked to see the population of students in his classroom. The classroom was incredibly diverse. There were a multitude of ethnicities represented and the gender of students enrolled was balanced. It was awe-inspiring. Even more empowering was the look on their faces while learning. I had never seen so many students smiling while learning about Physics. That day, Robby was teaching the students about potential energy, using a high bouncing rubber popper to demonstrate theory into action. He would rotate between small bursts of lecture and then switch to posing problems that the students had to solve in teams. The students were rarely in desks. They walked throughout the classroom energetically, supportively checking on each other, comparing steps and process. There was a sense of community here. The atmosphere was lighthearted, supportive, and even humorous at times as Robby would make small jokes mid-lecture.
Robby’s attitude towards his work and the scaffolding of his content made the institutionalized standards look non-oppressive, fun even. However, as he acknowledged, he thought that it lacked an opening to introduce critical content. What was missing in critical subject matter though was replaced by Robby’s critical discourse with African American, Latinx, and female students about their lack of representation in
STEM careers. He said that his goal is to make those students “Feel like it belongs to them, that they own it…and think of themselves as mathematicians, as scientists, as physicists…so that when they move forward they have true choices.” Robby’s attitude and critical paradigm of more diverse inclusion is an important step towards growing the population of college ready, STEM trained, students of color. These systemic changes
126 are a necessary component for bringing equitable access and economic justice to historically underserved and underrepresented students and ultimately altering the socio- economic makeup of these groups for generations to come. However, many critical educators and scholars would argue that there is still a missed opportunity in keeping the counter curricula and the institutionalized standards separated in these STEM classrooms.
The other educators in this study are actively choosing to integrate their counter curricula atop their advancement of the institutionalized standards. Though Tina, Aylah,
Antonio, Andres, and Bel sound seemingly cynical in their attitude towards state mandated curricula, they do understand its overarching value. Many of them acknowledge that locked within those mandates are the key skills necessary for persisting through the education system. Even more important is the political significance of oppressed students gaining access and mastery to privileged skillsets to help them thrive within a system that was not built for them. Andres explains further by saying:
If you can’t read or write by the time you leave my classroom, I’ve done you a
disservice…straight up…me and all your past teachers have done you a
disservice…but there’s a way to approach these standards that isn’t the same
cookie cutter, worksheet…euro-centric...make you feel invisible shit …we can still
engage them in a relevant way… and empower them while hitting on those
common core skillsets…
Bel echoes Andres’ statement in reflecting on teaching her English Language
Development (ELD) course. She says “if they can’t negotiate those literacy skills that’s lack of access to certain spaces.” Bel empathetically rationalizes why some students may
127 be experiencing Andres’ notion of “invisibility” and alienation by reflecting on her own experiences of being in an EL course in high school.
I remember taking it in my high school years and I hated it… I hated it because it
was demeaning…they made you feel like you were in that dumb class… it’s like
you’re stuck in between… you don’t know your native language…the academic
language… so you get stuck in the EL program…I have students that have been
there for 10 years in the EL program…
Table 8
Bel’s Classroom During one of my observations of Bel’s classroom, I noticed that the students were reading an autobiographical piece by Dr. Victor Rios entitled ‘Street Life: Poverty, Gangs, and a Ph.D.’ The story detailed the journey of Rios from his immigration from Mexico, through living in the United States, all the way through the completion of his doctorate. It was a thematically Shakespearean tale without European leads and a romanticized pre-Renaissance context. I watched a classroom full Latinx students, engaging in the text, reading in pairs, hurriedly rushing through passages like many 9th graders do, but stopping to comment on certain lines or paragraphs saying things like “that’s just like me bruh,” laughing, and continuing to read on. Bel would stop the class at random times and ask questions like “what does that mean to you?” or “What similar themes do you see in our own community?” The students would discuss and dialogue with each other, creating parallels between their own experiences and what the book said. I witnessed there in that moment, the power and promise of literacy when educator’s choose texts that are culturally relevant and significant to the students reading them.
Bel goes on further to explain that there are certain ways to engage students in an academic way that does not make them feel “disconnected.” She says:
When I took an ethnic studies course in college and started reading this
information… reading about authors that look like me…it changed the way I
viewed myself…my identity…I began to identify myself as a writer and reader…
and as a producer of knowledge… and that had never happened in high school…
128
This sense of empowerment that Bel points to in her ethnic studies course is ultimately what the counter-curricula attempts to provide. This is not to say that all state mandated curricula is disempowering, rather it raises the issue that the vast majority of canonized state content has a tendency to normalize the experiences of White students while marginalizing many communities of color. Providing that opportunity for historically marginalized students to feel empowered by the content of their course hinges on the willingness of the critical educator to introduce information that is not made readily available by the school, the district, or the state. This again reaffirms the importance of critical educators utilizing their own academic freedoms to engage students in a way that emboldens their path as scholars and learners. Tina depicts this decision making process as she states:
People have to realize this and be willing to fight the system…our system is so
White… the books that we get to teach the kids…the articles… there's nothing to
it to sink your teeth into there…So that's why I go out and I try to make sure that
when I'm selecting text for my kids I'm representing all students in my class…For
instance I teach AP English…So I had a little textbook we're supposed to use and
luckily we have a good one where it has writings by Asian-American writers…But
we have some Latinos…We have Blacks…so you better believe I'm searching
through other books to select those texts and not just go with Walt Whitman and
some other old White people. It takes a little extra time and commitment…
Tina reinforces this idea that the responsibility rests on the critical educator to be intentional about the content they bring to the classroom. Nicki stresses the importance of
129 educators being critical not only about the content of their courses but also their sourcing and authorship selection as well. In the next passage she mentions the problematic scenario she encountered with colleagues while co-teaching a world history unit on
Kenya.
…We're talking about a country that's been colonized…Other people have
benefited from whatever kind of privilege and colonization are dominating
industries that are mostly patronized by the people who don't look like them…who
are treated as second class citizens… All I know is that if you bring up that
area…you better have another source than the BBC…It's problematic to use the
BBC to report on issues of Africa…about African empowerment…We got to start
looking at what ways that our various sources perpetuate the type of
problems…how we perpetuate the problems… with what we choose… let alone
the actual issue itself…I remember in a related example with the India unit…there
was a teacher planning it and they said you know I want to make a data set and
their sources were once again…India BBC article…some other British
newspaper…The last thing that we need when teaching about India is sources
from Great Britain…
Nicki found herself in ongoing debates with her colleagues who repeatedly chose to cite research and writing that either intentionally or innately promoted misunderstanding, domination, and cultural imperialism. Her discontent, and rightfully so, was the fact that her colleagues chose journalistic sources from countries who perpetuated centuries of colonization, economic exploitation, and mass murders over the
130 places they were reporting on. This is not only a conflict of interests that may sway bias or false reporting, it disempowers authorship from subjugated and colonized people to speak on behalf of their own experience.
In striking contrast to the situation that Nicki describes, my classroom visit with
Aylah provided me with an understanding that educators can choose to teach in solidarity with oppressed communities.
Table 9
Aylah’s Classroom The day I observed, Aylah was teaching her students how to annotate text and place critical thoughts in the margins of their information. She was also continuing a previous lecture on how to find central arguments within text. The central topic of the day presented the Standing Rock conflict. For the exercise, she juxtaposed two different articles, from two different authors. One piece featured an unusually conservative pro- pipeline writer from the New York Times and the other one offered a first-person account of a Sioux activist resisting the pipeline, writing for a local Indian newspaper in North Dakota.
The students picked apart the headlines, the core arguments, and the conflicting viewpoints. Importantly, she urged the students to contextualize and problematize why and how each writer constructed their arguments either for or against the oil pipeline. She facilitated a critical dialogue between students who could see both sides of the issue through each of the authors they were reading. She then encouraged the students to share and discuss what their perspectives were on the situation. It was reassuring to hear the overwhelming majority of the students advocating for indigenous rights and environmentalism.
I sat there, in that classroom, hopeful yet bothered. I couldn’t help but wonder how many other teachers would have showcased the voice of the writer from the New York Times over the writer from the local newspaper. It worried me to think about the teachers who would have relied on the more “well-known” journalistic source. It forced me to think, how many Native writers had the opportunity to share their voice or community narrative through major media platforms like the New York Times?
131
Antonio adds another layer to my observation and Tina and Nicki’s previous point by stating that this conscious decision to include marginalized voices into the classroom is essentially driven by the educator’s inherent willingness to do things differently.
Yeah I feel partially it's just the disposition of the educators… at least in
English …no matter what space you're in you'll have that entry point …because
when I say for example they have to…Analyze the texts for the main ideas… or
find relevant ideas…annotate... I think you could do that with any text…so if they
want me to use this thing on “the growth mindset” … which is the craze right
now… I could use that… or… I could substitute it for something that's more
relevant…such as police violence…or the Black Lives Matter movement…but at
the end of the day though…we have to teach kids the skills…the academic skills…
along with the critical consciousness…
Table 10
Antonio’s Classroom During a classroom visit with Antonio, I watched him facilitate a Socratic seminar with Freshman AVID program students. AVID is a nationwide program that stands for Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) it is “a global nonprofit organization that operates with one guiding principle: Hold students accountable to the highest standards, provide academic and social support, and they will rise to the challenge.” The main goal of AVID is to “develop critical thinking, literacy, and math skills across all content areas.” What I saw that morning took AVID’s goal to the next level.
For the morning, Antonio’s AVID students were supposed to be using the copied workbook sheets from the national curricula’s student binder. They did, for the first ten minutes. Then they moved swiftly into the next exercise. Antonio positioned his students in a Socratic seminar using topics that the students were prepped for in the days prior. That morning, I watched ninth graders enthusiastically and respectfully debating highly controversial federal legislation that had been initiated that week. These students discussed multiple facets of the Immigration Ban Executive Order and proposed Anti- Abortion bill. The level of analysis and the depth of exploration rivaled many college classrooms. The students crafted intricate arguments for and against each topic, diving
132 deeper with every rebuttal. The students challenged larger institutions like family values, racism, the military, religion, rape culture, and patriarchy during their debate. It was inspiring to watch young people contend with such heavy topics and even more motivating to watch Antonio facilitate. He rarely said a word, speaking only to redirect questions and comments towards him back to the Socratic seminar. The youth were always leading the critical discourse and were essentially in charge of their own learning experience; a format that rivaled most traditional schooling spaces.
This “disposition” that Antonio mentions points to several different character traits necessary for promoting critical social justice spaces. The first trait has already been described in previous passages by Tina and Antonio as a “willingness” to “fight the system.” It is also seen in my observations about the topics Antonio chose for the
Socratic seminar and his challenging of traditional classroom structures. Antonio further describes this disposition as having a distinct type of “moral courage” to move against what he calls “the status quo.” Bel reaffirms this idea by saying that it is “essential” for critical social justice educators to “move against the current.” An unmentioned piece of this disposition was seen in the construction and implementation of what I am calling a
“protective curricula.”
Protective Curricula. During the interview process, many of the educators referred to many teaching moments that did not quite fit into “academics,” hence the segmenting of this third curricula, the protective curricula. The hidden curricula were often delivered in informal settings, through casual conversation, club meetings, or sometimes one-on-one meetings. The protective curricula revolved around “survivalist” advice for young people, guidance and counseling on how to adapt and persist in the social world. Interestingly, this protective curricula was offered more to the Black,
Chicanx, and Latinx males. Antonio details elements of the protective curriculum here:
133
Yeah man…it starts with just simple code switching… just telling them how in
different contexts you have to speak to people differently…in a different
way …or watch your tone or shake hands in a different way… those are our
conversations all the time… especially with our with a Black males…like you
can’t be scaring these White people (laughing)…just know… when you walk into
a classroom…good intentions or not…you're going to be viewed differently…or
when you stand up… compared to little Kumbao, a Hmong girl…you're going to
be admonished a lot more quickly… like ‘Tyrone sit down.’ or like ‘whoever’ sit
down… just having those difficult but honest conversations with them… because
if I don't have them with them as a dude of color that’s been through similar
experiences …who else in the staff is gonna have those honest and critical
conversations with the kids?... a lot of it is just knowing how to function in a
space with mostly White folks…in White supremacist spaces…like ok
man…you’re gonna need these skills… But at the same time you gotta have your
dignity…
Offering advice like this was normal practice for Antonio. He stated that he felt a
“responsibility to the Black and Brown boys” in his classroom because of both his role as a teacher of color and as a male role model of color. This sincere advice was built from mixed emotions that were born of his own past encounters with stereotyping, implicit bias, and racism.
In a similar situation as Antonio, Bel recalls having those hard conversations with the Chicanx and Latinx males in her ELD class. In the next passage, she explains about
134 an incident involving an on campus police officer who was reportedly profiling her students for a gang injunction. She states:
We talked about ways in which... they shouldn’t get themselves in
trouble…knowing that this officer is on campus…we talked a lot about that…
especially because the majority of the long-term English learners at my
school…majority are Latino boys…I had to talk about…these are your rights if
the officer comes asking you these questions…this is what you can say and don’t
do this and don’t do that…We go through all these scenarios but what’s
interesting is…a lot of them have already encountered them…
In this next passage, Bel mentions another group of students that is also being highly profiled and policed during these current political times. She explains this here:
They had a lot of questions around being undocumented and being pulled over
and all their rights in regards to that… But that’s the thing I always tell
them…you have to be strategic and don’t put yourself in a situation where they
have the power… I know you want to speak up, it’s one of those things…but
sometimes you have to refrain… because you know they are waiting for
something to create probable cause or whatever….But then we also talk about the
power of their cell phones and recording situations… and like hey you have to
have each others back…
For many educators like Bel and Antonio, who work in high poverty, high policing areas, they understand that this type of advice could save lives. Simple facts on
“rights,” could be prevent a young person from being detained, beaten, or worse, killed.
135
Antonio and Bel are playing mediator between their students and the structures of racism and xenophobia that surround their communities. These situations they navigate are specifically targeted towards certain groups, a systemic type of injustice. These problems are a burden that not all communities, teachers, or students have to experience.
These strategies, locked into this “protective curriculum” are things that are not offered to all students. The protective curricula should not be viewed as a privilege or an exclusionary curricula created only for Black and Brown males. It is actually the opposite, it is a saddening necessity for curbing the school to prison pipeline that targets
African American, Chicanx, and Latinx boys. As Bel also mentions, the curricula is now also useful for countering the federal targeting of undocumented and refugee students given the current political climate and increased police state. For educators who work in schools and communities inundated with racial profiling and over policing, the offering of this type of curricula is perhaps more normal and necessary.
It is important to mention that though these educators did not explicitly mention their conversations with female students of color during initial interviews they confirmed that they offer similar advice young women on how to be successful in both the school and community. However, the type of advice they offer these young women is not tailored in such a way that references the inherent risks of encountering implicit bias from racist teachers or police.
From Curricula to Implementation. As this first sub-theme has described the conscious choices educators make in navigating institutionalized standards and implementing counter-curricula, or sometimes hidden curricula, this next subsection will
136 explain how this curricula and critical paradigm is put into action in the classroom.
Specifically, it will detail, the pedagogical strategies that these educators have employed to work towards social justice.
Pedagogy: Shaping Social Justice Environments
In describing his pedagogical approach, Andres jokingly stated “If anyone tells you there’s a magic bullet for this work…they’re lying (laughing)…” This cynicism was a sentiment that was shared with all the educators; the simple acknowledgement that there is not one-way that “works” in the field of critical education. The teachers argued though that were at least three elements that must be present to promote a critical social justice education in the classroom: building relationships with the students, in-class activities and strategies to challenge institutional oppressions, and student self- empowerment.
Building Relationships
Before the critical lessons can even be taught, the educators argued that strong relationships have to be built with the students. Antonio argues that it starts with the way that teachers view their students. He says “I just think like just viewing them as human… as they are… they’re kids…and they are going to fuck up…Yes of course…” Antonio’s statement may sound harsh, pessimistic even, but it speaks to a certain realism about working with young people, they do, at times, mess up. Andres makes this point clearer as he states:
We have to remember, these are youngsters…13 to 18 year olds in our
classrooms...you remember what you were like at that age? (laughing)… We’ve
137
got to respect the fragility and vulnerability of that age group…they’re going
through so much shit…body changes, fucked up home life, fake friends, divorces,
their own break ups, social media, bullies, drugs…you name it…they’re going
through it…on top of all of that they gotta’ sit through six classes a day…and
what’s worse, there’s a high probability that in the majority of those classes they
feel disconnected, unseen, or unheard…
Through both Antonio and Andres’ statements, we see a subtle acknowledgement of the need to respect students simply for being “young.” In addition to this, they recognize that there are certain age based oppressions and environmental pressures that add to the stressors of being a young person, some of which may inhibit positive relationships. To these educators, being cognizant and respectful of what Aylah calls
“the ups and downs” is essential to building relationships with students.
Table 11
Bel’s Classroom During my own observations, I noticed that the each of the teachers had their own heightened awareness for their student’s emotional states. I remember being mid- conversation with Bel before the start of her English class as we both watched a young man of color, hoodie up, head down, charging heatedly towards his desk; he did not stop to acknowledge us, nor did he fail to make his presence known. Bel looked at me, quietly said “hold on,” and walked over to the student. She kneeled down, greeted the young man with a smile and softly said “Ricardo, you alright?” He sat there, unresponsive and quiet. She repeated her question, while simultaneously greeting other students who began to now slowly file into her classroom. She patted his hand delicately and said “that’s cool, when you’re ready then.” Uncommunicative and tense, he answered by abruptly snatching his hand away, putting his head back down and pretending as if he heard nothing. I felt surprised and guilty. I was surprised that she had not sent him out of the classroom for being “defiant” like I’ve seen most teachers do; yet I felt guilty for second guessing what my own course of action would have been in her position.
I watched that same student throughout the class, obviously bothered, angrily sink
138 deeper into silence. But Bel never made him feel like he was alone. Throughout the class period, in the middle of her lectures, Bel would nod at him, acknowledge him with a familial smirk, or occasionally pat him on the shoulder as she rotated around the room facilitating small group discussion. It was an artful display of patience, comfort, and support. Every gesture she made towards him was a silent reassurance that said “I got you…I’m here for you…talk to me when you’re ready…”
This respect for the young person, their shifting emotional states, and their life circumstances is viewed by these educators as a foundational element to the teacher student relationship. More important perhaps is the commitment to “loving” the students during those unstable periods. Antonio raises this issue by saying:
Are you going to be there to truly love them?...love them up and work through
that with them?... Not get frustrated?… because by the time I have them in 9th
grade or 11th grade they've had K through 8 people saying ‘I care about you I
want you to be successful.’… But you wait a few weeks…wait a semester… and
they give up on that…They don't really care and have that prolonged commitment
to them…
This point that Antonio raises was sadly commonplace. When asking the educator’s about why other teachers have problems developing relationships, the vast majority explained that many of their colleagues “give up too fast.” More specifically, the educators agreed that simple behavior issues, or in many cases, as Andres simply stated
“just being teenagers” was enough to get a student “publically shamed,” “sent out,” or
“suspended.” They note that some teachers have a tendency to resort to harsher punitive practices than others. The educator’s cited multiple reasons like “being new,” “being lazy,” “getting fed up,” or just “having one of those days,” as rightful provocation for
139 punishing students. Robby however theorized several significantly different reasons that did not quite fit into this spectrum:
It’s funny because a lot of times teachers think the worst class you have the more
consistent you need to be, like you need to have your rules written out. What you
need is exactly the opposite…The tougher the kids are, the less rules you need.
You just need to let the kids know that we’re just gonna talk...you have issues and
we need to talk, until you don’t do the things I don’t like that are hurting you and
hurting the class and hurting your education…we’re gonna have to have some
conversations… but I think you can’t do that if you are scared of the kids…and
that’s when racism comes in…and that’s where White fragility comes in…that’s
where all the intersectionality of privilege meets these kids…If you’re scared of
the kids in your heart, then you can’t have honest conversations…And if you
can’t have honest conversations, then you’re never gonna reach the kids…And
that’s the biggest problem...If you’re afraid or if you have unacknowledged fear
and bias, you’re dead in the water before you start…No matter what rules you
have…
Robby’s passage highlights the many social layers which affect relationships between students and their teachers. Through his remarks we can hypothesize that there are certain social constructs that may constrain or in many cases prevent positive relationships from forming. These socially constructed problems of racialized fear,
White privilege, White fragility, and implicit bias serve as plausible barriers for preventing a genuine love based relationship between teachers and their students. His
140 hypothesis is important, given that the majority of teachers nationwide and in CA, fit into the White, middle class demographic. This is in no way an attempt to theorize that it is impossible for White middle class teachers to have positive relationships with students of color, nor is it a way to rationalize that teachers of color do not face similar intersectional barriers. Many of the other educators argued that teachers of color have the same ability to perpetuate harmful White supremacist ideologies through their own biases, fears, and relationships with students.
For teachers who can manage to skillfully traverse race relations with their students, while handling discipline issues, the road is not necessarily easier; it still takes a distinct level of dedication and finesse. When confronted with these types of issues in her own classroom, Tina said:
I try to really emphasize the relationship… that I'm not here to be your
adversary… I'm here to help you… and the way I talk with them in class… I
always refer to them as my “boo”... my “big boos”… my “boo boos”... So if I
do…have to get on them… they know I love them on one side…but if they get
out of line… I'm bringing them back…you know?...So I do that.
Table 12
Tina’s Classroom I visited Tina’s 9th grade AVID class at 5th period. To make sure I wasn’t late, I showed up about 20 minutes early. I reached Tina’s classroom and had to double check the time because it seemed as though all the students had already arrived. The course took place right after lunch and what I noticed before the class had even begun was that the room was already packed.
Other students decided to spend their lunch period in the classroom, rotating between eating, talking with their friends, and waiting in line to talk to Tina. Students weren’t checking in about homework, missing assignments, or grades, they were giving her
141 updates on their own lives, asking for advice about girlfriends, prom, and other pressing teenage concerns. I could tell that the students trusted her and valued her opinion…
The class eventually started and like many 9th grade classrooms, the energy in the room was loud and contagious. There were often times random bursts of laughter and giggles from students from the side conversations happening. When the energy became too much, Tina would quickly call students out. She’d use a variety of tactics for this; giving students “the eye,” calling them out by their name, or throwing out a quick-witted joke about their behavior that would have other students say “ohhhhh!” The interesting thing though, students never felt like they were being attacked or berated. After being called out, they’d immediately stop, smile back in response, apologize, and the class would move on. It was clear to me that Tina was in full control of the space. But the control was never domineering or oppressive.
I realized that her approach hinged on the mutual respect she and her students had for each other. However, I understood that many other educators may have a hard time replicating the dynamic I witnessed. So, I asked her, “how do you do it?” Her answer was simple: “They know I love them…so everything that happens in here, starts there.”
Tina’s point speaks to the balance necessary in cultivating a strong love based relationship in the classroom. For her, it is one half unconditional support and another half composed of high expectations. Robby, utilizing a similar strategy in his classroom explains:
… The first semester would be all love and the second semester would be all
yelling… It’s like “you’re better than this!”… “Where’s your homework?!”
“Where’s your stuff?!”...“I see you doing your work!”... But at first, it was like
just pure love…just like you have to be able to do this…you can do this…You
know what it is going to take for you to be able to do this…
Robby and Tina stress that they negotiate a delicate balance between support and the demand for excellence. This expectation and acknowledgement that students can
“always do better” reflects their inherent belief that their students have an infinite
142 potential for success. This view is vital for helping the student to self-discover their own resilience, confidence, and worth. As Tina and Robby challenge their students to achieve greatness, they are countering traditional schooling’s low expectation of historically disadvantaged groups. In the following statement, Robby details that many students do not have the privilege of experiencing these expectations from all teachers:
I mean you would check their transcripts and they had been failing and been
failing and been failing…And I think a lot of teachers would look at them and
they would see brown faces and they wouldn’t expect anything out of them.
Andres adds:
It’s sad bro…but I think many of these students are haunted by that social
stigma...you know?...they get type-casted as failures man...being Black, Mexican,
Poly…being that student of color…not necessarily unlikeable…but the teachers
just have less of everything for them man…lower expectations…less
patience…less time…less love…
This lowered standard, Andres argued, resulted from his colleagues’ unfair assumption that “since they’re gonna give up, I’m gonna give up too.” This commitment issue, that Andres and Antonio previously mention is something that other educators like
Bel and Aylah cite as “detrimental” or “damning” to building strong relationships with students. Importantly, this inability to commit is something that these educators see as barriers to building relationships with their colleagues as well, citing these “non- committal incidents” as events that shifted their perception of how “dedicated” they believed their colleagues were to their profession and their students. This was especially
143 true in instances where these educators were able to shift the performance or attitude of the same “failing” students.
These educators admit that much of relationship building with their own students happens outside of their regularly scheduled class periods. This is especially true for students who may need more academic or emotional support. The educators cited acts of generosity and kindness which prompt extra dialogue outside of the classroom as simple ways to engage students like “Buying them lunch, hanging out with them…” as Robby said, or “breaking bread with the youngsters” as Andres said. In this next excerpt from
Antonio, he explains this dynamic of putting in extra time with his students:
I'm having to stay after school and we're going to work on this stuff…and my ass
will give them a ride home and we'll stop and get something to eat on the way…
like just that genuine investment…. Just those positive interactions or…when
there's a Hmong festival in South Sac…Your ass is there because you know some
of your kids are Hmong… and you go support them…or their basketball games…
just really getting to know the kids outside of the classroom in a genuine space…
These extra steps, the actions which do not quite fit into a common core lesson, are the strategies used to “build trust.” This “trust,” is a key element to sustaining strong relationships with students. Additionally, they add that it is essential for the learning process. Robby details this by saying:
They didn’t really believe they were going to learn anything. So you had to prove
that they were gonna learn and you had to build trust. And it took a long time to
build trust. And once you get the trust the students will work for you and then you
144
saw this amazing growth. I mean a tremendous amount of growth in short periods
of time. Once they saw that you really cared, you know, it took that you really
cared and that you were willing to put in the work…
Antonio highlights the similar importance for trust in the classroom as he adds:
When you open up and you're vulnerable with them… when you tell them about
how when you fucked up in high school so they learn from those experiences…
and they see you not just as a teacher… you’re someone that's friendly… not their
friend… because they have their own friends… but someone that's friendly and
genuinely cares... I just feel that they’ll trust you a little bit more and they'll be
more willing to do the work and be vulnerable...They'll tell you ‘oh Mr. G, I don't
understand that’… instead of just getting mad… and not doing anything… or
wanting to go to the restroom for 20 mins because they're afraid to read in class…
or do that group work cus they feel they won't be successful…
Building this trust in the classroom is paramount for successfully implementing teaching strategies and various curricula in the classroom. Andres adds “no one wants to hear, let alone learn something from someone they don’t trust.” Once this trust is built, the educators have the ability to create learning environments which promote a social justice education. The next sub-section details the techniques, activities, and strategies employed in the classroom to promote social justice.
Critical Activities & Strategies
This sub-section highlights the specific in-class pedagogical methods employed by teachers within each of their given fields of study. As the data will show, there exists
145 some pedagogical overlap that remains consistent from classroom to classroom.
However, there are undoubtedly some subject specific techniques that the educators use to relay knowledge in their topic areas. Perhaps most evident though, was each educator’s creative challenging of oppressive societal institutions through their teaching, student engagement, and critical discourse. Aylah embodies this principle when explaining her own practice. She states:
I try to teach my students to question the world around them… not only as social
but also politically and economically…and then to stress they can’t go on in life
with being passive … which I think a lot of our students do... when teaching
social justice… I really concentrate on asking questions… and fighting back…
which is difficult at this age cus this is all freshman…and sometimes they don’t
know what to fight up against... and so we really talk about their lives and how it
connects with the larger society and what are some inequalities…
Nicki mentions a similar approach she uses in her classroom to discover the individualized experiences of her students and their relationship to social justice.
So when I think about social justice and my teaching, I always think of like
Sleeter and Grant’s like scale of multicultural social justice education…Asking
the critical questions and then taking those critical questions and then taking
action from it… Like getting my students to deconstruct and analyze…
These critical questions and methods of discourse that Aylah and Nicki mention, help to prompt discussions on larger social issues. These critical questions are presented through different topic areas in the classroom. Many of the educators often tackled
146 broader systemic problems of race, gender, and social class during these processes of critical dialogue. Andres explains one of the exercises in his classroom that prompts this type of discussion:
I’ll play this game on the blacktop called a “privilege walk.” Without going too
far into it… it’s an exercise where students take one step back and one step
forward according to the privileges and oppressions they experience in society…
I’m sure you’ve heard of it… there’s hella different iterations of it. It’s fun for
them because for one, they’re outside (laughing)…and two, they build solidarity
with their classmates cus they see the common oppressions they face…plus they
learn about some of the subtle privileges they may experience as cisgender,
heterosexual, able-bodied etc. etc.…you know?...It’s a powerful way to map out
those institutions and systems with the young folks and talk about it when we go
back inside to the classroom…
This one technique that Andres mentioned, is just one of many. At the core of these exercises are the methods used to create dialogue about the important lived experiences related to attaining justice. Antonio mentions his classification of these types of exercises, saying:
We have to give them “reality lessons…” where the curriculum is rooted in their
experiences and the experiences of those around them… so they are engaged in
what they're reading…So it's not Shakespeare… that Romeo and Juliet… which
ninth graders are doing now…that is so far removed… that doesn't connect their
experiences… Why would they care about Romeo and Juliet....You know?...
147
when they just had someone killed on their block and their block was on
lockdown…
Antonio’s point raises the issue that classroom materials can and should be supplemented for more reality based, life relevant materials. Many of the educators mentioned that the traditional curricula had to take a “backseat” at times to talk about the more pressing life events that the students were experiencing. Andres referenced a specific moment during our interview where he mentioned having to make similar adjustments to his curricula and plans to accommodate the lived experience of his students. He specifically referenced the type of lessons that Antonio had mentioned, engaging his own students through a “reality” oriented lens that acknowledges the immediate environment his students are facing.
I have to be humble enough to realize my lessons plans can’t overrule… supersede,
take precedent or whatever over what my students go through…my unit on CA
governance structures, no matter how much time I spent on it…needs to take a
backseat to discussing some immediate traumas these young folks are
experiencing…I had a summer where 16 people got shot over one weekend in the
same neighborhood off Mack Rd....Am I supposed to pretend that shit didn’t happen
and just teach…business as usual come Monday?...that ain’t right…we gotta give
the students that space to talk that pain out…
Andres’ and Antonio present what may be the farther end of the trauma spectrum with their cited examples of gun violence. The educators mentioned that these events, though traumatic, were “opportunities to teach” “dialogue” or as Bel said, “heal” with
148 their students. Importantly, they mention the ability to be flexible with both readjusting their content and the timing of their lessons. Their ability to re-contextualize these traumas with their students is an important pedagogical strategy. Perhaps equally important, are these educator’s abilities to move their students from a place of shock and hurt into a proactive stance towards creating change.
Many of the educators mentioned YPAR as a project useful for engaging their students in critical lessons that ultimately allow an avenue for students to address real social problems while offering a way to create real change. Bel affirms this by saying:
I recognize we’re part of oppressive institutions that we need to combat … how do
we put it into action?... I do use a lot of youth participatory action research.
Nicki adds to this by saying:
I've been collaborating with another teacher on how to use youth participatory
action research to get my students to see you're not just learning about this…This
isn't just practicing writing…That part is important…But you can actually use your
hands and your feet to do something about the things that you think are not
Right…Or that you would just like to be better…
Andres builds on Bel and Nicki’s passages, adding:
YPAR gives the students a real opportunity to analyze social problems, call out
injustices, do research, evaluate, do more research (laughing)...pose hypotheses and
create action plans to combat those injustices, and then present their findings out to
the public…its super empowering especially when you get other teachers, schools,
or communities behind the project…its beautiful to watch…you see them move
149
from a place of apathy and discomfort about their oppressions to a place of
action…it reminds them of their power and builds that agency.
As Nicki and Andres mention this cross collaboration with other teachers to support social justice YPAR projects, Robby’s role on campus comes to mind. In subjects like
Math, Robby states that he often times utilizes student injustices as fuel for the classroom. Within his social justice collective at his school site, his team relies on him and his students to develop numbers and statistics as evidence for certain social problems.
As it was stated earlier, he hesitates at times to mix the critical topics into his Math course but he admits there are some opportunities where he can make the leap. He explains this here:
There are a few things in math that lend themselves directly to critical
consciousness…Statistics, linear aggression, ratios, there are a couple topics that
when you hit those topics you’d be silly not to bring it up…But with math its
easier to do something like this…While you’re in class, you talk about math as the
way to prove whether or not things are fair...
Robby explains that this is an often-overlooked portion of his profession, the ability to utilize his mathematics teaching to test social justice paradigms like fairness, equality, or equity. He explains this by saying:
I think throughout my career that’s how I’ve taken math. It’s like math is sort the
guardian of fairness. Everybody has a story, but people’s stories get dismissed all
the time. How do you know if something’s true? Well you study it. You gather
data. I’m a scientist, I’m a mathematician. Gather data, prove it. Mathematicians
150
are the guardians of fairness. We can prove if things are unfair. If you tell me
something, I can tell you if it's true or not, I can quantify your statement. And I
can tell you if it's true or not. And I think that when I'm working with students in
class and anytime an opportunity like that arises, I take it…
In this passage audiences are again reminded that the educators’ paradigm is key in driving the integration of social justice throughout the learning environment. Through
Robby’s narrative we can see that there is a conscious reshaping in how he believes his course matter can become applicable for tackling injustice. If students experience this consistently throughout the course, their belief in how math is used in the social world may shift. Their application of the skills morphs from learning to pass tests to learning to alter unjust social situations. The educator’s paradigm is vital for creating a learning environment that provides students the opportunity to rethink and repurpose the knowledge they learn in traditional schools.
Sometimes though, there are more subtle ways to attack issues of injustice and fairness in the classroom without even going into the subject matter. Educators like Tina challenge oppressive institutions like patriarchy not necessarily always through open critical discussion but in the actual operations of the classroom. She details this saying:
I try to make sure that my female scholars do not always step back and the let
male scholars step in…because like today during our Socratic seminar… I noticed
that within the main group they were all male scholars and no females…I said ‘no
ladies, you're not going to sit back and let the male scholars take over…’ So then I
151
have to switch it up and say ‘Lady female scholars you all are coming up to the
front… I'm aware of that… I'm sensitive to that…
Tina’s last statement speaks to a type of power imbalance she is trying to correct not only in her classroom but the school institution itself. Her subtle approach at reminding young women about their rightful place in leadership roles is a strategy that affects the student’s psyche while challenging historical inequities.
The other educators are making similar steps in this same direction of challenging institutional injustices through student self-empowerment. The next subsection will discuss the final part of the pedagogical theme with the broad discussion of student self- empowerment.
Student Self-Empowerment
The last sub-section posed to the educator’s during their interview discusses their strategies used for student self-empowerment. The educators exhibited varying views on the part they played in the student self-empowerment process. There was a universal humility displayed in all of the educators, as they acknowledged that they were only one person in a larger system of educators, community members, family members and peers who may be influencing this young person. Importantly, it is the student who ultimately decides what information or knowledge they adopt to empower themselves. Some strategies useful for student self-empowerment were be pulled through extended dialogue during interviews. These strategies created three sub-themes within this pedagogical strand of student self-empowerment: physical environment, voice and identity, and tools for the future.
152
In describing the first sub-theme of physical environment, Tina states that it first starts with creating the classroom: “I do a good job of making them feel that this is their space. I look at the classroom I hope it represents all cultures so I want them to know they come in here this is their space.”
Physical Environment. The classroom is a sacred space. It is a mirror, a reflection of the institution, the teacher, and the students. This space, like soil, can either foster growth or promote a suffocating slow death. For some, the classroom is a place of trauma, for others a site for triumph and transition. Teachers, if allowed, can become interior decorators and curators. Their role is a difficult one. They are tasked with collaboratively creating an environment that promotes positivity, learning, inclusion, evolution, and in some cases rehabilitation. Andres says that
What a teacher does with their space is political...you’re taking a stand with
everything you choose to put on those walls...and really…you’re claiming an
identity…you decide who feels invited and who feels left out.
The classrooms I visited told me a lot about the educators and their students.
Locked within every space was an anti-status quo personality, a visual character that embodied a spirit of resistance. No classroom suggested neutrality. Items of various sizes were taped, stapled, pinned, glued, or screwed into place; every object was a clue that told me more about the educator’s lens.
Political posters were perhaps the most apparent feature of every classroom I walked inside of. Often displayed within each of the rooms were quotes next to the faces of political figures like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Yuri
153
Kochiyama, and Ghandi. I noticed that these political figures often times represented not only the political views of the educator but also the ethnic makeup of the students. There was a strong representation of political figures that mirrored the demographic makeup of the school site.
Figure 4. Various Political Posters in Rooms.
Oddly, and quite timely perhaps, was the universal display of the most recent works of Shepard Fairey, in all of the seven classrooms I visited. Shepard Fairey is an acclaimed graffiti artist turned clothing entrepreneur who was popularized after designing
President Obama’s “Hope” campaign poster in 2008. The 2016 poster that adorned the walls in every educator’s room was an homage to that previous work. The new collection had gained notoriety after Fairey had released the high resolution artwork for free on the internet as a protest response to the Trump campaign. He challenged all of his fans,
154 followers, and activists to use the posters as an act of dissent. The beautiful message of these posters took a bold stance on inclusion, diversity, and resistance. The collection is shown here below:
Figure 5. We the People by Shepard Fairey (2016).
In terms of diversity, each of the educators had elements of their own ethnic identity throughout the room. In Antonio’s room, he featured this critical literacy declaration which directed students to problematize and think about their usage of the word “Hispanic.” The poster had the words “Not His-Panic or Her-Panic…” forcing students to think about the colonized mindset that the word produced. Also within his room were different dia de los muertos masks, artwork of famous Latinx painters, and a
Mexican flag. Similarly, in Nicki’s room, there were bold poster headings that said
“Black Lives Matter” with events and articles posted underneath. She also had a vintage collection of African American dolls seated in one of the corners of the room. This similar kind of ethnic representation was seen in Andres’ and Bel’s room with pictures of their home country’s landscape, people, flags, and artwork.
155
Figure 6. Various Cultural Elements from Classrooms.
The display of literature by authors of color was something that was apparent in most of the classrooms. The titles varied in size, length, and genre, but the theme of multicultural authorship was universal. Interestingly, the educators stated that the books were on an open loan system, the students could always check out the books if they wanted.
156
Figure 7. Multicultural Authorship Library Selections.
Another element that I noticed was the writing of random social justice oriented words in every classroom. Words like “power, resistance, revolution, identity, stereotype, privilege, cisgender, able-bodied, patriarchy, sexism, racism, ageism, discrimination, implicit bias, etc.” were often times written on posters, dry erase boards, or name tags.
The last theme I noticed within each of the educator’s rooms was the display of student work from the ceilings and walls of all the classrooms. Each of the educators had featured past and present works of their students proudly for all to see. It created an authentic feeling that students were the most essential element to the room.
157
Voice and Identity. “…recognizing all students in my class… valuing their voice…that is social justice…” Tina’s declarative statement is a poignant way to introduce this second sub-theme. Too often the voices and narratives of students and communities of color are marginalized by traditional schooling. Whether it be through minimal inclusion, stereotypical misrepresentation, or an outright banning, students of color are made to feel invisible. This systemic invisibility negatively affects a student’s perception of self, community, and place within the education system. This subsection details the ways that the educators address this problematic issue of marginalized voices and identities.
The sub-theme of voice was interpreted and explained in multiple ways by the educators. Many of the educator’s, especially those who worked with younger high school students, acknowledged that many students were shy. In many instances, they noticed that students lacked a certain confidence to talk about themselves or own their experiences. A key strategy was the simple act of “checking in.” Antonio and Aylah mention that this small gesture allows the students the platform to share their experiences and more importantly teaches them that their voice is valued and needed. Aylah explains how she accomplishes this in her classroom, saying:
Really just having a time to express how they are feeling…we do a lot of
checking in… like no academic at all…just how you all doing today?…what’s
going? how’s school?… we do a lot of checking which I think enables students to
feel like they have a voice...
158
Andres offers his own method of getting his students to open up, offering this statement:
I like to do a lot of shared warm up writing before our classes…we call them
“mental pushups”…general questions with short prompts…no right or wrong
answers…just stuff to get them thinking…stuff to get them comfortable with
speaking up…simple stuff you know…like ‘I am the happiest when…’ or ‘one
thing that bothered me on the news last night…’ and I just call on them
randomly…acknowledge them…thank them for sharing…try to crack a joke to
bring levity to the space if the topic is heavy…and from there we build that
dialogue and community…but they always know its safe to speak in our room…
While Aylah, Antonio, and Andres talk about empowerment from the perspective of creating platforms for youth voice to be heard, Nicki describes student empowerment as creating situations where a student’s voice can be validated. She says:
Especially as people of color, we're intuitive and attune to certain injustices and
experiences from our life…So I think that the way that I teach validates what
students already feel intuitively about injustices of the world. So if they feel that
they were followed at you know, Wet Seal or whatever, when they went to the
mall, or that the security guard looked at them suspiciously…They can actually
cite that like profiling is a thing that happens you know, 36 percent of the time
etc, etc…However often…validating like real life experiences… And it's like one
way to empower students…
159
Nicki’s point ties into another important caveat of empowering identity: affirmations. As the educator’s work to validate the narratives and voice of their students, they are ultimately affirming their identity and experiences. This is something necessary and needed, especially in school spaces that create and reinforce feelings of inferiority, subordination, or invisibility for students of color. Bel explains this saying:
I feel like I’m providing certain information that they didn’t know existed before
and I feel like I’m bringing their own experience into the classroom… and
affirming them as writers and readers through the materials…it’s reflective of
their own experiences…bringing their experiences to the classroom and using
them as part of the lessons I feel has been something that they don’t get to do a lot
in their classrooms…
This validation process is shown in Nicki’s statement as well. However, what she attempts to validate are certain values that she attributes to the cultural lineage of the student. She shares her technique of reminding the students of their historical significance and their generational cultural worth. She explains:
I think another way that I intend to empower students… is looking at ways to
validate the things that are valuable to us…So for example if love or respect or
trust or loyalty we say…is a value… let's look at like how does that matter to your
people…To what degree is your history ingrained in loyalty? Is it or has it been
ceremonial? Is it maybe shown through the way that you die in your family? Or
kinship? Or the networks that have existed? Is love in the way that you cook for
your family? Is it the way that you nurture etc. etc. and then for my students to
160
say well...in my family or in my culture we do it this way…hearing that…lifting
that up…validating that…
Antonio closes this section by giving a succinct statement explaining the purpose of validating these students, saying the purpose is “Helping them love themselves…and have respect for themselves, and others.” This simple idea is especially important when the society that surrounds the students teaches them self-hate. Students of color are inundated with covert and overt messages about how society feels about them. Every day, students consume hours of this messaging through books, magazines, television, movies, radio, internet, video games, and social media. Through this daily conditioning process, students of color juggle a dizzying set of images and self-concepts. On one hand, they can barely find themselves or their communities represented through television or movies. Conversely, when they do find themselves, they are often shown through a racist Eurocentric lens that uses prejudice caricatures and negative stereotypes.
In both scenarios, students of color experience a negative affirmation about their identity.
The validation that these critical social justice educators provide to students helps to counter this racialized shunning and shaming of their image. Importantly, it can help students in their own process of healing, confidence building, and self-assurance.
Tools for the Future. The last sub-theme discussed in the student self- empowerment section deals with offering students tools for the future. Antonio mentions the first tool he offers his students is something that is useful for identifying and calling out social problems and oppressions. He labels this tool as “the language.”
161
I feel like they're like little sociologists now…They view the world differently
and they start to notice things that they didn't before... So just giving them the
language to empower themselves… like ‘OK, I'm not crazy!” This does happen
and there's a name for it…
Andres adds his reflection on a similar language based tool that he offers his students:
…Instead of being complacent…instead of just taking the world as it and saying
‘damn that’s messed up’…they have these concepts, terms, ideas, and words to
label these issues and pick them apart and organize towards some real solutions…
In the next excerpt, Antonio acknowledges that it is not enough to simply “have” the tool, there is a specific social responsibility his student’s have when harnessing this new language outside of his classroom. He adds:
It's one thing to have this knowledge and to have this critical mind…But if you
don't put it to use…then it doesn't mean anything...Just the idea that you have to
go back and help those behind you…help those that aren't where you're at yet…
It's like one day I'm gonna die or get fired...and you will have to be the ones to
replace me and the people with critical work…
This social responsibility that Antonio mentions is something he hopes his students feel empowered to utilize outside of his classroom. Whether this responsibility turns them into activists or organizers, only time can tell. Who knows, this knowledge and sense of responsibility to society may mold them into teachers, doctors, nurses, or lawyers. The point is, the consciousness matched with the compelling need to serve, may
162 shift the student’s perception of their future outside of the classroom. This new perception in turn creates new life paths, and a new set of options for the students.
The same idea is mirrored in the tools that Robby hopes he leaves his students with as well. Robby explains his responsibility in this process by reflecting on his Math and Science course:
So I think that’s part of what I would say is my role…I can try make sure as many
students as possible make it through my course… so that when they move
forward they have true choices…
With this same idea of growing the amount of choices and freedoms students have outside of the classroom, Bel explains that this is similar to what she does when teaching the students about community organizing. She reminds students that there is always another way to confront their oppressions. Importantly, she feels that she is creating an environment where students can empower themselves my adopting a multitude of strategies useful challenging both personal and systemic oppressions. She states:
It’s been really good…giving them the strategies…I use my classroom as an
organizing room… so if they had to address an issue…[I think about] what
strategies can I teach them right now as part of my curriculum?…what tools can I
provide them so that they can take them in and out [of the classroom] for organizing
their communities?… and if they ever need to, they can reflect back… like ‘okay
this is how we talked about it’…’this is how we facilitated our conversation’… or
for really hard dialogue…’this is how I didn’t cuss someone out that got me
mad’…(laughing)…’these are the words that I used’…or how I presented
163
information…or how [this is] where I can find the research to back whatever it is
I’m saying as evidence…hopefully they can apply [all that] one day…
In summarizing the application of all these new strategies and tools, Antonio mentions that what he wants to offer students is the reminder of their own resilience throughout the process. He explains this saying…
So when they go off [they will] hopefully have that self-confidence...like ‘I've
done this work’… ‘I've done critical work’… ‘I've done rigorous academic
work.’… ‘This ain't shit.’…or they know like… ‘My people overcame 400 years
of oppression’ this ain't shit….’I got this...
This mindset of confidence, this understanding of individual, cultural, and community strength is perhaps the most powerful, intangible tool the students can walk away with. This frame of mind accompanied with the academic skills needed for persisting through the traditional schooling system will hopefully become a pivotal mechanism for dismantling systems of oppressions for future generations to come.
Honor in Seclusion
The adoption of a critical social justice paradigm has its consequences. The educators admit that they have a certain perception and reputation on their respective campuses. This next section will detail the micro-aggressions and overt discrimination that many of these educators face for having a critical paradigm and membership to a social justice collective.
It is important to mention that the discrimination that these educators feel is intersectional. Their title as a social justice educator is only one of the identity markers
164 confounding their experiences with maltreatment at their school sites. Throughout the interview process, the educators stated that being a racial and ethnic minority at their schools was highly problematic. Not only did they feel like they lacked a viable community, in many cases the educators stated that they felt like their racial and ethnic identity made them “more visible” and “targeted.” The teacher demographics section
Chapter 3 highlights the exact figures of this problem at each of the districts and helps to explain the severity of this racialized isolation. This feeling was heightened with teachers who highlighted that their “accents” made this visibility and isolation even more prevalent, as their voice served as a stigma of being an immigrant, or foreign.
Disappointingly, the majority of the educators used strikingly similar words and gestures to explain their place within the dismal teacher pool statistics. They often started their explanation by saying “I am one of…(insert ethnicity) teachers” and then sadly used only one hand to physically count out their population. Explaining this dynamic, Antonio simply says: “It's lonely fucking work.”
In starting this conversation, about how critical social justice educators are perceived, many of educators stated that the word “radical,” was often used to describe them and their collectives. To those outside of the critical educator community, this may be a derogatory label. Outsiders may consider this word an undesirable title, a judgement of character often used to describe educators who teach against the status quo. For many in the critical social justice education community, this descriptor is worn like a badge of honor, something to be earned and worked towards. As Antonio describes, the
165 association his colleagues use with the term is more aligned with the former. He explains this saying:
You hear terms like radical or militant…I had my principal call me that a few
weeks ago… and we had a conversation about that…but… (laughing)...those
people that are ‘neutral’ or aren't familiar with the work…and what it actually
is… they view it as negative… as a negative connotation…Like someone that is
going to come and be divisive and be a pain in my ass…
In his quote, Antonio creates a distinction between those who are familiar with
“the work” and those who are not. Bel explains that, the majority of teachers, who she describes at her school site as “White and Middle Class,” do not understand “social justice work.” Antonio, Bel, Tina, Andres, and Aylah added that most of their contention and pushback came from “veteran teachers” from this same demographic. Aylah adds:
“I’m not really sure most of my peers understand…I’m not really sure the general sense of what I do is really out there…” As Bel reflects on her own colleagues’ stance, she says:
…It’s interesting because when you challenge those ideas…or the institution…
people get uneasy…or get defensive… I feel like, [maybe] they identify with the
institution?
Andres tries to clarify a similar point about the perceptions of his colleagues saying:
Don’t get me wrong…it’s not all White folks…it’s not all White teachers…I’ve
met some down…critical, for the cause…in the community…active homies…
166
White teachers…But they aren’t the one’s I’m talking about…and they aren’t the
majority at the school either bro…plus they get lumped in with us!
(laughing)…it’s the ones who hear about us having those conversations about
institutional racism, police brutality…privilege…challenging the
system…whatever…and get turned off…the ones that say ‘we’re too political’…
Other educators mentioned this label of being “too political,” in reflecting on how they were perceived. Bel mentioned that her colleagues would often tell her “oh no you shouldn’t do that… that’s too controversial…that’s too political.” This idea of introducing “politicized” or “political” views in the classroom was not taken as an insult.
Many of the educators agreed that how they teach, is indeed a political act. Bel proudly states “if students are not protesting or questioning the system then what am I doing?”
Aylah, Antonio, and Bel theorize their colleagues’ judgmental opinions by explaining this dynamic as being “guilt.” It is a guilt built from a discomfort with
“grappling with” or “talking about systemic oppressions or institutional oppressions,” or what many of the educators called “truths” or “reality.” As soon as their colleagues experienced this “guilt,” the educators stated that it became a trigger for their colleagues feeling like they were being “attacked.” The colleagues would react to this feeling by throwing out negative labels towards the critical educators and their practice. Words like
“controversial,” “radical,” “political” and “militant,” and “revolutionary” became commonplace labels. In many ways, the labels are not offensive however; they suggest a distaste and disapproval from those outside the community. Within the critical education community, some of these words are the very labels used to describe celebrated social
167 justice protagonists and their accompanied social movements. These labels are in many cases the same titles used by critical educators to characterize people who embrace an anti-hegemonic social justice paradigm. Antonio explains more about this dynamic of how “guilt” creates conflict between him and his colleagues:
A lot of the colleagues also have that negative perspective toward this work
because it has them grappling with uncomfortable truths…. They have to look at
themselves in the mirror… like OK how I my perpetuating this institution that's
screwing over some of our kids?…Because I'm actively not working against
it…So that's another thing I feel with this social justice work people have a guilt
trip about it… like ‘ok’ so they're talking about oppression and all these things…
so am I a part of it? Because I’m not out here working against it how they want us
to…So I guess I am that evil blue eyed devil or something?
Andres adds to this saying:
I can’t help it if they feel that way man…that’s not my job to control how others
feel…if your privilege has made you blind…how does that fall on me?...I’m out
here trying to get these kids conscious...and it ain’t like im pulling this shit off
Wikipedia or Instagram brotha (laughing)…these are federally reported
statistics…you’re mad cus I’m givin them access to the truth?...c’mon man…
It is in this mix of emotions, between guilt and misunderstanding, where the educators argue that their colleagues feel “at odds” with them. Antonio reflects on this saying:
168
They view us as ‘indoctrinating’ the students…Or ‘teaching students to hate
White people.’ These are terms that people say…so when I walk down the
hall…some people won't greet me… like I'll say good morning…They just keep
walking like my ass isn't there…
This misjudgment that Antonio cites is too often used as the basis for maltreatment. In this case, the maltreatment manifests itself through the labeling and marginalization of the educator’s work. Second, the discrimination takes on a psychological and physical form, where the colleagues knowingly dismiss the educator’s attempts to offer cordial greetings while shunning them in public spaces. Perhaps their motive is to embarrass them or openly signal that they are not welcomed within “normal” teaching community. Andres cites another example of a micro-aggressive interaction with a colleague that took place after his students organized a panel on campus to talk about their experiences with police violence:
I remember it was some subtle shit…real smooth…the guy gave me a handshake
as usual…because I thought we were friends…but followed it up with patting me
on the shoulder...saying ‘why can’t you guys just tone it down with that stuff,
you’re making a toxic environment here.’…and I looked at him, shrugged his
hand off my fucking shoulder and just walked away…
Dealing with these micro-aggressions, become daily reminders of the extraneous difficulties some critical social justice educators face when navigating the school system.
Not only do the educators carry the weight of being numerical “minorities” on campus,
169 they face the daily injustices of confronting White privilege, White fragility, and open discrimination from their colleagues. Nicki closes this section with offering this thought:
You know… if I'm with my friends… or other teachers of color… we can talk shit
all day about why teachers are doing that...That's just ridiculous…At the same
time we've got to look at the ways that they don’t know any better in some
ways…I mean that's kind of how White supremacy works…We keep a little
ignorant about it so that you can continue to teach the same stuff over and over
again…We've been doing this since the beginning…the beginning of time…I
mean this is education in the United States…
Nicki’s closing thought is a reminder that the ill effect of White supremacy and the ideologies that sustain it, thrive in places like the education system. Lopsided hiring practices that lead to unbalanced racial and ethnic demographics of teachers ultimately creates a skewed perspective on dominant teaching ideas. This is not to say that all teachers of color have critical social justice paradigms. However, in maintaining disproportionate hiring practices of credentialed teachers, there is ultimately less diverse thinking within schools. Without this diversity, White ideologies, cultural values, beliefs, insecurities, fragilities, and biases remain the dominant mode of thinking within school institutions.
When teachers of color remain the numerical minority, it is easy to marginalize, question, misunderstand, demonize, and negatively label their work. This is made even easier when the majority White middle class administration and teaching population promotes the same status quo ideologies that devalues and stereotypes anti-oppressive
170 social justice work as “radical” or “too controversial.” This division between teaching paradigms is created from a lack of understanding about institutional oppression and privilege. Some folks just don’t get it. Unfortunately, teachers of color are forced to bear the weight of these misunderstandings through normalized mistreatment. The micro- aggressions and overt discrimination that these critical social justice educators face is a symptom of a larger problem of systemic racism in our broader society today.
Resistance in the 45 Era
The last section of this chapter details each educator’s outlook on the future.
Specifically, this section highlights each educator’s view on the necessity of a critical education amidst the new political landscape in the United States. Admittedly, this question was not included in the drafting of the initial research or interview questions.
These inquiries were an unfortunate reaction to the results of the 2016 presidential election. The responses outlined in this last section work to highlight the trepidations, persistence, determination and renewed energy generated from this calamitous moment in
United States history.
When initially answering this question, many of the educators had signaled their discontent. Heavy sighs, sarcastic expletives, hands hitting foreheads; the dissatisfaction was rather obvious. Within this negativity though, there was a numbing sense of realism about the long-sustained historical conditions of this country which may have fueled the country’s current political situation. Robby details this in the following statement:
I think the same racist structures that already existed…they’re still there…It’s not
like all of a sudden people don’t like Muslims anymore…They might be more
171
open about it?...but the same people held the same beliefs…I don’t think Trump’s
election created one more racist than existed before…the reality I don’t think
changed at all…other than the fact, that a lot of what Trump is going to do is
going to be horrible…I mean I found out this morning he appointed Bannon to the
National Security Council and demoted the joint chiefs of staff…That’s
ridiculous… So they put a White supremacist on there? …I don’t know, part of
me is like what’s the difference?...
Antonio adds to Robby’s statement saying:
At first, I was sad and depressed…but this isn't anything new…Whoever was
elected president…there will still be oppression…there will still be work to do…
Antonio and Robby address a sad point. There are certain systemic oppressions that have remained constant regardless of the president in office. The United States’ perpetuation of intersectional institutional discrimination has been a historically reliable constant. Though this presidency has put those oppressions center stage, they were not created during this campaign. This country has preserved its fetishism for discrimination and violence against non-White Christian males since the colonization and genocide of the Indigenous communities in the 1600’s. This problem has been festering for more than 400 years. Andres adds to this sentiment saying:
This shit shouldn’t be shocking to us…this racism…this sexism…the
xenophobia…folks hatin’ on immigrants…that’s the American narrative…that’s
our fucking story…this ain’t nothing new…its just more obvious now…is it
172
scary?...fuck yeah…especially if you’re in one of those targeted groups… these
times…this game ain’t changed…there’s work to do…
This idea of the continuance of the responsibility, or as Andres calls, “work,” is highlighted in a statement by Antonio as well. He says:
But I just feel now… not I didn't before…I just feel like there's a greater sense of
urgency to be engaging in this type of work and also to have other people or to
mentor other people to hop on board also and just engage in this critical work…
so now it's just like am ‘I doing enough?’…’How can I do more?’… Not just ’am
I doing enough.’…But how can I do more?...
This self-evaluation speaks to the responsibility that these educator’s feel in teaching to their fullest, most critical potential. It also raises a worrisome point that within this prolonged push, this extra demand on oneself may cause an untimely burnout.
Teaching and promoting a critical education is already a heavy lift in itself; it calls the educator to not only teach the standards but to go beyond the mandated content with a culturally relevant, engaging, well-prepped approach, that sparks a critical consciousness within 35 young people at a time, at least four times a day. Atop this, as Antonio mentions, because of the heightened sense of accountability that this era is producing, there is a constant need to reassess whether this already strenuous effort is enough. It is a commendable, yet exhausting lifestyle to keep up. Critical social justice educators cannot go at this fight alone, they must create an environment for their students that compels them to share in this struggle. Bel speaks to this shared responsibility with her own students saying:
173
I’ve been telling my students…like you need to be aware right now… you need to
be ready to work…. be ready to work because there’s gonna be things that come
our way and we gotta be ready…
Bel’s story of awareness reminded me of a classroom visit I had with Andres. In the following observation, I detail a moment where Andres, his students, and the community were forced to work hurriedly and collaboratively in response to a shocking development born from the “new” political agenda. Their heightened awareness aided them in being able to respond quickly to a situation that could have proven dangerous for many that were involved. This incident is detailed here:
Table 13
Andres’ Classroom The air was tense and the students were hyper-vigilant. Word had spread that day that there were reportedly ICE agents parked on a high traffic street only a few blocks away from his school. His students were beyond distracted. Young people in the classroom were whispering worriedly, leaning over to peek at each other’s phones, showing screen shots of what had soon gone viral. One of Andres’ students ran up to him showing him his phone saying “look Mr. Dre I can’t believe this shit, is this for real?” Andres looked the young man in his eyes, and replied sternly “look at me…I got your back, we’re gonna figure this out. You’re safe here.” He offered the boy a handshake and a reassuring hug then look out towards the rest of class. I counted eight students in tears. The rest, visibly shaken, riddled with insecurity. He smiled at everyone and said “I know you’re worried. I am too. You are safe here…I will not let anyone hurt you…you are safe here in my classroom.”
I soon realized I was witnessing something that Andres himself had never experienced. I couldn’t imagine the pressure he felt. What he said next stunned me: “Those of you with phones, call your parents, call your family, make sure they’re safe, tell them to stay off that road. When you’re done, share your phone with someone that doesn’t have one so they can call home too. Y’all can use my phone too. Let your family know what’s going on.” The classroom morphed into a chaotic call center as Andres spent the rest of the period counseling students, saying hello to worried parents as cell phones were passed to him, while simultaneously checking his own live news feeds for updates.
174
Admittedly, the visit I made was an anomaly of sorts but may be a forecast for the days ahead given the continued deportation focus of our country. This new reality of creating “safe havens” for targeted students is something that educators may have to plan and account for in the years coming. Along with the regimented fire, earthquake, and lock down drills, teachers and students should prepare for the encroaching reality of anti- immigrant raids on school sites. Tina reflects on this idea of by offering advice to both her students and her colleagues, saying:
I don't know what's going to look like…We always have to be vigilant…No
matter what…That's what I was taught in Oakland, we were always vigilant…
This “vigilance” comes in many forms. For Andres, this vigilance is translated to
“looking out for communities…” Expanding more on this he stated “we gotta’ teach and model for our students that what happens to one of us…affects us all…this ain’t the time to be segregated…we gotta teach them that solidarity!”
This sense of immediate responsibility to students and the community was shared by other educators as well. Many felt that the responsibility lay in equipping youth with necessary resources for combatting these imminent oppressive realities. Bel states:
…so one of the things that for sure as a teacher that I make sure I do is provide
information and that I’m more aware of student’s situations… if you know they’re
going to be targeting certain programs that benefit our students, how can we work
as a collective community? Can we provide those additional resources
ourselves ?…In the world of education, we have to be ready for that…I think
continuing that work….making sure we have our individual localized resources
175
ready to go… that’s something we’re building right now in the district…like
where can students go for this and that…even immigration lawyer help… and all
these resources that they need…
Bel’s point reminds audiences that the work in serving students must happen collaboratively with the community outside of the school. She mentions this idea of wrap around services that equips students with extra protections and resources. Formalizing this approach in schools is essential to making students feel more secure, safe, and supported in their own communities. It also builds a communal accountability and responsibility for ensuring the protection of our most vulnerable and targeted student populations.
Building systems of support for students seems like the most necessary task for the immediate future. In building these supports, Aylah reflects and acknowledges that those who have been doing the work, years prior, or in generations past, have laid protective groundwork for critical educators to stand on. She explains this by saying:
Well I’m excited that other educators…organizers, activists…our ancestors…we
put in a foundation…that there is a foundation right now… because hopefully
with that foundation …we can build upon it… I think if we were trying to create
what we created right now…we would not be successful because of the current
political climate… but I think because we have a foundation…because different
schools are trying this out… it’s spreading… I really think that its gonna grow
now…it might grow fairly slowly in the next four years …but I think that this
176
political climate has lent itself pretty well to [that growth]...because the people are
saying...there is something to fight for…
It is with this last statement where a spark of hope is felt. All of the educators agree that these indeed are “tough” and “troubling times,” yet “they are nothing new.” In this time of social uncertainty and political unrest, these educators insist that we keep our eyes, our purpose, and our actions pushing forward; “now, more than ever,” critical social justice educators must stay grounded and dedicated to their resistance work.
These educators remind us that the resistance takes on many forms. For them, it is a multifaceted approach that takes place in the classroom, in the community, and through the relationships and critical consciousness they build with students. Their commitment to resistance should serve as a call to action to all other educators and people who remain neutral in these times of injustice and oppression. This indeed is not a new fight; it is the persistence of four centuries of struggle, the ongoing progression of a multi-generational movement towards social justice for all oppressed groups.
177
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to explore how high school critical social justice educators utilized their curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies to combat traditional schooling. This study provides a new context for previous research conducted by critical scholars like Duncan-Andrade and Morrel (2008), Ginwright and
James (2002), and Giroux (2010), by examining how critical educators have adopted and applied nuanced interpretations of critical pedagogy in this current socio-political era to advance a social justice education. The study highlights the critical paradigm, conscious curricula decisions, counter-hegemonic strategies, and revolutionary vision associated with embodying an intersectional critical social justice educator identity.
This research offers a vivid glimpse into the thoughts, narratives, and choices of educators who promote critical anti-oppressive educations in high school spaces
(Kumashiro, 2000; 2004; 2015). The research provided an empowering platform for these educators to offer their perspective of how a critical education and a critical pedagogical approach could be utilized to work towards social justice in historically low performing, Title I, majority student of color institutions. These perspectives and stories served as a testament to the importance of building genuine relationships, trust, and love between educators and their students. Moreover, the study acknowledged the political mindset and “moral courage” necessary for building a critical consciousness within students that challenges the oppressive institutions that encroach upon their lives. The study acknowledged the stigma and social consequences of being a champion for social
178 justice in traditional schooling spaces, a phenomena one of the educators called “lonely work.” The study concluded with a hopeful vision that served as a statement to other critical educators to stay grounded in their resistance work during these divisive political times.
The study utilized a qualitative phenomenological approach to conduct in-depth interviews and multiple observations with each educator. The phenomenological method offered an empowering stage for these educators to share their candid stories.
Importantly, the approach provided an authentic way for participants to describe their experiences. Questions were formatted in a non-restrictive fashion to allow for open, fluid, and flexible responses. In combining these narratives with classroom observations, a more rich and thorough description of their actual practice as teachers was developed.
These observations also helped to validate the stories and approaches of the educators while offering critical interpretations of everyday interactions they may have overlooked.
Every participant was interviewed for approximately one hour, in various locations, between the months of December 2016 and February 2017. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emergent themes. During these same months, multiple classroom observations were conducted with each educator based upon their discretion and availability. Detailed notes were taken during each visit and these notes were also coded for themes. No audio recordings took place during these observations however pictures of the educator’s physical classroom were taken based on their approval. These photos were also analyzed to find thematic elements. Upon the final collection of all data and the final development of all transcripts, a secondary
179 reading of all data, transcripts, photos, and notes were used to answer the main research question of this study: How do Northern California high school critical social justice educators combat traditional schooling through their curricula development, classroom pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies? The sub-research questions used in examining this large question are outlined individually in the following section along the implications of the findings produced from this study.
Interpretation of the Findings
Research Question 1: How do high school critical social justice educators conceptualize social justice?
The findings suggested that critical social justice educators viewed the concept of social justice generally as something achieved through organized action against oppressive social institutions. The educators acknowledged that the actions necessary for attaining justice varied dependent on the social problem and oppression being addressed.
This meant that social justice was something that could be defined and redefined by different groups dependent on the context in which the oppressions and injustices occur.
Similarly, the educators argued that the conceptualization of oppression itself differed upon the intersections of the people declaring the injustices. More specifically, the explanation and understanding of social justice may shift dependent on a group’s racial, ethnic, immigration status, gender, sexuality, social class, religion, political affiliation etc. According to the educators, this fluidity of the term “social justice” and its multiple interpretations has led to different approaches in working towards attaining it. What is necessary or practical for combatting injustice in one situation does not necessarily make
180 it a universally acceptable strategy in all situations. Approaches towards social justice must be tailored for the community experiencing a given oppression at that specific time.
These tactics of resistance become even more specialized when students are the ones at the frontlines of challenging oppressive institutions to promote positive changes.
These findings support a multiplicity of research based in critical pedagogy and social justice. The variation in the exact definitions of the term affirms the research of
Adams et. al (2013) Kaufman (2016) who argued that the interdisciplinary nature of the concept itself has inevitably created varying interpretations. Since social justice is theorized in multiple fields like philosophy, education, economics, sociology, ethnic studies, and social work, the concept will certainly be imagined in different ways.
Though most fields of study would agree that the concept must address facets like change, institutions, injustice, or oppression, the concept still varies to a certain degree dependent on the discipline. Even though all of these educators are working in the field of education, their training during their bachelor’s degree, teacher credentialing process, and personal enrichment had shaped their thinking towards social justice. The data also showed that besides training and education, two factors were integral to building the educator’s understanding of social justice: 1) their daily work with students and 2) their own personal history and identity.
The first factor, working with students, reaffirms the research of Ginwright and
James (2002) that highlights that when given the opportunity, youth have the power and the agency to shape institutions, in this case, ideological understandings of the concept of social justice. As some of the educators cited within the findings, it was the students who
181 had the greatest impact on shaping their post-collegiate conceptions on both the possibility and parameters of the term social justice. This idea asserts that the voices of young people are indeed a counter hegemonic force that could prove useful for upsetting the status quo understanding of what social justice is or could be (Gramsci, 1971). Some of the educators cited that their experience with young people had in many instances offered them an alternative perspective from the traditional knowledge they received during their teacher credentialing process. The information learned from students did not contest what their collegiate mentors had taught them, however it added another important layer of understanding.
The mere idea that the voices and experiences of historically oppressed communities could alter dominant ideology, reaffirms the usage of Horkheimer’s (1982) presentation of Critical Theory to this research. Horkheimer (1982) asserted that oppressed people could utilize Critical Theory as a means for liberating themselves from social institutions that oppressed them. In this situation, the youth were challenging the ideology that knowledge could only be produced from the traditional university establishment. Essentially, the findings showed that educator’s collegiate training was being confronted and tested by student voice and experience. This is important because it reminds us that the voices that are often alienated or marginalized by the education institution are the same voices that could inform and improve it. In this confrontation, new knowledge about social justice was produced, accepted, adopted by the educators themselves, thus affirming Horkheimer’s (1982) stance that historically less powerful groups like youth, can impact traditional ideologies within social systems. Moreover,
182 this finding shows the application of critical pedagogy to this research; when the youth are viewed as equals in the education process, they have the ability to shape and produce knowledge (Duncan-Andrade and Morrel, 2008).
The findings about youth being creators of knowledge supports the work of
Giroux (2001; 2010; 2011), Lushy and Monroe (2015), and O’Connor and Cosner (2016) that argues that when marginalized voices, specifically in this example, youth, are given the opportunity to participate democratically on an equal level, it validates the importance of their experiences. The link to Giroux’s (2011) research creates a bridge to the second factor of this research question’s findings that showed that personal history and identity were key in shaping conceptualizations of social justice.
For many of the educators, there was an acknowledgement that their lived experiences and multiple identities had taught them more about social justice than any book, training, or professional development. Their paradigm about social justice was conceived more through experiencing oppression first hand or through their shared experiences with others. This finding supports the work of Collins and Blige (2016) that states that intersectionality is what drives personal understanding of oppression, privilege, and social justice. The educator’s experience of how their multiple identities are affected by larger societal institutions was key in shaping both their politicized paradigm and teaching philosophies for working towards social justice with their students. The educator’s own oppression affected the purpose and motivation behind their teaching and influenced the ways in which they altered learning environments for their students. This finding also upholds the work of Yosso (2005) suggesting that these intersectional
183 experiences have a distinct value that can be used in affirming that person’s community cultural wealth. The experiences of the educators, though rooted in distinct oppressions, suggest that even during those hardships, their resistance and resilience helped to forge forms of knowledge that would be useful to them later in life, in this instance it was their understanding of the concept of social justice.
Research Question 2: What do critical educators view as essential curricula to a high school social justice education?
The findings from the study suggested that there are three curricula based elements that are navigated simultaneously to work towards social justice. These three curricula are called the institutionalized standards, the counter-curricula, and the protective curricula. The institutionalized standards referred to the CA Common Core state standards (CCSS), the administrators or site demands in regards to those standards, and skillsets deemed necessary to graduate students from one grade to the next. The counter-curricula references all the attempts made by critical social justice educators to introduce and integrate knowledge, information, materials, and activities that challenge status quo information and ideologies. The protective curricula refers to a survivalist set of information that is taught specifically to young male students of color.
The educators noted that these institutionalized standards and the counter- curricula could not exist apart from each other. In fact, the curricula often worked in unison. The institutionalized standards were the foundational base that had to be navigated and conquered in order to teach the counter curricula. All of the educators understood and acknowledged that the education system was constructed in such a way
184 that their students would severely limit their life opportunities if certain standardized skillsets in reading or math were not imparted. Recognizing this, the educators strategized ways to use those same skillsets as a way to access and grapple with critical content and counter curricula.
The educator’s assumption that it is necessary to reproduce standardized knowledge to ensure a student’s social and economic survival channels the research of
Darder (2012) that argues that the CCSS are a sorting mechanism to benefit the capitalist system. This notion that a young person cannot survive or function in the broader economic society without passing through standardized checkpoints is a form of oppression that Young (2004) cites as cultural imperialism. Essentially, it has become an ingrained cultural belief in the United States that the completion of standardized learning objectives in schools is a legitimate way to separate student populations for post- secondary access and subsequent socio-economic mobility. The finding speaks to the cultural dominance of the traditional schooling system in its ability to sustain these three long lasting ideologies: 1) the institutionalized standards are an important and immovable facet of the education system, 2) standardized knowledge is used as a gatekeeper for access to higher education and 3) that adopting standardized knowledge and skillsets grants greater access to social mobility and social freedom.
Kumashiro (2012) asserts in his research, that the institutionalized CCSS are a reflection of an oppressive capitalist education agenda created by elite philanthropic financiers; essentially what students need to “make it” to the next education level is a literacy and STEM skillset useful for sustaining the same capitalist system that these elite
185 financiers dominate. The findings of this research echoed this capitalist sentiment, showing that some of the educator’s believed and argued that ensuring that historically underrepresented students in STEM had these skillsets was a way to produce economic justice for their communities. Some of the educators argued that these skillsets would increase the likelihood of students acquiring a post-secondary education that would lead to better jobs and ultimately a more fruitful economic future. It seems as though traditional schooling has made education inescapably rooted in economics and capitalism.
This is a sad yet ostensibly unavoidable consequence of the way in which traditional schooling is tied into the capitalist market. Without a high school degree, students are typically pipelined for low paying, menial labor positions. As students attain more degrees, their income and job prospects subsequently raises. What false meritocracies are we promoting by making students believe that the simple mastery of the institutionalized standards means economic success? If traditional schooling must be a propagated as a necessary evil, it must be supplemented and circumnavigated with counter curricula to ensure that students have a balanced understanding of how their place within this meritocratic myth can become complicated by this country’s historic institutional oppression of specific disadvantaged student groups.
The findings showed that the counter-curricula was a necessary conduit for challenging the traditional schooling system and its status quo ideologies. The counter- curricula often served as way for educators to be more inclusive of the students in their classroom. The counter-curricula would often feature voices that were from not from
186 mainstream Euro-centric, Christian, patriarchal perspectives. This had an empowering effect on students who were able to see themselves in what they were learning.
Moreover, the hidden-curricula created opportunities for students to de-colonize their thinking about certain historical events, other communities of color, or the various communities they identified with. In this way, the counter curricula became both a source of empowerment and an approach useful for decolonizing ideologies that promoted oppressive hegemonic structures (Fanon, 1969; Gramsci, 1971). Through this, students were able to theorize their shared oppressions with other diverse groups of people which in turn created a sense of solidarity which is a key learning objective in the
Social Justice Youth Development framework which is used a foundation for this research (Ginwright and James, 2002). Also, this move towards solidarity reaffirms the work of hooks (1994) that states that education can be used as a tool to build community amongst oppressed groups.
The last curricula that was mentioned by the educators was the protective curricula. These curricula were responsive to the many oppressive social institutions that made it hazardous to be a young male of color. Specifically, these curricula addressed the systemic racism that impeded the life chances of these young people within the school system and outside in the community. Educators found it necessary to offer these curricula as a way to promote the survival of these young men who were statistically more likely to become victimized by the school institution and society at large. This finding suggests four things: 1) critical educators and allies must have to extra measures to ensure the protection and safety of young men of color from systemic racism, implicit
187 bias, and violence, 2) that there are forms of knowledge that have been developed as a defense mechanism for communities of color against the realities of living in a society plagued by White supremacy 3) this type of cultural knowledge does not exist in traditional schooling 4) critical educators are key agents for creating environments and relationships where important cultural knowledge like this can be shared with students of color.
The existence of the counter curricula and the protective curricula are reminders that Traditional schooling does not have all the answers to make students successful; some of the most important knowledge a young person may acquire lives outside the standardized content areas of Math, Science, English and History. However, the findings stress that traditional schooling and its institutionalized standards have become so pervasive and intertwined with socio-economic mobility, that it is a necessary evil within our capitalistic country. When these three curricula are interwoven together and are taught critically, they produce a specific kind of social justice education. It is the type of education that promotes mastery of a skillset necessary to improve access and freedom to certain social spaces while empowering a critical consciousness that challenges students to eliminate institutional barriers that may inhibit their freedom and the freedom of others.
Research Question 3 & 4: How does educator’s paradigm of social justice manifest itself through their classroom pedagogy and how does this pedagogy empower students?
188
The findings showed that the educator’s believed there was no universal way to promote a critical social justice education. However, their responses produced three distinct elements that they felt were necessary to integrate within their pedagogical approach: building relationships with the students, in-class activities and strategies to challenge institutional oppressions, and student self-empowerment.
The educators stressed that without building relationships with their students, none of the other critical work towards social justice would be possible. It is nearly impossible to teach someone who does not respect or trust you. This factor reiterates the importance of the Katz (2014) research that states that relationships are a key element to utilizing a Critical Pedagogy in the classroom. The delivery of different forms of curricula would be extremely difficult without building strong foundational relationships with students. Katz (2014) and hooks (1994) adds that genuinely knowing your students can help in tailoring the learning the experience in such a way that aids in increasing their engagement but also becomes relevant for them to better address and combat their own oppressions. The educators argued that respecting youth, showing a genuine commitment, offering unconditional love, and having high expectations were essential parts of building relationships with students. The findings emphasized that these relationships built a form of trust that made the teaching and learning process more productive, honest, and beneficial to both the educator and student.
The educator’s mentioned these relationships as key for deconstructing the school to prison pipeline. When educators took the steps necessary to build strong relations with their students they significantly lowered their likelihood of using harsh punitive
189 discipline practices that may result in missed classtime, suspension, or expulsion. These findings have been reiterated by Ashley (2015) in her research that states that the development of positive climates and relationships could significantly impact the school to prison pipeline. In theorizing why other teachers insisted on using punitive discipline, some of the educators pointed to historically negative race relations and implicit bias as a possible root cause. These findings support the research of Cameron-Wedding (2016) which asserted that people of color often times become institutionally victimized when people with implicit bias have positions of power over them; an example of that is seen with the teacher and student relationship.
Aside from building relationships, there were other pedagogical in-class strategies and activities the educator’s employed. There were two main themes within those in- class strategies and activities: 1) the approaches were identity and reality based and 2) they challenged oppressive institutions.
First, the findings highlighted that their pedagogy needed to find ways to channel the identities and realities of students. Affirming the identities and historical oppressions of young people is an essential idea of Freire’s (1972) work that is a major theoretical foundation for this research. Similarly, this usage of what the educator’s called “reality lessons” or creating a link between the curricula taught in the classroom and the student’s every day life affirms the effectiveness of Emdin’s reality pedagogy approach (2016).
This suggests that curricula and topics of study must be tailored in such a way that student’s can feel connected and related to the material. A key piece of using a reality based pedagogy was not shying away from discussing student traumas. This echoes the
190 work of Camangian (2015) and Ginwright (2015) which found that addressing trauma in the classroom is a necessary step for removing barriers to the learning process and for validating the lived experiences of young people. The findings also suggested that rooting the student’s curricula in their life experience and creating tangible connections to who they are as young people served as a great tool for healing, student engagement, and was key for imparting critical knowledge. The findings indicated that, when students felt personally connected to the material, they were more likely to learn, persist through the course, and the traditional schooling system itself.
The educators argued that it was not enough to just utilize a cultural and identity relevant pedagogy, they argued that their teaching strategies had to promote change in oppressive institutions. Without this element, there would be no access points for students to channel their critical agency. These educators had to teach about societal oppressions and create environments where those young people felt compelled to upend oppressive institutions for their own betterment and the benefit of generations to follow.
This finding is important to this research in that it highlights Critical Theory and Critical
Pedagogy as the main paradigm used by critical social justice educators in their daily classroom practice (Horkheimer, 1982; Duncan-Andrade, 2008; Giroux, 2010). This conscious decision to utilize exercises and strategies that inspire action against oppression is a key political choice that separated critical social justice educators apart from traditional schooling teachers (Giroux, 2010). While traditional teachers promote ideologies that sustain the status quo, these critical social justice educators are
191 encouraging dissent against all institutions that maintain oppression or dominion over disadvantaged groups.
The third pedagogical element mentioned were the educator’s efforts at empowering their students. As previously mentioned in this section, these educators stated that utilizing a curricula and pedagogy that reflected diverse student cultures and validated the lived experiences and identities of those students was a source of viable empowerment. These findings support the research of Macrine, McLaren, and Hill,
(2010) that argues that creating student centered classroom is a way to shift the power imbalance oppressed communities feel especially in schools were they are made to feel like they exist at the margins. Alongside this one strategy, the educators mentioned the alteration of the physical classroom as another way to empower students. Lastly, the findings highlighted that there were certain tools that educators felt that students took away with them for the rest of their life that empowered them. The educators noted that these specific tools revolved around having access to a new language and strategies that both problematized their experiences and gave them the power to analyze their social world.
Research Question 5: How do these educators utilize their critical social justice paradigm, curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies to combat traditional schooling?
The images below highlight the transition from the traditional schooling model into the critical social justice education model. The image are used to provide a visual explanation of how critical social justice educators are combatting traditional schooling
192 with their paradigm and practice. The paragraphs written after the images offer a detailed explanation of how these educators are consistently pushing back against the system.
Figure 8. Combatting Traditional Schooling Model
193
As it was described in Chapter 2 of this dissertation, traditional schooling refers to the broad system of education that stresses that schools should produce homogeneous populations of students that think and act in a such a way that benefits governments in power, upholds ideologies of the status quo, and promotes growth in the capitalist market
(Giroux, 1988). The exact moment that critical social justice educators make a conscious decision to disrupt this public indoctrination system, they are combatting traditional schooling. When critical educators introduce any form of counter-curricula that challenges Euro-centric perspectives, raises the voices of marginalized groups of color, or confronts White privilege, they are diversifying the archetype of homogeneity that traditional schooling tries to produce. When educators consciously open up their Math and Science classrooms to traditionally underrepresented groups like females and students of color, they are upsetting the social order of gender and racial inequity that traditional schooling tries to create. Similarly, when students from these classes move onto college with non-remedial skills, they increase their job potential and this in turn shifts the makeup of the economic market. If these students achieve higher positions, salaries, and status, they have the ability to operate within those social roles with a critical consciousness that makes them cognizant of how their power can be used to oppress others or be leveraged to promote social justice for the community. When critical social justice educators teach in a way that validates the identities and experiences of historically oppressed young people of color, it reminds them of their inherent intergenerational community cultural value (Yosso, 2005). This reminder of community cultural wealth helps the student to restore and retain the identity that traditional
194 schooling’s forcible assimilation has tried to strip them of (Yosso, 2005). With this retention and pride in cultural identity, it becomes more and more difficult for student’s to blindly adopt the attitudes, viewpoints, and behaviors, of traditional schooling’s White
Anglo Saxon Protestant roots. The more critically conscious and politically minded these students become the more dangerous they are to the system itself. As students are made to feel like they are an intelligent, empowered, community of scholars, they build the confidence necessary to challenge, resist, and revolutionize the oppressive institutions they exist within. When critical social justice educators commit themselves to unconditionally supporting and loving their students to work towards this goal, every day is an aggressive strike against traditional schooling and a step forward towards social justice.
Research Question 6: How do these educators feel about the place of critical social justice education given the current socio-political climate?
The findings suggested that the critical social justice educators acknowledged that these are indeed tumultuous times. The socio-political climate is one that invites fear and divisiveness amongst groups and promotes a hyper-discrimination against historically oppressed people. The findings highlighted that the educator’s thought these times are significant however they are not “new.” In this understanding and acknowledgment of repetitious cyclical oppression, these educators stated that “the work” has remained the same. In that idea though, the educators concluded that the critical social justice educator community should stand firm in their resistance against oppressive systems and continue
195 to organize and train the youth to work collectively to ensure the eradication of these systems in the future.
This resistance work must be rooted in a form of critical hope (Duncan-Andrade,
2009). The weight of the multiple systemic oppressions propagated and sustained by this current administration could become cumbersome and spiritually draining. However, engaging in this form of hope requires educators to take a radically optimistic stance in working towards a different reality for the betterment of oppressed communities. For this to happen, the findings channel the framework of James and Ginwright (2003), highlighting that there is a need to inspire within students a sense of social responsibility and solidarity with other oppressed groups.
Students need to be reminded of the power of collectivism and the promise in social change through a united resistance. Educators and students alike must use the classroom to build community while acknowledging, respecting, and empathizing with eachother (hooks, 1994). In order to truly push towards social justice, a communal critical consciousness needs be developed and diverse communities must move in solidarity to eliminate systems that exert oppressive power over them.
Final Findings Model
The image shown on the next page reconstructs the conceptual model (Figure 1) highlighted in Chapter 1. This new model addresses all of the posited research questions from this dissertation and highlights each of the main findings from all six questions.
The model illustrates the thematic contributions of each educator in accordance to each research question. Importantly, the model also highlights the unchanged environmental
196 oppressions and oppressive social institutions which still confound the experiences of these educators, the schools they teach within, and the students they collaborate with.
Lastly, the model highlights the unfortunate findings of micro-aggressions and discrimination that some these educators faced because of their identity and social justice paradigm, this finding is indicated by the hazy lines over the educator within the right side of the bubble and the stated “risk of discrimination.”
Figure 9. Critical Social Justice Educator Findings Model
197
Recommendations
The entire premise of this research has been that traditional schooling in the
United States has proven to be a system that has been historically ineffective and oppressive. The system itself is built on the philosophical and religious ideologies of
European colonizers who perpetuated one the longest standing military occupations and genocides in global history. Traditional schooling is a system that perpetuates systemic intersectional inequities that only benefit White capitalist elites (Darder, 2012;
Kumashiro, 2012). The system needs to be disrupted, deconstructed, and changed.
Disrupting the traditional schooling system starts with addressing the reproduction of the knowledge within the system itself. How can critical social justice educators play a larger role in affecting this reproduction of hegemonic knowledge?
Similarly, how can the critical social justice educator paradigm be used to inform pre- service teacher credentialing candidates? More specifically, how can this paradigm be infused into the preparation of the estimated 100,00 teachers that CA will hire by 2026?
This study examined the curricula, pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies that combatted the effects of traditional schooling, however it is necessary to further analyze how these same focal points could be used to combat the oppressive paradigms of other educators. Dominant, non-progressive, hyper-conservative, status quo education paradigms and ideologies are what sustain the system of traditional schooling. The work being done to promote social justice and critical consciousness in these educator’s classrooms could inevitably be cancelled out with the five to six other periods of schooling that the student is subjected to every day. If the paradigms of other educators
198 are not challenged, these critical social justice educators will remain isolated anomalies within an unchanging oppressive system. Finding ways to end this marginalization and isolation is the second recommendation from this study.
Within the findings, it was apparent that these critical social justice educators felt
“at odds,” “disrespected,” “targeted,” and discriminated by their broader school community and colleagues. The educators made it a point to stress the inherent segregation associated with committing to this type of work. Further analysis is necessary in determining what factors contributed to the multiple micro-aggressions and institutional discriminations that these educators faced as a result of their identity and paradigm. Likewise, more analysis should be conducted in understanding how these social justice collectives remain together at their respective schools despite the rampant mistreatment and discrimination.
This institutional discrimination will warrant further investigation as the months and years progress after this study. Though the educators concluded their interviews with hopeful declarations and forward visions of resistance, the current United States political infrastructure may attempt to destroy the foundations of critical education that have been created. With the Presidency of Donald Trump and the service of Betsy DeVos as the
U.S. Education Secretary only a few months underway at the time of this research, there is no telling what direction public education is headed in. As this dissertation is being completed, bills like HR 610 have been proposed to repeal The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, discontinue free and reduced lunch for low income youth, eradicate funding for before and after school programs, and completely defund and
199 disempower the Department of Education. Aside from the slow destruction of the United
States public education institution, how will the future of critical social justice education fare? How will this political administration demonize and silence critical educators who work against the status quo? How will the work of critical social justice educators be scrutinized, targeted, discontinued or made illegal in future?
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings and results of the research have created an important dialogue about the need for future studies in the field of critical social justice education. There are specific factors that connect to this research topic that need to be expanded on:
1) There needs to be a longitudinal analysis conducted on the students who received
a critical social justice education to compare their academic success with students
who receive a traditional schooling experience. Does receiving this type of
education make you more or less likely to persist in the traditional schooling
system? Does the adoption of critical social justice views make you a target for
discrimination from other teachers or administration?
2) A longitudinal study could be conducted to see how the critical consciousness that
students develop affects their involvement in other realms after high school (ie.
College major, occupation, political identity, activism etc.) How does receiving a
critical social justice education early on shape student’s future life decisions?
3) The reproduction of this study in a middle school and elementary school space
would be necessary to see how the strategies of critical social justice educators
differ dependent on grade level? What are the necessary shifts in curricula,
200
pedagogy, and student empowerment strategies needed to combat traditional
schooling in earlier grades?
4) A replication of this study would useful in places with different teacher and
student populations. This participant group and the schools they taught within are
highly diverse in terms race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. It would be
interesting to study how critical social justice education is promoted in more
homogeneous populations, with more conservative political and ideological
views.
Reflections of the Researcher
At the conclusion of this research, I find myself inspired and humbled by the critical educators I was able to meet and interview. Observing their practice has challenged me to find new ways to approach social justice in my own classroom.
I am hungry to find more critical educators doing “this work.” In the spirit of solidarity, I hope to find ways to connect with more critical education communities, throughout the state, across the nation, and globally. I am interested to see how this resistance work operates in other spaces.
The paradigms, narratives, and strategies shared with me have added to my understanding of critical education and social justice as it related to high school. I was happy to consistently hear from the educators that the research itself had reassured many of the them to feel like their voice and story mattered. It troubled me that their political views on education were marginalized and seen as “the other” by the dominant teaching population. This research was a reminder that what is often deemed as “radical” or
201
“revolutionary,” may in many instances be the same thing necessary to bring about social justice for oppressed communities.
Final Note to the Reader
Our education systems are a reflection of our future. As it stands today in
California, poor families, English Language Learners, foster youth, Native, Black,
Chicanx, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and South East Asian students are being systemically underserved by the education system. This institutional discrimination has created a vast performance gap between these students and their White counterparts (Hill and Ugo,
2016). The current state of this traditional schooling system will sustain or worsen the current inequities in our society. Every day we send a young person to learn within this oppressive system, we are reproducing this inequality.
The purpose of this research was to lift up the voices of educators who refuse to perpetuate this system of dominance and inequity. Through these educators, we are able to learn about the critical paradigm necessary for disrupting the status quo. These educators remind us that there is no magic bullet for successfully challenging the education system for the progress of historically oppressed students. However, this research is a testament to the idea that there exists forms of curricula and ways of teaching, that are useful for reminding oppressed students of their inherent power. It is our job as educators to cultivate the critical consciousness necessary for systemic change.
The more conscious the students become, the more change they will demand. My hope is that we can use this research to challenge ourselves to create more infrastructures,
202 systems, classes, and forms of knowledge that arm students with the necessary tools to upset the setup.
203
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent
204
INFORMED CONSENT
(Upset the Setup: Exploring the Curricula, Pedagogy, and Student Empowerment Strategies of High School Critical Educators)
You are invited to participate in a research study which will involve in-depth interviews with high school critical social justice educators in Northern California. My name is Mark Carnero, and I am a Doctoral Candidate at California State University, Sacramento, College of Education. The purpose of this research is to advance the narratives of high school critical educators to advance knowledge in the field of teacher preparation, critical pedagogy, and social justice youth development.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to participate in an in-depth interview to talk about your experiences as a high school social justice educator, what strategies you’ve employed in the classroom, and how you feel you’ve impacted your school site. Your participation in this study will last no longer than one hour. Risks associated with this study are not anticipated to be greater than those risks encountered in daily life.
Your participation in this project is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you may otherwise be entitled. At any point in the study, if you may choose to discontinue our relationship as researcher and participant; at that point, I will destroy any audio files or transcription related to your time in the study. There will be no incentives offered for your participation.
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Measures to insure your confidentiality include: creating a fake alias for all interview audio and interview transcription, the immediate destruction of audio files after transcription, the safe, undisclosed storage of transcriptions for a three year period, and destruction of transcription data immediately after that three year time. The data obtained will be maintained in a safe, locked location for a period of (3) years after the study is completed.
If you have any questions about the research at any time, please contact me at [email protected] or Dr. Caroline Turner at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a research project please call the Office of Research Affairs, California State University, Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email [email protected].
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand the information provided above.
Signature Date
______
205
APPENDIX B
Example of Thematic Coding of Interview Transcripts.
206
Question 1 Findings: Conceptualizing Social Justice
Theme 1 Naming the Practice – Definitions and Components Sub-Theme 1 “That’s a tough one, there’s a lot ways to say describe that.” – Aylah Difficulties “That’s a hard one…do you mean for everyone in general or just me?...” –Andres with arriving at “There’s so many ways to say that”-Tina a solid “It evolves over time” –Robby definition “that’s why it’s hella hard to provide a solid definition on this term” -Andres Sub-Theme 2 “… what are some inequalities and we focus on equity um and so if I were to Being define social justice to me its really just realizing what’s going on in your society” - conscious of Aylah injustice and “I would define social justice by saying it is being politically active by inequality understanding what's injustice in society …” Aylah “We gotta realize this world is made of two parts. Privilege and oppression. - Andres “Barriers to true freedom” - Robby “The oppression affects folks differently” – Andres “Some folks can’t see the oppression-Antonio Sub-Theme 3 “…making a change.” –Aylah Political Action “working towards straightening that out.” - Tina “Moving against that current.”- Bel “the action for me is very important”-Bel “Eliminating…barriers” - Antonio “being out there organizing doing sit ins and protests.” -Bel “rallying…drumming and chanting” - Andres “Making systemic institutional change…” - Antonio “tackle that shit collectively…” - Andres Theme 2 Social Justice Roots – Origins of Paradigm Sub-Theme 1 I think, my students really gave me the perimeter of what social justice is –Aylah Influence of I think that really informed me just seeing young people be able to make students institutional change and have teachers work with young people… -Antonio Sub-Theme 2 “I had progressive teachers where I grew up in elementary school and I remember Influence of it was during the time of the Panthers” – Tina Past “I remember the mentors that I’ve had… and my experience going into my first Experiences as ethnic studies course that I ever took…in high school actually in MEChA” –Bel a student …I remember back in 2001, when the whole 9/11 thing happened…I was a junior in high school…that shit really shook my understanding of the world especially in regards to race, racism, and xenophobia” –Andres “When I went to USF… and so I think that was sort of my baptism in critical thinking…critical multicultural thinking…” –Robby “I had all these really interesting experiences through high school… where I was the only White kid” –Robby **Unused “I saw it in the way my friends were treated.” – Robby Social but I feel like my work gets othered a lot more quickly…because im latino, a lot Obstacles younger, the facial hair, the accent –Antonio “ok, is he a gangster or is he not?” –antonio “dealing with a lot of parents who don’t get it…don’t understand it” -Aylah “Even early on, I knew this wasn’t right..” –Bel (reference to classroom)
207
REFERENCES
Adams, D. W. (2014), Beyond horace mann: Telling stories about indian education.
History of Education Quarterly, 54: 384–394.
Adams, S. (2016). Top degrees for getting hired in 2016. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/sus
anadams/2015/11/25/top-degrees-for-getting-hired-in-
2016/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
Anderson, J. (1988). The education of blacks in the south, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
American Psychological Association (APA), Presidential Task Force on Educational
Disparities. (2012). Ethnic and racial disparities in education: Psychology’s
contributions to understanding and reducing disparities. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.aspx
Apple, M. (2001). Creating profits by creating failures: standards, markets, and inequality
in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2-3), 103-118.
Ashley, D. (2015). It’s about relationships: Creating positive school climates. American
Educator, 39(4), 13-17.
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding
and analysis. New York: New York University Press.
Black Lives Matter, (2016). Blacklivesmatter. Retrieved from:
www.blacklivesmatter.org
208
Blanton, C. 2004. The strange career of bilingual education in texas, 1836-1981.
Texas: Texas A&M University Press.
Blainey, G. (2011). A short history of christianity. Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin.
Bombay, A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2014). The intergenerational effects of
Indian Residential Schools: Implications for the concept of historical trauma.
Transcultural Psychiatry, 51(3), 320-338.
Brinegar C Reyes,, (2016). Lessons learned: Using the literacy histories of education
students to foster empathy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 327-337.
Boyle, E. (2013). The feminization of teaching in America. Retrieved from:
https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/w/wgs/prize/eb04.html
Barnard, J. and Burner, D. (1975). The American Experience in Education. New York:
New Viewpoints.
Bartell, T. G. (2013). Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social
justice and mathematical goals. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
44(1), 129-163.
Benner and Wang. (2014). Demographic marginalization, social integration, and
adolescents’ educational success. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10),
1611-1627.
Berner, R. (2012). Transfer shock and the experience of community college students
transitioning to california state university, chico: An exploratory study.
Sacramento: California State University Sacramento.
209
Brake, M. (2013). Comparative youth culture: The sociology of youth cultures and youth
subcultures in America, Britain and Canada. Routledge.
Brown, Amy. (2013). Waiting for Superwoman: White female teachers and the
construction of the "neoliberal savior" " in a New York City public school.
Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. 11(2), 123-164.
Butler, L. J., Scammell, M. K., & Benson, E. B. (2016). The flint, michigan, water crisis:
A case study in regulatory failure and environmental injustice. Environmental
Justice, 9(4), 93-97.
Butchart, R. (2010). Schooling the Freed People: Teaching, Learning, and the Struggle
for Black Freedom, 1861-1876. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.
Cameron-Wedding, R. (2016). Implicit bias: More than just a few bad apples. Juvenile
Justice Information Exchange. Retrieved from:
http://jjie.org/2016/06/15/implicit-bias-more-than-just-a-few-bad-apples/
Cann, Colette N. (2015). What school movies and "tfa" teach us about who should teach
urban youth: Dominant narratives as public pedagogy Urban Education, 50(3),
288-315.
CA Dept. of Ed., (2016). Facts about english learners in california. Retrieved from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Justice. (2011). Juvenile justice in california. Retrieved from:
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/misc/jj11/preface.pdf
210
California Legislative Information. (2014). AB-420 Pupil discipline: suspensions and
expulsions: willful defiance.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1314/bill/asm/ab_0401
Camangian, P. (2015). Teach like lives depend on it. Urban Education, 50(4), 424-
453.
Camangian, P. (2014). From Coping to Hoping: Teaching Youth to Strive Through
Trauma. Lecture at Mills College.
Carnero, M. (2015). End of year report to SCUSD board of education. Sacramento:
SCUSD.
Cave, A. A. (2003). Abuse of power: Andrew jackson and the indian removal act of
1830. Historian, 65(6), 1330-1353.
Coltman, S., Schultz, L. Robbins, R. (2004). Constructing meaning to the indian
boarding school. Journal of American Indian Education. 43(3), 22-40
Comer, J.P. (2004). Leave no child behind: preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s
world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Comber, B. (2015). Critical literacy and social justice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy. 58(5), 362-367.
Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987). Labeling gifted youngsters: long-term impact on
families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 75-78.
Collins, P. (1999). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics
of empowerment. Routledge.
211
Conner, J. O., & Cosner, K. (2016). Youth change agents: Comparing the sociopolitical
identities of youth organizers and youth commissioners. Democracy and
Education 24(1), Article 2. Retrieved from:
http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol24/iss1/2
Constenbader, V. & Markeson, S. (1998) School suspension: a study with secondary
school students. Journal of School Psychology. 36(1). 59-82.
Cruz, C. (2012). Making curriculum from scratch: Testimonio in an urban classroom.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 45(3), 460-471.
Daly, Brian P.; Hildenbrand, Aimee K.; Haney-Caron, Emily; Goldstein, Naomi E. S.;
Galloway, Meghann; DeMatteo, David Heilbrun, Kirk (Ed); DeMatteo, David
(Ed); Goldstein, Naomi E. S. (Ed). (2016). Disrupting the school-to-prison
pipeline: Strategies to reduce the risk of school-based zero tolerance policies
resulting in juvenile justice involvement. APA handbook of psychology and
juvenile justice. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
David, E. J. R. (2013). Internalized oppression: The psychology of marginalized groups.
Springer Publishing Company.
David, E. J. R., & Derthick, A. O. (2014). What is internalized oppression, and so what.
Internalized oppression: The psychology of marginalized groups, 1-30.
Davis, T. (2014). School Choice and Segregation: "Tracking" racial equity in magnet
schools. Education and Urban Society, 46(4), 399-433.
Darling‐Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: the irony
of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education. 10(3), 245-260.
212
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary
programs. John Wiley & Sons.
Dawson, A. (2012). Histories and memories of the indian boarding schools in mexico,
canada, and the united states. Latin American Perspectives, 39(5), 80-99.
Davis, A. (1983). Women, Race, Class. New York. Vintage Publishing.
De Castella, Krista. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of
achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861-880.
Deborah, F. (2011). School discipline feeds the pipeline to prison. NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund Inc., 93(2), 14-19.
Dee, T. (2015). Social identity and achievement gaps: Evidence from an affirmation
intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 8(2), 149-168
Dee, T. S., & Penner, E. K. (2016). The causal effects of cultural relevance evidence
from an ethnic studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal.
De los Ríos, C, López, J., Morrell, E. (2015). Toward a critical pedagogy of race:
ethnic studies and literacies of power in high school classrooms. Race and Social
Problems. 84-96.
Delgado, R. (2006). Critical race theory: an introduction. NY. NYU Press.
Dixson, A. (2007). What is critical race theory in education? Ohio State University.
Retrieved from:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter.olde/programs/TACD/Summer%20Institute/
SummerInstitute2007/powerpoints/CriticalRaceTheoryandEducation.pdf
213
Dodds, K. (2002). Early california laws and policies related to california indians. CA
California State Library.
Dolan, J. (1985). The American Catholic Experience. New York. Double Day A
Company
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy:
Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. Peter Lang.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing
roses in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181-194.
Ehlers, C., Gizer, I, Gilder, D., Ellingson, J., Yehuda, R. (2013) Measuring historical
trauma in an American Indian community sample: Contributions of substance
dependence, affective disorder, conduct disorder and PTSD. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 133(1).
Elizondo, P., Wilkinson, W., Daley, C. (2012). Working with transgender persons.
Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/gender-
issues/working-transgender-persons
Elliott, A. (2009). Critical theory: the routledge companion to social theory. New York.
Routledge.
Emdin, C. (2010). Affiliation and alienation: Hip‐hop, rap, and urban science education.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 1-25.
Emdin, C., & Lee, O. (2012). Hip-Hop, the Obama effect, and urban science education.
Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1-24.
214
Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood-- and the rest of y'all too:
Reality pedagogy and urban education. Massachusetts. Beacon Press.
Ewing, C. O. (2000). Sensible zero tolerance protects students. Harvard Education
Letter. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from
http://www.edlettr.org/past/issues/200-jf/zero.shtml
Evans-Campbell, T. (2008). Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska
communities: A multilevel framework for exploring impacts on individuals,
families, and communities. Journal of interpersonal violence, 23(3), 316-338.
Ewert, S., Sykes, B., and Pettit, B. (2014). The degree of disadvantage: Incarceration and
inequality in education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 65(1), 1-27.
Ezzedeen, S., Budworth M., and Baker, S. (2015). The glass ceiling and executive
careers still an issue for pre-career women. Journal of Career Development.
42(5), 355-369.
Falk, T. M. (2014). Democracy, capitalism, and educational opportunity: From horace
mann to the present. Critical Education, 5(10), 1-15. Retrieved from
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/183900
Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press,
Feldner, H.; Vighi, F. (2015). Critical theory and the crisis of contemporary capitalism.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Fensterwald, J. (2013). ACLU warns it will sue state over 20,000 unserved english
learners. Ed source: Highlighting Strategies for Student Success.
215
http://edsource.org/2013/aclu-warns-it-will-sue-state-over-2000-unserved-
english-learners/25965
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Cushing, L. (2002). Early intervention, positive behavior support,
and transition to school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3),
149-157.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2005). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York.
Routledge.
Fuentes, A. (2011) arresting development: zero tolerance and the criminalization of
children. Rethinking Schools, 26(2).
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 48 (2), 191-229.
Garabino, J. (1999). Educating children in a socially toxic environment. 4(3).
Gass, K. and Laughter, J. (2015). "Can I make any difference?" gang affiliation, the
school-to-prison pipeline, and implications for teachers. Journal of Negro
Education. 84(3), 333-347.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching (theory and practice). Teachers College
Press. Kirkland, WA.
Gillborn, D., Rollock, N., Warmington, P., and Demack, S. (2013). Race, racism and
education: Inequality, resilience and reform in policy and practice. Society for
Educational Studies. Retrieved from http://soc-for-ed-
studies.org.uk/documents/GillbornD-et-al_Race-Racism-and-Education.pdf
216
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice,
organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 96,
27-46.
Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise
of a social justice approach. Social Justice, 29(4)(90), 82-95.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the
opposition. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and
the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715-721.
Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Giroux, H. A. (2014). When schools become dead zones of the imagination: A critical
pedagogy manifesto. Policy Futures in Education, 12(4), 491-499.
Giroux, H. (2014). Critical Pedagogy in dark times. Praxis Educativa, 17(2), 27-38.
Giroux, H. A., Lankshear, C., McLaren, P., & Peters, M. (2013). Counternarratives:
Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces. Routledge.
Gist, C. D. (2010). Embracing the historical legacy of young, gifted, and black educators.
Black History Bulletin, 73(1), 7-10.
GLAAD. (2010). Names, and pronoun descriptions. GLAAD Media Reference Guide.
Gordon, H. (1999). The History and Growth of Vocational Education in America.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
217
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R., Noguera, P. (2010). The Achievement Gap and the Discipline
Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.
Groen, M. (2008). The whig party and the rise of common schools, 1837–1854,
American Educational History Journal. 35(1/2), 251–260.
Gronewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-25.
Gysbers, N. (2013). Career-ready students: A goal of comprehensive school counseling
programs. The Career Development Quarterly. 61(3), 283–288.
Hagopian, A. and Barker, K. (2011) Should we end military recruiting in high schools as
a matter of child protection and public health? American Journal of Public
Health. 101(1): 19–23.
Hanna-Attisha, M., LaChance, J., Sadler, R. C., & Champney Schnepp, A. (2016).
Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the Flint drinking water
crisis: a spatial analysis of risk and public health response. American journal of
public health, 106(2), 283-290.
Hanushek, E. Kain, J., Rivkin, S. (2009). New Evidence about Brown v. Board of
Education: The Complex Effects of School Racial Composition on Achievement.
Journal of Labor Economics. 27(3), 349-383
Hansen, S. (2008). Education for All: The Freedmen's Bureau Schoolsin Richmond and
Petersburg, 1865 – 1870. Virginia Commonwealth University.
218
Heitzeg, N. (2009). Education or incarceration: zero tolerance policies and the school to
prison pipeline. Forum on Public Policy.
Hill and Ugo. (2016). High-Need Students and California’s New Assessments. Public
Policy Institute of California.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1188 hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New
York: Routledge. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.
Horkheimer, M. (1972) Critical theory. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell et al. New
York: Herder and Herder.
Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory: Selected essays. New York: Continuum Pub.
Corp.
Howard, T. C. (2015). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement
gap in America's classrooms. Teachers College Press.
Jamieson, D. and Thomas, K. (1974). Power and conflict in the student-teacher
relationship. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol(10)3, 321-336
Johnson, J. A.; Dupuis, V. L.; Musial, D.; Hall, G. E.; and Gollnick, D. M. (2005).
Introduction to the foundations of American education. Boston, Massachusetts:
Allyn and Bacon.
219
Jones, B.D. (2002). Critical race theory: new strategies for civil rights in the new
millennium? Harvard Blackletter Law Journal. 18, 1-90
Katz, Leanna. (2014). Teachers’ reflections on critical pedagogy in the classroom.
InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(2), 1-19.
Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2c6968hc
Katz, Michael S. (1976). A history of compulsory education laws. Fastback series, no.
75. Bicentennial Series. Indiana. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Kincheloe, J. and Steinburg, S. (1997). Changing multiculturalism. Bristol, PA: Open
University Press. p. 24
Klein, A. 2015. No child left behind: an overview
http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-
definition-summary.html
Kleykamp, M. (2006).College, jobs, or the military? Enlistment during a time of war.
Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 272-290
Kids Data. 2014. Dropout rates in california. Retrieved November 1, 2014
www.kidsdata.org
Kuczynski-Brown, A. (2012, October 3). Oakland schools to allow federal monitoring of
black student discipline. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/oakland-schools-to-allow-
_n_1933909.htmlLatimer,
220
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of
Educational Research, 70(1), 25-53. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170593
Kumashiro, K. (2004). Against common sense. Teaching and learning toward social
justice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Kumashiro, K. (2012). When billionaires become educational experts: Venture
philanthropists push for the privatization of public education. The American
Association of University Professors. May-June.
https://www.aaup.org/article/when-billionaires-become-educational-
experts#.WMRpBaJBG7M
Kumashiro, K. K. (2015). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social
justice. Routledge.
J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a
meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.
Ladson-Billings, G. and Tate, W. (1995). Towards a critical race theory on education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 48-68.
Lamphier, P. and Welch, R. (2016). Women in american history: A social, political, and
cultural encyclopedia and document collection. ABC-CLIO, LLC. Santa Barbara,
CA.
221
Lazar, A., Edwards, P., & McMillon, G. (2012). Bridging literacy and equity: The
essential guide to social equity teaching. New York City, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Lauter, Paul. (Ed.). (2002). The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Boston, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Liggett, T. (2011). Critical multicultural education and teacher sense of agency. Teaching
Education, 22(2), 185-197.
Lubell, S. and Putman, H. (2016). Landscapes in teacher prep: Undergraduate
elementary ed. http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/UE_2016_Landscape_653385
Luke, A. (2012). Theory into practice. Critical Literacy:Foundational Notes Journal.
51, 4–11.
Macedo and Freire, P. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. MA.
Madigan, J. (2009). The education of girls and women in the united states: A historical
perspective. Advances in Gender and Education, 11-13.
Magagnini, S. (1997). Long-suffering urban Indians find roots in ancient rituals.
Sacramento, CA. Sacramento Bee.
Malamud, O. Pop-Eleches, C. 2011. School tracking and access to higher education
among disadvantaged groups. Journal of Public Economics, 95(11), 1538-1549
McDermott, R., Raley, J. D., & Seyer-Ochi, I. (2009). Race and class in a culture of risk.
Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 101- 116
McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
222
Mitra, DL. (2014). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships
that strengthen schools and empower youth. State University of New York Press.
New York.
Molly, N. (2008). Writing their own history: San francisco state university is celebrating
the 40th anniversary of the student-led strike that brought about the creation of the
College of Ethnic Studies. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(19), 12
Montez de Oca, J. and Prado, J. (2014). Visualizing humanitarian colonialism.
American Behavioral Scientist, 58(1) 145-170
Mondale, Sarah, and Patton (2001). School: The Story of American Public Education.
Boston: Beacon.
Morgan, P., Farkas, G., Hillemeier,M. Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps
begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors.
Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18 – 35.
Morrison, J. (2016). "Never in my life have i learned to teach to a program and not to
the kids sitting in front of me:" Critical pedagogy meets restrictive educational
contexts. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. 7(2), 107-128.
NAACP. (2005) Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund Inc.
NBCFD. (2014). More than 160 texas students suspended for dress code violations -
NBC News. Retrieved November 7, 2014.
223
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (2015). Achievement gaps. National
Assessment for education progress.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Keech, S., Bolt, R. (2012). Decolonial goals and pedagogies for
Indigenous studies. Decolonization, Indigeneity, Education and Society Journal.
1(1).
Nelson, R. (2016). Crisis in Flint: lead and Legionnaires' disease. The Lancet Infectious
Diseases, 16(3), 298.
Noguera, P. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications of punishment: rethinking
disciplinary practices. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 341-350.
Noltemeyer , A., Mujic, J., McLoughlin, C. (2012). The history of inequality in
education. Disproportionality in Education and Special Education. Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd., 2012
Ngai,M. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern america.
Princeton. Princeton University Press.
O'Donnell, C. (2017). Jesuits in the american colonies and the united states, 1700–1899.
Jesuit Historiography Online. Consulted online on 22 March 2017
Palardy, G., Rumberger, R., Butler, T., (2015) The Effect of High School
Socioeconomic, Racial, and Linguistic Segregation on Academic Performance
and School Behaviors. Teachers College Record.
224
Pears, K., Kim, H., Fisher, P., Yoerger, K. Early school engagement and late elementary
outcomes for maltreated children in foster care. Developmental Psychology,
49(12), 2201-2211.
Peterson, J. (1983). Education in colonial america. Foundation for Economic
Education.
Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(34).
Porfilio, B. and Malott, C. (2011). Guiding white pre-service and in-service teachers
toward critical pedagogy: Utilizing counter-cultures in teacher education.
Educational Foundations. 25(1/2), 63-81.
Pruitt, A. (1987). In pursuit of equality in higher education. The Southern Education
Foundation, Inc., General Hall, Inc., Dix Hills, NY.
Rabaka, R. (2009). Africana Critical Theory : Reconstructing The Black Radical
Tradition, From W. E. B. Du Bois and C. L. R. James to Frantz Fanon and
Amilcar Cabral. MD, US: Lexington Books. Retrieved from
http://www.ebrary.com
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership,
70(8), 10-16.
Redfield, S. and Nance, J. (2016). School to prison pipeline: defending liberty pursuing
justice.http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/diversity_pip
eline/stp_preliminary_report_final.authcheckdam.pdf
225
Reynolds, C., Skiba, R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Close Conoley, J., & Garcia-Vazquez, E.
(2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: an evidentiary
review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 852-862.
Ringstad, R., Leyva, V., Garcia, J. and Jasek-Rysdahl. K. (2012) Creating space for
marginalized voices: Re-focusing service learning on community change and
social justice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work. 32(3) 268-283.
Robinett, D. (2013). Alternatives to student suspension. Journal of Leadership.
September/October, 32-36.
Robinson, OC. (2014). Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A
Theoretical and Practical Guide. Qualitative research in psychology, 1, 25-41.
Roessner, A. (2015). Unmasking Title IX on its 40th birthday: The operation of
women’s voices, women’s spaces, and sporting myth narratives in the
commemorative coverage of Title IX.
Roksa, J. (2011). Differentiation and work: inequality in degree attainment in U.S.
higher education. Higher Education. 61(3), 293-308.
Butchart, R. (2010). Schooling the Freed People: Teaching, Learning, and the Struggle
for Black Freedom, 1861-1876
Rothstein, R., (2013). For Public Schools, Segregation Then, Segregation Since
Education and the Unfinished March
Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated
neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 21-30.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.csus.edu/10.1007/s12552-014-9134-1
226
Rumberger, R. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of students
and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.
Safford, F. and Bales, B. (2011). Radical initiatives in preparation of multicultural
teachers. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research. 7, 4-18
Sandel, M. (2009). Justice what’s the right thing to do? Farrar Straus and Giroux. NY.
Schultz B., McSurley J., Salguero M. (2013). Teaching in the cracks: Student
engagement through social action curriculum projects. The International Journal
of Critical Pedagogy. Vol (4)2.
Scriffiny, P. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational
Leadership. Vol 66(2). 70-74.
Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: sources
of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review,
34(4),
Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Staudinger, L., Rausch, M., Dow, G., & Figgins, R. (2003).
Consistent removal: contributions of school discipline to the school-prison
pipeline. School To Prison Pipeline Conference.
Skiba, R., Horner, R., Chung, C., Rausch, M., May, S., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: a national investigation of african american and latino disproportionality
in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.
So, A. (1987). Hispanic Teachers and labeling of Hispanic students. The High School
Journal, 71(1), 5-8.
227
Soller, S., & Hernandez, M. (2014). California enacts first-in-the-nation law to eliminate
student suspensions for minor misbehavior. SCUSD PRESS RELEASE.
Shiasko, (2015). Equity & Excellence in Education, Special Issue: Engaging Praxis in
Social Justice Education: Continuity and Change in SJE
Theory/Pedagogy/Research 48, Issue 3
Sleeter, C. E. (2011). The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies: A Research
Review. National Education Association Research Department.
Sleeter, C. E. (2015). Deepening social justice teaching. Journal of Language and
Literacy Education.
Smith, A. (2015). Conquest: sexual violence and American Indian genocide. Duke
University Press.
Smith, A. (2007). Soul wound: the legacy of native american schools. Amnesty
International Magazine.
Smith, E. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). Disproportionate impact of K-12 school suspension
and expulsion on Black students in southern states. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.
Southworth, S. and Mickelson, R. (2007). The Interactive Effects of Race, Gender and
School Composition on College Track Placement Social Forces, 86(2), 497-523.
Spivak, A. and Monnat, (2013). The Influence of Race, Class, and Metropolitan Area
Characteristics on African-American Residential Segregation. Social Science
Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell). 94(5), 1414-1437.
228
Starkweather. S. (2012) "US immigration legislation online". University of Washington,
Bothell Library.
Starr, L. (2010). Back in the day: Lessons from colonial classrooms. Education World.
http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/lesson166.shtml
Stokes, K. (2013). The impact of the factory Model of education in central texas. Texas.
Baylor University.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J., Horner, R., & Walker, H. (2000). Preventing school violence: the
use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline
interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 94-101.
Symon, G. and Cassel, C. (2012). Qualitative Organizational Research Core methods
and current challenges. Sage Publishing.
Torlakson, Tom. "Significant Drops in Suspension and Expulsion - Year 2014 (CA Dept
of Education)." Significant drops in suspension and expulsion - year 2014 (CA
Dept of Education).
Tuck, E. and Yang, W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization:
Indigeniety, Education & Society Journal. 1(1), 1-40.
Urban, W. J., Wagoner, J. L. (2004). American Education: A History: Third Edition.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights. (2014). Data snapshot: school discipline.
Civil Rights Data Collection, (1), 1-24.
229
U.S. Department of Justice. (2011) Immediate release: attorney general holder, secretary
duncan announce effort to respond to school-to-prison pipeline by supporting
good discipline practices. Office of the Attorney General.
U.S. Dept. of Ed., (2016). Title III - language instruction for limited english proficient
and immigrant students. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg39.html
U.S. Dept. of Ed., (2016). Developing programs for english language learners: lau v.
Nichols. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html
U.S. Dept. of Ed. b, (2016). School Climate and Discipline: Know the Data
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/data.html
UTT, J. (2010). 10 Ways Well-Meaning White Teachers Bring Racism Into Our
Schools. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/10-ways-well-meaning-white-
teachers-bring-racism-into-our-schools/
Vavrus, M. (2009). Sexuality, schooling, and teacher identity formation: A critical
pedagogy for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 25(3), 383-
390.
Wald, J., & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline.
NewDirections for Youth Development, 99(1).
Walker, S., Spohn, C., & Delone, M. (2007). The Color of Justice (Vol. 1, pp. 1-41).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Wasslemann K., Gee, G., and Ro, A. (2013). Educational attainment in the context of
Social inequality: New directions for research on education and health. American
Behavioral Scientist, 57(8), 1082-1104.
230
Wessler and De Andre. (2006). Slurs, Stereotypes, and Student Interventions:
Examining the Dynamics, Impact, and Prevention of Harassment in Middle and
High School.
Wanberg, K. Pedagogy against the state: The ban on ethnic studies in arizona. Journal
of pedagogy, 4(1), 15-35.
Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: culturally responsive teaching that supports
a culture of achievement for african american students, Urban Education 41(4)
427.
Watanabe, T. 2010. Many English learners still struggle with the language, study shows.
La times. Los Angeles, CA.
Weis L. and Fine, M. (2000). Construction Sites: Excavating Race, Class, and Gender
among Urban Youth. The Teaching for Social Justice Series. Williston, VT.
Teacher’s Press Publishing Co.
Woods, J. (2005). How the catholic church built western civilization. Regnery
Publishing, Inc.
Wood, L. and Nevarez, C. (2014) Ethical leadership and the community college
paradigms, decision making, and praxis. Information Age Publishing.
Yeboah, A. (2005). Education among native americans in the periods before and after
contact with europeans: An overview. Paper Presented at the Annual National
Association of Native American Studies Conference, Houston, Texas.
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 69-91.
231
Young, C. (2012). Losing a job: The nonpecuniary cost of unemployment in the united
states. Social Forces. vol.91(2), 609-634.
Young, M. (1958) The rise of meritocracy. London. Thames & Hudson.
Zirkel, S. (2005). Ongoing issues of racial and ethnic stigma in education 50 years after
brown v. board. The Urban Review, 37(2), 107-126.