Copyright by Mark D. Halx 2010 The Dissertation Committee for Mark D. Halx certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Disrupting Complacency in Disadvantaged High School Students: Can Principal and Teacher Pedagogical Partnerships Develop Critical Consciousness? Committee: ____________________________________ Michelle D. Young, Supervisor ____________________________________ Pedro Reyes ____________________________________ Edwin R. Sharpe Jr. ____________________________________ Mark A. Gooden ____________________________________ Noah De Lissovoy Disrupting Complacency in Disadvantaged High School Students: Can Principal and Teacher Pedagogical Partnerships Develop Critical Consciousness? by Mark D. Halx, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2010 ii Dedication and Thanks I dedicate this dissertation to my late father, Alfred Halx, who, with my mother, built the personal and intellectual foundation that supports and grounds me; to my mother, Dallas Halx, who tirelessly continues to guide and improve the individual who developed from that foundation; and to my partner, Mark Brodl, who recognized the potential in what my parents created, and inspired and encouraged me to refine myself into the thinking person and scholar I am today. Sincere and heartfelt thanks go to my committee members: Dr. Pedro Reyes, Dr. Edwin Sharpe, Dr. Mark Gooden, and Dr. Noah De Lissovoy. Their support during the research process, and their invaluable contributions during the writing process, raised my nascent scholarship to a new level. This dissertation is the result of a real collaboration of scholars. Great appreciation and immense thanks go to my committee chair, Dr. Michelle Young, who provided me with exceptional direction, support, and understanding. The quality of this dissertation and my current level of scholarly accomplishment are due in large part to her engagement with me before, during, and at the final stage of the dissertation research process. Special thanks also go to my former graduate advisor, current research colleague, and friend, L. Earle Reybold, for providing early guidance and inspiration, and for insisting that I pursue the Ph.D. Her insight and steadfast confidence and trust allowed me to discover my own potential. These individuals and their contributions have made possible a deeply satisfying level of success in my scholarly pursuits, and their generosity and integrity have enriched my life. iv Disrupting Complacency in Disadvantaged High School Students: Can Principal and Teacher Pedagogical Partnerships Develop Critical Consciousness? Mark D. Halx, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2010 Supervisor: Michelle D. Young This study is an exploration of the possibility of pedagogical partnership between low socioeconomic public high school principals and their classroom teachers for the purpose of advancing critical thinking skills and critical consciousness development in their students. This study will explore the viability of these partnerships through the perspectives of associate superintendents, principals, and teachers. The exploration will seek to determine the participants’ willingness to partner pedagogically, their readiness to advance critical thinking and critical consciousness development in their students, and their perception of district and state policies that might help or stand in the way of such development. v Table of Contents List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...x Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………..……………….1 The Problem……………………………………………………………….………1 The Possible Solution…………………………………………………………......5 Critical Consciousness Development through Alternative Pedagogies…………...6 Partners in Pedagogy…………………………………………………………......11 This Study………………………………………………………………………..13 Researcher Positionality………………………………………………………….16 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature………………………………………………….18 Critical Consciousness Development…………………………………………....18 Principal as Pedagogical Partner…………………………………………………22 Importance of Instructional Leadership……………………………………….…26 The Challenge of Leading in Low SES Settings………………………………...29 Teacher Resistance to Pedagogical Alternatives and Partnerships………………31 Established Traditional Pedagogy and the Need for Change…………………….34 Alternative Pedagogical Models…………………………………………………37 Openness to Pedagogical Change………………………………………………..41 Factors that Could Hinder Pedagogical Change…………………………………44 vi Table of Contents A Critical Pedagogy for Critical Consciousness Development…………………47 Critical Consciousness Development and Accountability Systems……………..51 Critical Thinking Development: An Added Bonus……………………………...52 Chapter Three: Research Design and Methods………………………………………….54 Design……………………………………………………………………………54 Methods……………………………………………………………………….…56 A Word about the Ethnographic Foundations of Qualitative Research…………61 Chapter Four: Findings and Reflections…………………………………………………63 The Participants………………………………………………………………….63 The Research Sites……………………………………………………………….64 Deductive Findings………………………………………………………………65 Pedagogical Philosophies………………………………………………...65 Pedagogical Partnerships………………………………………………...76 Helping or Hindering Factors……………………………………………81 Inductive Findings……………………………………………………………….86 Equity-Focused Critical Mass……………………………………………86 Taking the Initiative……………………………………………………...88 Need to Entertain Students……………………………………………….90 Notable Insights………………………………………………………………….91 Chapter Five: Discussion………………………………………………………………...94 Deductive Findings………………………………………………………………94 Pedagogical Philosophy………………………………………………….95 vii Table of Contents Pedagogical Partnering………………………………………………..…96 Contentment with Organizational Structure and Leadership…………...100 No Specific Knowledge of Critical Pedagogy………………………….102 Critical Consciousness and Critical Thinking Development…………...103 Stimulating Self-Motivation in Students……………………………….109 Lack of Federal, State, and District Policy Influence…………………..110 Inductive Findings………………………………………………………….......112 Hope: The Unstoppable Equity-Focused Critical Mass.…..…...…..…...113 Elective Teacher: A Sense of Obligation……………………………….114 Teaching as Entertainment…………………………………….……….115 Special Devotion to Students…………………………………………...117 Disrupting Complacency…………………………………………….....118 A Few Final Thoughts on the Findings..….……………..……………………..121 Chapter Six: Implications and Conclusion………..………...……….…………………124 Public Education Policy Impact………….…..…………………………………124 Synergy of Conflicting Ideologies……………………………………...130 Policy Implementation………………………………………………….130 Organizational Resistance to Policy Change…………………….……..134 Dynamic Policy and the Unstoppable Equity-Focused Critical Mass….136 Traditional Resistance to Changing Traditional Pedagogy………….....138 So, What Can Be Done Now?..................................................................142 viii Table of Contents The Societal Impact………….…………………………………………………144 Conclusion…....……………………………………………….…………..……147 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………..151 References………………………………………………………………………………152 Vita…..……………………………………………………………………………….…171 ix List of Tables Table 1…………………………………………………………………………………19 Table 2…………………………………………………………………………………32 Table 3…………………………………………………………………………………109 x Chapter 1 Introduction ‘You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him discover it within himself.’ — Galileo Galilei The Problem High school students from low socioeconomic status (SES) families face well known challenges both in an out of school. A significant number of the in-school challenges that these students confront are not new; sadly, many are the same as those experienced by high school students in poverty 40 years ago (Kincheloe, 2004; Stringfield & Land, 2002). The economic hardship that can negatively affect housing, health, and social standing continues to negatively impact the educational experience of economically disadvantaged students today. In other words, the nation’s education system has not been able to effectively take into account and address the external factors that prevent disadvantaged students getting the full benefits of the educational experience that is offered, and the system has also not been able to effectively change that educational experience to accommodate the distinct needs of disadvantaged students. Though many dedicated educators labor daily to improve the educational circumstance of these students, often through special programs and initiatives created specifically for low SES high school students, the behemoth educational systems in most states continue to churn with the same one-size-fits-all overarching pedagogical mindset that has been in 1 place for decades. This mindset not only ignores economic status, but also ethnic, cultural, and language differences that have a significant effect on how students learn (Cross, 2007; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Kincheloe, 2004; Osborne, 1996; Peterson, 2006). It is disturbing indeed that forty years and a myriad of initiatives directed specifically toward resolving the divergent issues of low SES students have not resulted in significant improvement in pedagogical and other educational activities for these students. Instead, the myopic state education systems of today, as was the case 40 years ago, leave the majority of low SES students with only two options: learn the way we teach, or get out. The