Category Archives: Access, Equity, and Impact

And the Oscar goes to…

— by on — Leave a reply

My school provides its students with iPads upon their first day of school. The computers are prevalent throughout all of their classes. Books are read using iBooks. Homework and tests are done online. We even utilize Blackboard, which is strangely ironic for me because as I take these electives this summer and as I take this course as well, you’d like I’d have a better grip on all the online content. That’s probably a whole different post, however.

At my school, one of the outcomes of our students having iPads is that teachers assign SO MANY movie projects. I’m guilt of this as well, but guilty is probably the wrong word because I do see value in the projects I assign. That having been said, other teachers find value in their projects as well, and by the time a young man graduates from Brophy, it’s almost like he should be up for an Oscar or something with all the movies he’s made.

movie

Baustita et al (2013) wrote about the value in this as well in “Participatory action research and city youth: methodology insights from the council of youth research.” I found this article heartening because it validated much of what I believe in terms of the reflective projects or the PowerPoints presentations that are referenced. Bautista et al (2013) wrote, “Documentary filmmaking allows students to use multimodal and multivocal elements to an even greater degree than with the PowerPoint presentations. The video format provides a space to meld both visual and auditory stimuli while offering a rich platform for the incorporation of a stakeholder voice” (p. 17). I see value in teaching my students paragraph writing and sentence structure, but I love my reflective movie projects. Students cannot leave my class without reflecting upon their lives, their gifts, what makes them special, and how lucky they are. I do realize that this reflection makes my students consistently aware of self when sometimes they don’t want to be. My students do reflect on race in my classroom, but it’s never my attempt to force my students into something they are not comfortable with. Dunbar (2008) wrote about this in “Critical race theory and indigenous methodologies.” He wrote, “Issues of race have been the backdrop in all my lived experiences. That includes occasions when I was acutely aware that my race was an issue and instances when it was no so obvious” (p. 89). The numbers are still most at Brophy in terms of the amount of White students, but Hispanic student enrollment climbs every year. My White students, I’m guessing, do not live their lives considering their whiteness on a daily basis. From Dunbar, I see that my Hispanic students (and my students of other races and ethnicities) probably do. I think that this is both a shame and a privilege for these students – most challenges in life can be turned positive if you try. Yes, my Hispanic students deal with issues of race as a “backdrop” to their lives each and every day at predominately White Brophy, but I think that can be looked upon as a really good thing. I hope that I can foster a pride in this fact in my classroom, especially with some of my reflective projects. I also hope that the tone I set in my classroom allows my Hispanic students to feel valued and that they feel I value their race and their culture. It’s never been my desire to put students on the spot with regards to race, but this brings me back to Howard. I do not want to bury race in my classroom culture. I’d like to confront it and ultimately to celebrate it.

References

Bautista, Mark A., Bertrand, Melanie, Morrell, Ernest, Scorza, D’Artagnan, Matthews, Corey.

(2013). Participatory action research and city youth: methodology insights from the council of youth research. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-23.

Dunbar, Christopher Jr. (2008). Critical race theory and indigenous methodologies. Handbook    of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage, 85-99.

Race Matters in Education Even in 2014

— by on — 1 Reply

  

“The hierarchies rarely endure for more than a few generations, but the arguments, refurbished for the next round of social institutions, cycle endlessly.” (Gould, 1981, p. 30)

Source: robertxavierrodriguez.com

Recently, my nephew’s 8th grade Honors English class was given the assignment to read O. Henry’s, The Ransom of Red Chief, then conduct an analysis of humor in the short story. I had glanced at the title of the article earlier but was busy doing something else that the title did not register, until my nephew started looking up words with a surprised expression on his face. I asked him to tell me the word but he said he couldn’t say it. I asked him to spell it and he said he would rather not. Curious, I looked at the page and to my shock and surprise the word was “niggerhead.” Even I had to look up the word but I think we can all guess that the word has something to do with a black person’s head. I immediately flipped to the first page and re-read the title, The Ransom of Red Chief, “Red Chief!” How could I have missed these words! I then took over the story, told him he would not be completing this assignment and proceeded to read the story in its entirety. The Ransom of Red Chief was written in the early 20th century and it’s supposed to be about the humor surrounding two men who kidnap a young boy from a mining town only to be terrorized by the boy as he plays being a “pesky redskin.” The boy, who is white, attempts to scald, scalp and hang one man in particular until both men are fed up and pay the father to take the boy off their hands.

These are some of the stereotypical and offensive phrases in the story: “Red Chief, the terror of the plains,” “to be scalped at daybreak (said by the child playing “Indian),” “[B]raves returned from the warpath,” “pesky redskin,” “simply indecent, terrifying, humiliating screams, such as women emit when they see ghosts or caterpillars” and “niggerhead.” The term niggerhead refers to something that looks like a Black person’s head and it also means lazy, a common racist stereotype used for Black people when we all know that the economy of the South could not have been built by lazy African slaves.

On the one had I felt shocked that this was an 8th grade reading assignment on the other hand I knew this was the norm in our society. So I wrote my nephew’s teacher and explained how the story was an assault on Indigenous children’s identity and offered detailed explanations of how the story reinforced racist and sexist stereotypes. This story is an example of the pervasiveness of the ideas about race that scientists from the nineteenth century established. Sociobiologist, Stephen Jay Gould (1981) said it best in the quote above, the arguments and ideas about race “cycle endlessly” (p. 30).

In Mismeasure of Man, Gould (1981) details how scientists used their position of “objectivity” to justify the social ranking of diverse peoples. Basically, scientists of the nineteenth century put forth ideas about racial difference that justified white domination and the subordination of all others. The ideas of nineteenth century scientists have become entrenched in our minds and our society as American citizens. Ideas, mainly racist ones, about diverse people are the bedrock of this nation.

Though various hierarchical systems no longer exist (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, etc.), ideologies, or justifications for oppression, are still widely used and applied to maintain the white supremacist society in which we live. In an article advocating for culturally relevant teaching practices, Howard (2003) writes, “race has always and continues to matter in an increasingly racially diverse society” (p. 197). He talks about our diverse society, yet our values especially with regard to cultural capital are based upon white standards and norms. Howard (2003) posits that educators must incorporate the cultural capital (diverse languages, beliefs, practices, etc.) that diverse students acquire from their given social structure into the teaching and learning environment to practice culturally relevant teaching. In practicing culturally relevant teaching, we can create equitable educational environments. Garcia and Ortiz (2013) recommend, “document[ing] the knowledge and skills children acquire in home and community contexts and then develop ways to incorporate the information into curriculum and instruction” (p.40).

These practices are crucial if we are to ever to make changes in society, in our social institutions and in how we interact with one another. We need only look at national statistics to see that educational attainment; health, wealth and even how long one will live fall along racial lines. Black and Native Americans are almost always at the bottom of any social measurements. As a Black and Navajo woman, Gould’s (1981) chapter, American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin: Blacks and Indians as Separate Inferior Species, was especially relevant to me. I have noticed how even today, people in society still have distaste for Blackness. Few would admit to it but like Morton, “expectation is a powerful guide to action” (Gould, 1981, p. 65). Sometimes, people are unaware of perpetuating racist stereotypes like in the case of my nephew’s teacher. I urged her to reconsider the assignment. Surprisingly, she was receptive to my instruction and is now revising 8th grade Honors English curriculum to be culturally inclusive.

References

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a frameowrk for transformative research in special education . Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Henry, O. (1907). The Ransom of Red Chief. The Saturday Evening Post. Retrieved from http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/10/04/archives/classic-fiction/ransom-red-chief-intro.html

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection,      42(3), 195-202.

Niggerhead. (n.d.). In Wordnik. Retrieved from https://www.wordnik.com/words/niggerhead

 

 

Issues in Critical Teacher Reflection

— by on — 1 Reply

In the scope of my professional life, one of my strong areas of interest is the development and delivery of research-backed professional development that enables teachers to increase their students’ achievement. So, as I read author Tyrone C. Howard’s piece, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection, I was intrigued by what he outlines as, “ways that teacher educators can equip preservice teachers with the necessary skills to critically reflect on their own racial and cultural identities…” (Howard, 2003). This line, in particular, stood out to me because he is speaking directly to me and others that serve in this and similar capacities.

The process he details, attempts to get participants to tackle several deep philosophical questions that would cause, even the most reflective among us, to struggle. The questions seek, I believe intentionally so, to strike at the very core of the one’s being, posing things such as, “Who am I?” and “what do I believe?” with the intent that reflections on such questions will yield insights as to how a teacher’s identity coexists with those of his or her students, and the interplay between the two or more differing identities (Howard, 2003. p.199).  I see this presenting several unique and distinct problems that, unless specifically addressed, might confound the ideal outcome of truly critical and constructive reflection on one’s own teaching practices, biases, prejudices, race, and culture.

The first challenge I foresee for many schools is one of access. As I try to envision the qualities and qualifications of a person who would be competent and command enough authority on the subject to successfully facilitate a 3-day long preservice discussion, I expect that very few people, in a majority-White teaching population, could complete such a complex task (Howard, 2010). Perhaps this would not necessarily be the job of one person, but rather of a diverse team of people, working together within their own particular contexts regarding race. Further, in Howard’s later (2010) work, he discusses the paralyzing effect that conversations about race can have on people in the White majority, suggesting that discussions are often crippled by, “our fear, our sweaty palms, our anxiety about saying the wrong thing, or using the wrong words” (Howard, 2010, p. 102). These difficulties underscore how important it is to create a space in which participants feel safe enough to share, whether through writing, as Howard suggests, as it is more personal and private, conversations, or other activities, and comfortable enough to make themselves vulnerable to their peers in such a sensitive subject.

From my personal experience as an external professional development and implementation coaching provider, I know how essential the tone and culture that the facilitator sets is to the success of the session. Additionally, I have found that teachers and other educational professionals are often skeptical of someone coming in who doesn’t explicitly know them or their students, which can result in hostility, anger, passivity, cynicism, or unengaged participation. Therefore, I foresee a second layer of access issues for many campuses; if they’re able to find someone who can successfully navigate the difficult terrain of race-related conversations, there is the second requisition that the person also be able to relate to the participants to the point that he or she can set a tone and culture conducive enough to compel colleagues to share very personal thoughts and feelings.

The final issue I found in Howard’s suggestion, was not with the logistical and implementation issues of critical teacher reflection, but rather the emphasis that teachers answer questions like, “who am I?” and “what do I believe?” (Howard, 2003, p.199). I imagine that the average response of a teacher to such philosophically profound and esoteric questions would result in very reductionist answers that, instead of truly capturing who one is (if such a notion can even be put into words), would result in a person’s being being reduced to a set of criteria, or a list on paper (e.g. I am a mother, a teacher, an American, etc.), neither of which can approach the essence of who that person is at their most fundamental level.

It is with the above sentiments that I am skeptical that Howard’s suggestions of critical teacher reflection can be so easily implemented at the schools most in need of culture transformation, to one that moves away from deficit-based thinking to being culturally responsive to the diverse needs of a diverse student population.

 

Works Cited:

Howard, C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

 

Classroom cultural influences case study: Gender in a physical education classroom

— by on — Leave a reply

Howard (2003) gives an excellent rubric for educators to explore their own cultural influences and prejudices, asking them to reflect upon five points:

  1. Their own interactions with different cultural (and particularly racial) groups growing up
  2. The primary influences upon their perspective
  3. If they harbor any prejudices against people because of race
  4. How those prejudices might affect a member of said racial background
  5. If they create negative profiles of others, based on assumptions of their race or culture

He outlines this as a necessary step to both valuing and creating an effective and culturally sensitive pedagogy, with which I absolutely agree. However, I wish his discussion had been rounded beyond this rubric; once an educator has openly analyzed their own prejudices, how do they apply that knowledge?

Howard lays out a foundation for educators to neither diminish cultural influences, nor to normalize them, which led me to linger on situations where cultural traditions may diminish a learner’s success; in particular, I was struck by some of the factors beyond race that Howard mentions in passing, such as gender. Is it ever acceptable to “normalize” a cultural behavior to “middle-class, European American cultural values” (pp. 198), and how does an educator recognize, prioritize and navigate that situation?

As an example: Ennis (1999) gives the case study of a physical education class in an urban high school where female students were largely disengaged. In interviews, they noted being bullied or scapegoated by male students in team activities:

“I used to like to play sports with the boys…Now, in high school, they’re like maniacs or something…They throw the ball so hard you can’t catch it.”

“They call us lame. They say we’re not trying, but we are.”

“I don’t need boys yelling at me when I make a mistake.” (Ennis 1999, pp. 33)

A program called “Sport for Peace” was instituted in the classroom; this program intentionally avoided many of the tensions that rose in the traditional “team sports” model by creating teams of equally skilled students, focusing less upon rewarding skills and more upon conflict negotiation beyond force or violence.

This example illustrates the normalizing of two culturally influenced behaviors, attacking the expectations of women to be delicate and unathletic, and of men to be forceful or violent. However, this is done in the service of creating more equal opportunities for learners of both genders. A simplistic reading may equate this to a prioritization of the normative cultural expectation–that learners are equal in ability, regardless of their gender–over the prevalent cultural norm. However, this case study and its curricular solution represent a more complicated methodology and conclusion. With its emphasis on consensus building and peaceful reconciliation, “Sport for Peace” is a textbook example of his rubric in action. It gives students the opportunity to reflect upon their own cultural biases, as well as the influences of their community growing up; it allows students to examine prejudices of others they may be carrying based upon gender, and how those prejudices impact their targets. Additionally, if gives the students an agency of which Bourdieu would approve. In order to recognize your own power within a social structure, you must be able to recognize the structure itself, and this program gives learners an extraordinary power to discover and mediate cultural biases independently. And while it might not directly answer the question of priotizing conflicting cultural influences in a classroom, it does answer that the process of self-reflection, as Howard outlined, can lead to unexpected rewards for learners and educators alike.

Sources

Bourdieu, P. (1978). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction.  In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, Education and Cultural Changes (56-69).  London: Harper & Row.

Ennis, C.D. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sports, Education and Society, 4, 31-49.

Howard, T. (2003). Relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

 

Working to Surface the Influence of Race in the Classroom

— by on — Leave a reply

Race and Culture in the Classroom

The articles referenced in this weeks readings bring us through a small piece of history of race in America and then sheds light on some of the affects that it has, both seen and unseen, in our practices as teachers and as entire school systems.

In one of the articles, The Mismeasure of Man (Gould 1981), we use the overt and oppressive ways American society viewed people of non-white races during previous times in our history.  What is most interesting in this article is that scientists, some of whom were the most profound in the world, made empirical arguments stating that biological persons whom were non-white were inferior to the white race.  The arguments, based in polygenism, simply stated that people of color were naturally inferior because they were descendants of a different ancestor than their white neighbors.  This, of course, in the light of present day science is absurd and laughable however in the world of the 1860’s this was a serious argument and point of contention.  In the present day we would point to this type of science and call it absurd, racist and without merit however socially and politcally, things were not so clear back in the day.

The type of overt racism that is seen in the science from the 1860’s sits in stark contrast to the topic of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection (Howard, 2001).  In the article the art of reflection and culturally responsive pedagogy is espoused and encouraged for all teachers.  I have seen all sorts of educators and “allies” including myself act in ways that actually serve further institutional oppression with nothing but the best of intentions in my heart.  As I started my first year I had my students silently enter and exit class, they would painstakingly take note after note and study and practice relentless lest they suffer the consequences of Mr. Arndt’s classroom.   Little did I know how I was participating in and extending a system of socialization and assimilation that was encouraging my unique, creative and unendingly powerful students to socialize themselves to the dominant cultures norms.  I perceived myself (in the beginning) as savior and hero for my school community while in reality I was operating in a fog and in many ways furthering the systems that had  put my students and families in the position in the first place.

In today’s world we operate with biases and prejudices that are hidden under much deeper layers of consciousness and that are much harder to identify, reflect upon, and change.  As I approach my work this summer and possible my research topic I am thinking about teacher mindsets in relation to cultural deprivation theory as opposed to cultural difference theory.  Far to often we see administrators and teachers set up procedures in the school and classroom that try and make student learning into an assembly line.  The dominant theory is often .”We just need to get them to follow the rules, be quiet, take notes, finish their homework and pass onto the next grade” and then pass them down the factory line again in the next grade.  We see evidence of educators treating our students as empty containers that need to be filled instead of valuable humans with real and lived experiences and knowledge that they bring to the classroom everyday.  Instead of throwing the culture and background out we need to leverage what they enter the classroom with in order to partner with them to reach their goals.  We have seen what happens when we try and change student culture to fit into classroom culture, it does not work and it is oppressive.  We need to focus our efforts in the realm of cultural difference theory and create classrooms that mold and evolve to fit students culture, which in turn will set students up with the skills and mindsets to not only be successful but to begin to tear down the institutions of oppression that existed for them and those that have come before them.

Howard, C. (2011). Culturally Relevant for Critical Teacher Pedagogy : Ingredients Reflection, 42(3), 195–202.York, N. E. W. (n.d.). W . w . norton & company . new york’ london.

Critical Teacher Reflection

— by on — Leave a reply

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

This past weekend I went to see my niece’s graduation in Colorado. There were 270 students (predominantly white) in her class and I was amazed when approximately 25 students were recognized with GPAs above 4.0 and above all 4 years. The  first student to be recognized for his rank at the top of the class was a student who had entered the country from Mexico, during junior high, not knowing any English.  As I listened, I reflected on the school where I teach. The teacher population is similar to my niece’s school, nearly all white. However, Glendale High School has approximately twice the number of students and over half are Latino or African American. I looked up how many students were graduating, and found that the numbers were very similar (25 – 30 students) with GPAs 4.0 and above. The obvious differences I was able to observe were socio-economic and race.  African American and Latino students, the “two groups constitute the largest ethnic minority groups in U.S schools. Yet the academic underachievement of many African American and Latino students has been abysmal for decades” (Howard, 2003, p.195). I observe the struggle of these students daily, which has become the inspiration for my inquiry. The increasing number of failures by racially diverse students Howard says, begs the question, “What, if anything, does race and culture have to do with widespread underachievement of nonmainstream students?” (Howard, 2013, p.196)  My inquiry is focused on the student population at Glendale High School and how involving the local community support will motivate and inform students. As individual teachers, we are constantly searching for ways to improve our students’ achievement and in doing so I find Howard’s concern relevant on a scale I had not yet considered. As a nation, our education system needs to account more for the increasing number of immigrants and adapt its methods accordingly.  Our ability to connect with our students is dependent on critical teacher reflection, where teachers consider their own positionality.  As teachers we must be aware of how where we came from and who we are influences how we teach.  We need to realize that inevitably, “we teach who we are” (Howard, 2013, p.198).  Recognizing and making the separation from ones personal views “is why critical teacher reflection is important  to develop culturally relevant pedagogy”(Howard, 2013, p.198).   Through reflection, teachers  are “examining their actions and constantly modifying them accordingly”(Howard, 2013, p.197). just as they do when they monitor and adjust to ensure the success of a lesson. In my research I perceive myself better positioned to make a connection with the school community.  However, the more I read the more I learn what I don’t know.  There are norms that I have yet to learn and understand as I attempt to make connections with the community.  Garcia and Ortiz pose a question that will help me focus, “How has my professional socialization positioned me to conduct research in culturally and linguistically diverse schools and communities?”(2013, p. 37)  I think now about how similar the school and environment where I grew up were more similar to my niece’s school than the school where I teach. The flaw I perceive in my action research will come from one obvious place and that is by my own “cultural bias”(Garcia and Ortiz, 2013, p.43).  My approach to the problem is as I perceive it and expect that my initial understanding may not be completely informed.  However that may be and lead to frustration, I hope my innovation and research will ultimately lead to greater student achievement.

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013).  Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research to special education.  Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

 

The Need for Critical Reflection

— by on — 1 Reply

The article Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection by Tyrone C. Howard, is a reading that focused on the need for critical reflection by teachers in the classroom. The article provided a great perspective on the potential positive results from the use of critical reflection in teaching strategies, as well as the difficulties that are often faced by teachers who are implementing culturally related pedagogy into their teaching methods. The research presented in Howard’s writing looks at variety of different topics varying from data on the educational struggles of Latinos and African Americans in the United States to a case study conducted on preparing educators to teach by using critical reflection in the classroom. The reading presents a plethora of information on critical teacher reflection and the value it can present in teaching practice.

The article content provided me with insight on the delicate nature, yet strong value of bringing topics of cultural awareness, race, and ethnicity into classrooms. The research material presented in the reading helped to support the need for significant teacher reflection and to establish a more conducive learning environment for the growing ethnically diverse classrooms in the United States. Tyrone Howard provided strong examples of how the Latino and African American student populations have faced challenges to assimilate to the American school system, while explaining his theory of more critical reflection in teaching, and how it would improve African American and Latino student’s chances for success in education. The information offered by Howard supports the theory that teaching practices that engage in critical reflection can help breakdown some of cultural difference that may cause some of the struggles that these students face in the U.S. school system.

As I reflect on this particular reading now, I also recognize the points made by Howard on challenges that teachers can face in bringing critical
into the classroom. Howard states, “The nature of critical reflection can be an arduous task because it forces the individual to ask challenging questions that pertain to one’s construction of individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.” I can defiantly relate to these topic areas and how they can be intimidating and difficult for an individual to talk about in their classroom, and can see how many educators may shy away from these topics whether inadvertently or not. The article continued to grasp my attention  as it stressed the importance of critical reflection and how it engages learners in a positive notion, yet clearly defined that one must be fully committed and trained adequately to bring this practice to fruition successfully in their teaching and learning environment.

This article struck me from the onset as I began to think of the challenges that may arise, “as educators address the demographic divide” (Howard, 2013, p.195) that continues to grow in the United States. As a Latino who attended a predominantly white private religious based educational institution for the majority of schooling growing up, it made me think about how my experience may have been different in a classroom setting of this type. How might my experience have been different, if I were allowed to develop and foster as an individual in a classroom environment that encouraged teachers to embrace cultural diversity in the classroom, as opposed to limiting it? Would I have adapted easier? Would I have been more successful academically at a younger age? There are many questions this reading brought to light for me. My final position is to agree, “the need for critical reflection can be an important tool for all teachers” (Howard, 2013, p.201). If all educators adapt to culturally relevant pedagogy as Howard explains, the results to many struggling students in academia may prosper in the future.

References:

Howard, T. C. (2003, Summer). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Reflection. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 42(3), 195-201.

Resetting and renewing approaches to student support: reflecting on personal bias

— by on — 1 Reply

While reading Stephan Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (1981) which focused on racial and cultural biases that were taken as fact due to “scientific research” that was not challenged and was taken as pure fact during the 1700 and 1800’s.  Further, through the readings of Medicine Stories (1998).  I found myself posing two questions. 1. Am I’m biased in the approach I take working with my students?  2. Are the actions and interventions I am implementing with my colleagues helping the student, or actually fixing the problem?  When looking at the former, I know that I am not looking to disenfranchise a population of people that could be inferred through Gould (1981) The Mismeasure of Man, rather that I have some preconceived notions of backgrounds on my students and may not truly know the root of issues as suggested by Howard (2003). In my nine plus years of working in higher education, primarily in housing, at large public institutions and mid-sized private schools, I have had the opportunity to work with a large and diverse student population.  Throughout this time I have dealt with student issues pertaining to academics, behavior, adjustment and personal development.  I have always taken the approach that each student is an individual, I need to hear their story, only then can I begin to help them.  However after several years and multiple stories, I cannot but help to start categorizing and making assumptions about my students before even really hearing their complete story.  I contradict myself as it relates to one of the central tenets “rejection of deficit-based thinking” (Howard 2003, pg.197).  Now I know that students from diverse backgrounds and of lower socio-economic standing can achieve academically, but I also see these two factors as the root of the issue, not looking deeper into the individual. For instance, some colleagues and I have worked with a student that is from an underrepresented group, comes from low income and is first generation.  The student was struggling academically and was disengaged from peer groups.  Naturally conversations went towards helping the student get connected socially; perhaps through student groups, mentorship, etc., help the student learn study skills, and connect them with opportunities for employment, done and solved.  This was not the case though, I did not listen to the story, and I did not do a critical reflection of myself and the student.  After another colleague had the opportunity to talk (listen) to the student, we discovered the student to be from the foster system, providing for another family member, was hungry, and has a distrust in authority figures.  After reading Howard and Gould I had the gut check moment of how easy it is to fall into patterns, seeing a demographic, a university indicator score, a geographical location and say to myself, here is the issue and here is the solution, when in fact, this could be further from the truth. In Medicine Stories by Aurora Levins Morales, she talks about whom as the authority to tell stories, dictate what is and will become history and more importantly how people and groups can initiate change.  While some of the stories in the collection really made think about my own history, where I grew up and the influences/biases I was predisposed to think, I feel that through my education and interactions with others I can see the other sides and what is not being said.  This was a high moment for me, what grounded me was the reference to the feminist that is able to create equality and shared duties in her own home with her husband, although great for her, does not solve the overall problem in which she is committed too. I like to think that the work I do with the individual student is what I am supposed to be doing, however when looking at the overall theme of access, equity and impact, while the impact for that individual is great, the overall concept of equity and access to the whole, assuming that there is more than just the one student out there that needs help, I am failing.   I am able to help those that ask questions, are willing to talk, share and be open to assistance.  If I truly want to help students, I need to look at the bigger picture, the root of issues and look to solve from the onset, rather than from the after effects. Overall the readings were a reset for me, a reminder that there are plenty of personal bias and assumptions made by myself and others that have a lasting effect on the student populations we serve and are here to help.

References

Howard, T. C. (2003).  Culturally Relevant Pedagogy:  Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, 42(3), 195-202.

Levins-Morales, A. (1998).  Medicine Stories: History, Culture, and the Politics of Identity.  Cambridge: South End Press. Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32.

Mismeasuring Man

— by on — 2 Replies

“American Polygeny and Craniometry before Darwin” is chapter 2 in “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould.  The chapter provides detailed information about how nineteenth century science and research were used to support a position that was broadly held at the time, rather than advance knowledge through discovery.

In the nineteenth century, the prevailing view among Caucasians was that they were superior to other races.  This was not a new position.  Writings the author presents by revered American figures, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln would be considered racist today.  The author provides information about two views that were both used as justifications for racial ranking: monogenism and polygenism. Monogenism (origin from a single source) is the belief that human races are degenerations from the perfection of the bible’s Eden.  Even though all peoples descend from Adam and Eve, some races have declined more than others according to this view.  By contrast, polygenism is the belief that human races are separate biological species and descendants of different Adams.  Of the two, monogenism was probably the more popular, perhaps because it was consistent with common interpretation of scripture.

Much of the chapter is devoted to a critical review of the beliefs of Louis Agassiz and the research of Samuel George Morton, both of whom were staunch supporters of polygenism.

Agassiz, an esteemed Swiss naturalist, moved to America and became a leading spokesperson for polygenism.  His position on polygenism was bolstered his personal theory and methods.  First, he developed a theory of “centers of creation” while studying the geographic distribution of animals and plants.  Agassiz believed species were created in their proper places and didn’t stray far from these centers.  Secondly, he focused on minute distinctions to establish species based on small peculiarities of design, which is known in taxonomic practices as an extreme splitter.  Agassiz speculated freely about his beliefs but didn’t have any data for support.

Morton, an aristocrat from Philadelphia with two medical degrees, provided data that won worldwide respect for the American view of polygeny.  He had a reputation as a great data-gatherer and objectivist of American science.  His hypothesis was that races could be ranked by measuring the size of the brain.  Morton published data and findings that supported his hypothesis.  Gould, the author of this chapter, reanalyzed Morton’s data and found four categories of problems: 1) Large subsamples were included or deleted to match group averages with prior expectations, 2) Some measures were sufficiently imprecise to allow for a wide range of influence by subjective bias (e.g., blacks fared poorest and whites best when results could be biased towards expectations), 3) Procedural omissions (e.g., Morton believed skull size recorded mental ability but didn’t consider sex or stature, both of which effected the results), and 4) Miscalculations and omissions that added justification to Morton’s position.

Fear played a prominent role in these biases: fear of the unknown, fear of losing control, fear of those who were different, and fear of not being safe.  The chapter was a reminder that racism was pervasive and broadly accepted in America as recent as the mid-nineteenth century.  Today, the prejudicial views of our founding fathers would be unacceptable to most.

The chapter provided a vivid example of how bias can influence research.  Because Morton’s views were extreme compared to current societal norms, it’s easy to see how bias influenced his approach and findings.  Morton attempted to add credibility to his position by using an objective and methodologically sound approach, which was later debunked by Gould.

How can we know that research we conduct is balanced?  What about our own biases today?  We must be vigilant about objectivity in our research.  Elliot Eisner has some practical advice about objectivity in educational research including: striving to eliminate bias, focusing on the world rather than ourselves, being fair and open to all sides of an argument, using objective methods, and seeing things as they are.

References

Gould, S. J. (1981). American Polygeny and Craniometry before Darwin. In The Mismeasure of Man (pp. 30–72). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in Educational Research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9–15.

Critical Teacher Reflection – Teaching Who We are

— by on — 2 Replies

What does one see when they look in the mirror and is what they see a true reflection? One of the most powerful quotes in the article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection” by Tyrone C. Howard (2003) for me is, “effective reflection of race within a diverse cultural context requires teachers to engage in one of the more difficult processes for all individuals – honest reflection and critique of their own thoughts and behaviors. Critical reflection requires one to seek deeper levels of self-knowledge, and to acknowledge how one’s own worldview can shape students’ conceptions of self” (Howard, p. 198). The reason why I find myself in agreement with this passage is because I equated this to Palmer’s statement, “we teach who we are” (p. 198, Howard 2003).

I was raised in a culturally diverse home. My father is Hispanic and my mother is Irish, with family from the Kentucky/Tennessee border. Both of my parents have strong accents and were raised in vastly different homes. My father was born in 1940 and was raised by an aunt and uncle. His mother had passed away soon after childbirth. My father did not have any siblings and no possessions of his own as he moved around a lot. He entered the military soon after turning 18. My mother was the youngest of seven children. Being from a large family she could not wait to leave her family home. My parents met while working at a factory in Northern Illinois. Back when they fell in love, it was still “taboo” to be in a mixed-race relationship. However, they made it work and are still happily married and in love to this day.

The phrase, “We teach who we are” hits home for me. I was fortunate enough to have my multi-cultural training begin in my home at a very early age. The reflective process questions posed in the article by (Howard, 2003) can result in a terrifying journey if one does not prepare for what they may uncover. I believe the sooner a person takes the time to self-reflect, the better impact they will have personally and in the classroom, either as a teacher or a student.

One of my son’s closest friends, Casey, is about to complete his first year as an elementary school teacher for the Chicago public school (CPS) system. Recently, Casey and I were discussing his first year as a teacher. Some of the challenges that he spoke about was that he was raised in a small farming community that was 98 percent Caucasian and two percent “other” as the school district’s student body. He said that while he is not racist in the slightest way, he felt unprepared for the menagerie of race, ethnicity and culture. Even though he student-taught in the CPS system, he felt that once he was the teacher responsible for his own students, the stakes became much higher and the ability to make the largest impact became increasingly elusive.

One suggestion that the author makes is to, “avoid reductive notions of culture” (p. 201). In a story that Casey related to me during our discussion was when he assumed that he could make an impact on a student just as simply as he could the next. In one lesson he planned to introduce a subject using a pop culture reference. He said that he just assumed that all of the students watched this particular TV show because it was “popular.” He soon realized that some of the students did not know what he was referring to. He felt terrible that his exercise to learn something, but to also to have fun, highlighted the differences in home lives, culture, etc.

The author’s statement, “critical teacher reflection is essential to culturally relevant pedagogy because it can ultimately measure teachers’ levels of concern and care for their students. A teacher’s willingness to ask tough questions about his or her own attitudes toward diverse students can reflect a true commitment that the individual has toward students’ academic success and emotional well-being (Howard, 2003, p. 199). Because of this statement, it is my belief that if pre-service teachers are exposed to the practice of self-reflection they may have a greater likelihood of developing personally and professionally in a way that will greatly benefit the student and themselves.

References

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy : Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, 42(3), 195–202.

Is Empathy Enough?

— by on — Leave a reply

Garcia (2013) posits that researchers’ own biographies “greatly influence their values, their research questions, and the knowledge they construct” (p. 41).  A researcher must have credibility (be an “insider”) to be trusted and effective with study participants (Garcia, 2013).  The sense of Garcia’s writing is that a researcher can’t really understand the plight of someone who is different and whose life experience is different. Because a researcher’s identity is intertwined with his research, he may (or should) exclude some groups, but this, in turn, renders them invisible and marginalizes them (Garcia, 2013).  This marginalization may occur even as the researcher is trying to help the subjects of a study.

Medicine Stories (Levin-Morales, 1998) also discusses the marginalization of groups by colonizing powers who try to help those they deem inferior by educating their young.  Levin-Morales states that “colonizing powers take over the transmission of culture to the young” (p. 23) in the guise of helping them.  Culture has always been the glue that holds a society together, and children are inculcated into the society and government by schools.  My own daughter started her school years in Argentina, where we lived as part of an exchange program.  Her assignments were often to draw the flag, create art representing the country, and sing songs about the motherland.  One day, her father said to her, “That’s what Argentines do.”  She furiously informed him that she was an Argentine, although we knew her to be an Anglo-American Caucasian.  Seeing this through Levin-Morales’ eyes enlightened me to a different view of these practices.

Levin-Morales (1998) also includes a thought-provoking essay about “good English.”  She feels that editors have tried to strip away part of her identity by changing her writing in the name of correcting her English to a standard that is not representative of the many Englishes spoken and written throughout the world.  This article touches on a hotly-discussed issue in linguistic circles:  world Englishes.  Who does English belong to?  British?  Americans?  Or the millions of other English-speakers?  The paradox is that, as an English as a Second Language teacher, I must teach my students something that equates to correctness.  At one level, this is English to help them communicate ideas, which must follow some set of basic norms (for example, using past tense to talk about the past, pronunciation that is distinguishable to the listener, or word order in sentences that is clear enough to express an idea).  As the fluency of English rises, my students are preparing to study in American universities, where the English used is probably the English of stuffy, white male professors.  However, if the student is to compete in this playing field, he/she must know these rules, which I teach.  Am I harming my students’ identities by trying to strip away their brand of English to replace it with one that will serve them well in an academic setting?

Pondering the ideas of Garcia & Ortiz (2013) and Levin-Morales’ Medicine Stories (1998) worried me:  can I  teach students of color if I am not a teacher of color? am I doing a disservice to the identities of my students by teaching an academically-acceptable brand of English?  These concerns were  somewhat allayed by Howard’s “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.”  According to Howard (2003), teachers must first believe that all students can succeed and make sure that their actions don’t reinforce prejudice.  They should view different cultures and the way they learn as an asset in the process and use a wide variety of teaching practices which change with the students’ strengths and weaknesses.  This left me hopeful that I can do justice to my students and be helpful to them within their own context.  I need to spend more time getting to know them individually and not labeling them with one-dimensional descriptions.  Through on-going critical self-reflection, I can confront my own learned prejudices in order to overcome them and move forward.

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013).  Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research to special education.  Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Howard, T. C. (2003).  Culturally Relevant Pedagogy:  Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, 42(3), 195-202.

Levins-Morales, A. (1998).  Medicine Stories: History, Culture, and the Politics of Identity.  Cambridge: South End Press.

Body, Language: A Case for Disabled Language?

— by on — 1 Reply

In Medicine Stories (1998), Aurora Levins Morales argues for a healing kind of history: a study of history that emphasizes personal testimony; a concerted effort to give voice and name to the heretofore unvoiced and unnamed; and a practice of study that scrutinizes interdependence, illuminates interconnectivity, and demands of its practitioners that they own their injuries as well as their complicity in the intricate web of power and privilege.

From the very beginning of this collection of essays, Levins Morales (1998) acknowledges which stories are hers to tell–among the identities she claims are Jew, Puerto Rican, woman of color, survivor of abuse, feminist, and “historian with an agenda”– and acknowledges that all historians “use some process of selection through which [they] choose which stories [they] consider important and interesting” (p. 25). So it would be unreasonable to ask her to speak for everyone, especially given her clear declaration of intent in offering her personal “interrogation” of history (p.25). Nevertheless, she casts a wide net, acknowledging and validating, even in glancing mentions, the experiences of groups of which she is not a member: slaves, witches, transgendered people, even animal rights activists.

And so it seems glaring to me that, throughout the 130-page collection of essays, she sidesteps, apart from a single passing mention in the context of Nazi atrocities, the experiences of disabled people. I do not think this is a sinister omission, but I do think it is an omission, and I’m inclined to think it’s a conscious omission given that Levins Morales is a feminist writing these essays at a time when the scholarly area of disability studies–often housed adjacent to, if not housed within, women’s studies in academia–was emerging as a significant discipline. So many of the habits of mind and scholarship that she advocates, such as the valuing of first-person narrative and testimony; the insistence on telling “untold and undertold histories” (Levins Morales, 1998, p. 26); the prodding to “show agency” (p. 30); and the encouragement to question existing value systems, align themselves explicitly with the aims of disability studies. If “childhood is the one political condition, the one disenfranchised group through which all people pass” (51), then disability is the one political condition to which we could all return, at any time, with no warning. Furthermore, certain historical events she discusses have real relevance for disabled people, especially disabled women. For example, in the essay titled “Nightflying,” in which Levins Morales (1998) invites us to reconsider the way violence toward women in the form of witch hunts has been minimized, almost to the point of cartoon (p. 45-49), it seems especially glaring that she does not acknowledge that features we now know to be physiological and decidedly un-evil–epilepsy, for example–were also used to persecute women as witches. It’s not just “women elders” (p. 48) who remain villainized by the witch-hunt narrative; it’s elder women with dowager’s humps or, as I can personally attest, young women with gnarled fingers and limping gaits who are thought scary and wicked. The scary old lady in the house on the corner? She usually has a cane.

I confess that I’m stymied by this omission but, especially given her final essay’s call for a unification of efforts as opposed to an endless splintering of interests, I accept it as a given of this author and her stance.  I’m not quite as ready as she to dispense with intersectionality as a crucial lens through which to view certain histories and experiences. Specifically, disability is a profoundly powerful axis that, in combination with gender, can be amplified or assuaged in the classroom. As Garcia and Ortiz (2013) argue, “while a disability label may assign students to a subordinate status in a general education classroom on the basis of their perceived disabilities, their gender, social class and/or racial identities may mitigate this status in different ways, creating privilege for some (e.g., male, middle class, or Caucasian students) but disadvantage for others (e.g., African American males from low income families)” (p.34). Nevertheless, it is not Levins Morales’s responsibility to speak for the disabled; in fact, it may very well be inappropriate for her to do so. But it may not be inappropriate for me to do so.

What I’d like to do, then, is acknowledge my own relationship to that label, that identity, that history, and then discuss my own professional practice–that is, as a teacher–through the lens of Levins Morales’s “medicinal history” (1998). Specifically, I’d like to focus on the second section of the collection of essays, “Speaking in Tongues” (Levins Morales, 1998, p. 55-71), in which she insightfully and powerfully examines the relationship between language and power. Having thoughtfully considered–and truly enjoyed–Levins Morales’s work, I’d like to borrow her framework and extend it to include a group, as represented by a dear student of mine, “Jessica,” that I feel could most benefit from this kind of “medicinal history.”

I have an ambivalent relationship to the title “disabled,” mostly because I have an ambivalent body. Having had rheumatoid arthritis for 25 years, I’ve experienced stretches of profound disability and, thanks to modern medical and surgical interventions, I’ve experienced periods of relative respite during which my pain, although never fully abating, has been ameliorated and able-bodied strangers’ reaction to my body have been less vicious and othering. That’s all I need to say about that for this discussion, I think, except that I’ll add that my shape-shifting identity as maybe-disabled does lend me a particular awareness of and empathy for my students who live with disabilities. I like to think that I am an ally for them, and I’ll point to my experience with Jessica as evidence of that.

Jessica is a brilliant 16-year-old, effervescent and energetic, quick-witted, curious, profoundly artistic, and dyslexic. Last year, I was both Jessica’s English teacher and her advisor, which means that I was to serve as the point-person for Jessica and her parents whenever an issue–social, academic, medical–came up that affected Jessica in more than one course. As you can imagine, Jessica’s dyslexia affected her performance in nearly every course (English, pre-calculus, Latin II, advanced chemistry, Europe since 1945). In English and Latin and history, she struggled with spellings and conjugations as well as taking in and processing large amounts of written and verbal data. She pored over her written assignments only to discover, upon turning them in, that she’d replaced the word “genocide” with “geometry” in every instance. In history and chemistry and precalculus, numbers transposed themselves. Perhaps as a function of her dyslexia or maybe as a concurrent issue, Jessica also struggled with giving sustained attention to any task and found herself hopelessly distracted by even the smallest sounds and activities from classmates.

Jessica struggled particularly in Latin and early on in the school year she came to me for help. Thinking she could use some empowering validation of her experiences, I directed her to some scholarly research on JSTOR about teaching classical languages to students with dyslexia. One article, aimed at teachers, offered practical solutions and ideas (enlarging typewritten documents, using serif fonts, etc.). When I showed the plainly written, down-and-dirty “use it today” article to Jessica, she beamed–here, then, is an example of Levins Morales’s idea of scholarly writing being accessible to the people who need it most (1998, p. 37)–and immediately she set out highlighting all the tips that she thought would be useful but that weren’t yet in practice in her Latin classroom. Next, we met with her Latin teacher and Jessica was able to advocate for herself in a solution-oriented way. This was one of my earliest experiences with Jessica and it made me pay particular attention to her in the classroom. After all, I had a dual role as her English teacher and her advisor. I was struck by Jessica’s maturity in seeking out allies and advocates and in her wise use of the network of support systems made available to her. I was also blown away by the amount of sheer intellectual bandwidth and problem-solving skill Jessica was putting into compensating for her dyslexia.

Interestingly, the only courses where Jessica was finding that her dyslexia was not a deficit but an asset were her art classes–experimental materials and game design–where she was exploring with wit and cleverness ways to represent for “normal” people what the world of symbols and letters looked like and felt like to her.

As her decidedly descriptivist English teacher, it wasn’t a challenge for me to overlook her misspellings or transpositions. I was happy to work with her on a draft to point out to her where she’d swapped a word or where her ideas were all jumbled up and in need of categorizing and streamlining. Jessica and I worked well together.

But as I read Levins Morales’s chapters “On Not Writing English” and “Forked Tongues,” I was struck by the realization that I did not do enough on Jessica’s behalf, neither as her English teacher nor as her advisor. I didn’t do what her art teacher did, which was allow her–encourage her–to depict the world as she saw it in the language of her experience. Her perception of the world is jumbled, overstimulated, anxious, cryptic, blooming. Why shouldn’t her writing be?

Now, this perspective tests the limits of even my descriptivism. Can an English teacher advocate for a student’s right to write in jumbled, overwhelmed and overwhelming ways? I think she can. This is where I return to Levins Morales. The “legislators of language,” she  points out, “are almost exclusively male, white, and wealthy”–and, I’ll add, able-bodied if not body-normative. “They are people with social power, and as is the wont of such folk, they set things up according to their own very specific needs and then declare those needs universal: if it isn’t the language we speak, it isn’t English” (Levins Morales, 1998, p. 57).

Levins Morales (1998) points out the idea that is at the heart of all efforts to increase diversity in representation, the belief that is behind the movement away from “Dick and Jane” names in primers and standardized tests and behind the mannequin  in a wheelchair at your local Kohl’s: “To live surrounded by a popular culture in which we do not appear is a form of spiritual erasure that leaves us vulnerable to all the assaults a society can commit against those it does not recognize. Not to be recognized, not to find oneself in history, or in film, or on television, or in books, or in popular songs, or in what is studied at school leads to the psychic disaster of ceasing to recognize oneself” (p. 61). I believe that schools–no, I believe that I–need to do a better job not only of showing students like Jessica characters and real-life figures who think like they do (e.g., Mark Haddon’s 2003 “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime,” which features a protagonist/narrator with autism) but also of validating and celebrating their language. Why shouldn’t Jessica’s writing reflect the world as she perceives it, just as Levins Morales’s writing is colored with her varied influences? If I bludgeon Jessica’s writing into conformity, am I like those well-meaning feminist editors who silenced Levins Morales’s differentness and shoehorned her into genericness? I do not want to hold Jessica to any less a rigorous standard than the other students; after all, she can hold her own intellectually and creatively. But–and this is a question of “excellence”–can I uphold rigor while honoring her perception of the world, and helping her to put it on the page? “That is why we write,” Levins Morales says. “To see ourselves on the page. To confirm our presence” (1998, p. 62).

And Garcia and Ortiz’s (2013) warning about the unfair perceptions of disabled students raises even more questions for me: Jessica is a well-behaved, hard-working, upper-middle-class white girl. Have I been more inclined to honor her disability in writing than, say, the scattered writings of a hyperactive boy like Will, who I may perceive to be simply sloppy and disorganized? I need to confront these questions. I need to do right by the Jessicas and the Wills.

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I know, though, that my own experience of shape-shifting disability has granted me access to two languages, two lexicons. I can write in the upright, whole, healthy English of able-bodiedness, studied during my healthy first 12 years of life, and I suspect that my writing–lurching, improvisatory, full of fragments–reflects the body I live in now. I have the right to write in the language of my body, so does Levins Morales, and so does Jessica.

References

Garcia, S. and Ortiz, A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47. Retrieved from http://mv.ddel.metapress.com/index/YV7822W58116KW42.pdf

Levins Morales, A. (1998). Medicine stories: History, culture and the politics of integrity. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Researcher Beware

— by on — 1 Reply

First year teachers are like brand new pennies, they have been untouched by the issues in education, all shiny and new. They start out with their excited smiles and the “I’m going to change the world,” attitude. This is not to say that veteran teachers are not passionate about their role, but it is easy to see that veteran teachers have a weight on their shoulders. As teachers, we fight for what is right for our students and work without the resources we need, but we give our students the best education we can offer.

I remember the moment I realized that my students were not given the same opportunities. I was a first or second year teacher and I was at a music conference, still shiny and new. I was in awe, watching a middle school band; they were amazing! When the band finished playing, the director had the kids stand and take a bow. I was struck with the realization that, with the exception of four students, the entire ensemble was Caucasian. I instantly found this odd, as this was not the case at my school.

Then the director started talking about what he did to get the students to produce such incredible music. He was adamant that the teachers in the room needed to make sure the students were playing on matched instruments. Matched instruments! I was lucky if my students had instruments at all. Not only were these students all playing on school instruments, but they were all matched and brand new. It was at this point that I became a little tarnished. I was astonished that he had the budget for that. I had to fight for every piece of music I had and instruments were not an option. At that moment I realized that my students were disadvantaged and that the director and I were not playing on the same field.

While I read the article by Garcia and Ortiz (2013), I kept coming back to the same thoughts of my students. What could they have achieved had they been given the same access to resources? Garcia stated, educational equity remains an elusive goal for students from non-dominant racial, ethnic, linguistic and socio-cultural communities…” (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013) Our schools are not equitable. The students do not have the same classes, services, resources or diversity.

As I contemplate my research along with the articles, I was struck by the fact that my research could have a lasting effect on education. It is doubtful that teachers and researchers enter their field with thoughts of holding people back, yet the unconscious bias one has, can do just that. Gould discusses this very problem.

Morton made no attempt to cover his tracks and I must presume that he was unaware he had left them. He explained all his procedures and published all his raw data. All I can discern is an a priori conviction about racial ranking so powerful that it directed his tabulations along preestablished lines. Yet Morton was widely hailed as the objectivist of his age, the man who would rescue American science from the mire of unsupported speculation. (Gould, 1996)

The research presented by Morton was, in his eyes, objective. However, his research held bias towards minorities and had an impact on education and society. (Gould, 1996) If one looks at the demographics of our schools, specifically race, and the access they have to resources, it is easy to see that the bias Morton held, still affect us today. “Education equity remains an elusive goal for students from non-dominant racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-cultural communities; the research conducted to-date has not been successful in altering this trajectory.” (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013)

I find myself wary of my own possible bias as I approach the start of my research. As previously stated, it is doubtful that any researcher has the intent of causing harm to another person or culture; however, it is clearly possible. How does one avoid such a disaster? If I were required to list my bias at this very moment, I don’t know that I would be able to write anything down. In order to know what one’s bias is critical reflection must be utilized. As discussed by Howard, “Critical reflection is the type of processing that is crucial to the concept of culturally relevant pedagogy.”(Howard, 2003) He goes on to state that “Critical reflection should include an examination of how race, culture, and social class shape students’ thinking learning, and various understandings of the world.” (Howard, 2003) This could also be applied to researchers and educators. If educators have a clear understanding of how race, culture and social class shape their own thinking, we would have a better idea of our bias and how we are unconsciously communicating these ideas to our students. What becomes plainly obvious is that researchers in general need to spend time in critical reflection in order to keep the bias from affecting their work, as it did with Melton. By using Melton (Gould, 1996) as an example, one can find the following guidance:

  1. Look at the whole picture, be aware of the sub-samples and be consistent in the collection of the data.
  2. Set bias aside and confirm that the results can be reproduced
  3. Keep an open mind. If the data leads to alternate hypotheses, follow it.
  4. Check the math and leave nothing out.

As I set out to tackle my own research, critical reflection will play a role in my awareness of how I fit into the culture I will be studying. By being aware of my preconceived notions of culture, race and social class prior to my research I may be able to keep my ideas of such from hindering my research. The idea that I could impact others’ lives is both exciting and intimidating, as there is a fear there that research can hinder as much as help.

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Lerners, 13(2), 32–47.

Gould, S. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man: American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin. The “racial” economy of science (pp. 30–72). New York: WW Norton & Company. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books=en&lr=&id=CmJWBaANlsEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA84&dq=American+Polygeny+and+Craniometry+before+Darwin&ots=gu4mtzHxt_&sig=SJ7qO0-EjTwDdury27I9m2tcam8

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477320

The Implications of Scientific Misinformation on the 18th Century Biological Hierarchy

— by on — 1 Reply

Stephan Gould’s The Measure of Man (1981) analysis and connection to my own research agenda.

Stephan Gould’s The Measure of Man (1981) sheds light on the 18th century scientific agenda of reinforcing racial or biological hierarchies in the United States. Through the manipulation of science, the data that was published and widely accepted perpetuated the racial agenda, maintaining the hegemonic power and relationship dynamics between whites and blacks. While other races were discussed and scientifically explored at the time, the greatest interest and discourse revolved around the intellects of blacks, and if their intellect should determine their social and political power.

Hierarchies have long been argued to be natural although they are consistently questioned and revamped to reflect contemporary political, social, and cultural perspectives and identities.  Thus, while hierarchies are constant, they dynamically transform and shift power within political, social, and cultural systems of identity. Aurora Levins Morales in Medicine Stories (1998) furthers this point with her position that those with privilege maintain that it is a “luxury they have earned by excellence, the natural way of life, the righteous and inevitable order of things” (p. 11). Morales (1998) also contends that hierarchies are used to “convince [those with privilege] that exploitation is not only justifiable but a kind and compassionate expression of their superiority” (p. 12).

While Gould (1981) demonstrates that 18th century scientific data was fabricated as a means of reinforcing biological hierarchies, he also states that “we must first recognize the cultural milieu of a society whose leaders and intellectuals did not doubt the propriety of racial ranking – with Indians below whites, and blacks below everyone else” (p. 31).  Those who supported the biological hierarchy of the time were divided into two groups. The first, “hard-liners,” believed blacks to be biologically inferior and their status in the racial hierarchy justified their enslavement and colonization.  Although the second, “soft-liners,” agreed that blacks were biologically inferior, they maintained that rights should not be contingent on intelligence (p. 31).

These groups were further divided into monogenism  and polygenism, those who maintained that all humans are the degenerative results of the lineage of Adam and Eve, as stated in the Bible, and those who contended that the human races began as separate biological species. Within the polygenist circle, there were two groups of scientists. The first group, the “lumpers” were scientists who focused on similarities between specimens to determine their biological relationship. The second group, the “splitters,” concentrated on minute differences as a means of establishing separate species.

Louis Agassiz and Samuel George Morton were strong proponents of the polygeny theory and were highly respected by contemporary scientists. While both men bolstered the polygeny theory differently, Agassiz by studying physical differences and Morton through craniology, the study of skull size, they reinforced the hegemonic understanding that blacks were closer to nature, and therefore inferior and not requiring equal rights.

However, it was Morton who manipulated his craniology data so extensively to support the biological stratification. Morton’s scientific process was to use ground mustard seeds to measure volume, as the assumption was that the more intelligent the person, the bigger the brain. Throughout his experiments, he omitted and miscalculated information as well as neglected to account for body proportions and sexual dimorphism (the typical physical differences found among the sexes) and their effects on brain size. He also systematically altered data to reinforce his subjective, prior understanding of the racial hierarchy.  Morton’s understanding and subsequent purposeful manipulation and misrepresentation of scientific data extended the long, unwavering shadow of science into the farthest discourses of race, biological hierarchy, human rights, colonialism, and slavery. To this day, the perpetuation of the hegemonic biological hierarchy is still masked by scientific data conducted and disseminated by those in positions of privilege and power.

The purpose of my research is to address racism that is paraded as science in the educational field. One illustration is that culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students “are grossly overrepresented in special needs categories” (Howard, 2011, p. 196). If the educational system has and continues to fail CLD students, especially under the guise of scientifically diagnosing them as special needs, research should be conducted into the causality of the failures. Through diagnostic research that is ethical and unbiased, in addition to accounting for diverse identities, the education system can broaden its myopic and misinformed practices of educating and addressing the needs of CLD students and communities. This, in turn, will initiate a more egalitarian political, social, and cultural structure that embraces diverse identities.

References

Garcia, S.S. & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a Framework for Special Ed Research.pdf. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of a man. New York, NY: Norton and Company.

Howard, C. (2011). Culturally Relevant for Critical Teacher Pedagogy : Ingredients Reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctoral Degree Discussion

— by on — Leave a reply

The authors of the article “Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal” are employed as participants in the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID), which is sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation. The critical analysis by the CID process is meant to crystalize the purpose of the doctoral degree. The authors participated in discussions with various institutions to help clarify the purpose/objectives of their degrees. This article specifically presents the rationale for introducing a new type of degree for education practitioners and administration (specifically, those individuals not planning on a career in teaching or research).

In my opinion, the authors are clouding the discussion with an additional program suggestion. It seems the authors are suggesting questions as to whether the Ed.D. appropriately prepares one for a career of scholarly research and/or if that degrees is even needed for a career in administration. The organization of the article would suggest that a re-evaluation and re-deployment of the Ed.D. would be successful.

This was demonstrated with the example of USC’s success. “The decision-making and implementation processes, though sometimes rocky, resulted in two programs with clearly different goals, requirements, and student populations”. However, later in the article suggests a professional practice degree would enable career progression, as a reader, I’m left wondering, “why shouldn’t it be the Ed.D.?”

Ed.D. students will, according to the authors, not experience the depth of scholarly inquiry done in the program. They cite the lack of full-time study or participation in learning communities as examples. On the other hand, is it more likely that we are more effectively preparing them to be better consumers of academic research in that they can then interpret and act on research? The authors wrote, “we believe it must be a requirement for the P.P.D., to enable practitioners to make practice and policy decisions—not to add new knowledge per se to the field”. As the article progresses, instead the authors suggest that a lack of clarity in purpose for the degree (Ph.D. vs. Ed.D) leads to confusion about what grads can accomplish and are prepared for in their careers. According to the authors, a doctoral degree should teach you to collect information, research a hypothesis, and present findings, which are all part of critical analysis. Good decision makers need to be able to balance the need for an effective decision and the time available to make it.

Perhaps the article should instead be advocating for a thorough review following the CID method. The authors write, “the process of reflection, implementation of program changes, and assessment that these departments and programs engaged in is leading to stronger doctoral programs and changed habits of mind in participating faculty and students”.

Questions raised by the review of the program might include: What is the value of a dissertation? Is it just to deeply researching an issue to recommend a course of action? Is it to advance scholarly research?

The authors demonstrated a need for more clarity within the field, however, ultimately lacked rationale for the creation of a new degree. Alternatively, suggesting further review of existing degrees might engage more dialogue and commitment from those involved with existing programs.

Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32. Retrieved from the ASU Blackboard database.

Preparing Our Teachers

— by on — Leave a reply

In my career role, I play a large part in influencing how we prepare teachers at Arizona State University. I have been thinking about bias in teaching-our own biases as well as our assessment and measurement of student learning practices. How do we best prepare teachers to work in racially diverse schools?

Before jumping right in to address this question, I want to address the political nature of teaching and assessment measurements. Teachers are being held accountable for impacting student learning. Although this idea sounds practical and reasonable in nature, there are so many variables that play a role in this. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), states that school and districts must disaggregate achievement data by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and disability. All of these variables affect how students perform, yet teachers are being unfairly judged using Value Added Measures that are biased. (Paufler, N.A. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. 2013).

With the political nature and high stakes of the teaching profession, teaching is quickly becoming one of the most challenging jobs. So, I revert back to my question- how are we preparing teachers to be ready for this battle, specifically, equipping them to teach all of their learners? Prior to answering this question, it is important to understand the makeup of the 21st century classroom.  Who are our students?  Tyrone C. Howard (2010) in his book, Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools, presents staggering data regarding the achievement gaps amongst different racial groups, as well as our demographic makeup of our schools.

Howard (2010) cites a study conducted by Concha (2006). The study exposed the role of race, specifically focusing on African American and Latino youth. Three prominent areas stood out as negatively affecting student achievement: racial segregation was still occurring, there were evident divisions within racial groups and school support varied by race (p.101).

Howard (2003) claims that it is essential for teachers to be self aware of their cultural knowledge and understandings. He states, “one of the most fundamental elements of cultural competence is the development of ongoing critical self reflection” (p. 200). He goes on to say, “being able to effectively initiate and facilitate reflection about race and race-related issues requires the ability to critically examine one’s own personal beliefs, opinions, and values about racial identity, and the race of others; and the ramifications of these intersecting and colliding values” (p. 200). Palmer (1998) echoes this notion of self-assessment and recommends that teachers ask themselves, “does who I am contribute to the underachievement of students who are not like me?” (p. 114).

I think these biases go even further than just racial differences. Gould, (1981) in “The Mismeasure of a Man” presents data charts (written in the 1800s) of brain differences, including cranial capacities and abilities. After studying this summary data, he concludes, “Morton’s summaries are a patchwork of fudging and finagling in the clear interest of controlling a priori convictions” (p. 54). Many of these early beliefs, however, are still with us whether we recognize them or not.

From my experiences as an educator and an educational leader, eliciting reflection that gets at the heart of our biases would be extremely powerful and revealing. I don’t think any teacher intentionally elicits bias; however, I think through systematic reflection, many teachers would discover that they do have biases and that they are prevalent in their teaching practices. Freire (1973) states that this critical self-reflection might be difficult for white teachers if they come from “racially privileged or dominant positions” (p. 115). Moreover, he asserts that white teachers, “bring virtually no conceptual framework for understanding visible inequalities rather than the dominant deficit of framework…generally ignorant of color, fear them and fear discussing race and racism” (p. 115). Although it might take some time, nurturing an environment where teachers could fearlessly talk about racism and biases could yield tremendous benefits for our students. Because of this, one might argue that self-reflection and critical self-analysis would be the first step in preparing teachers to work in racially diverse schools.

Another important idea that Howard (2010) asserts is focused on a teacher’s mindset and beliefs about learning. He states, “A teacher’s ability to know and understand students is not restricted by his or her race; it is tied to a willingness of educators to know and understand the complexities of race and culture, develop a healthy sense of their own racial identity and privilege, develop a skill set of instructional practices that tap into cultural knowledge, reject deficit views of students of color, and have an authentic sense of students’ ability to be academically successful” (p.74). Instilling a belief that all students can achieve at high levels will prepare teachers to work in diverse schools.

Finally, once teachers understand who their students are, this understanding should influence teaching practices. Howard refers to these teaching practices as culturally relevant pedagogy. Howard (2003) emphasizes that it’s “based on the inclusion of cultural referents that students bring from home” (p.201). Howard explains that culturally responsive teaching encourages students to share viewpoints and perspectives, connects curriculum to students’ lives and experiences, teaches students to think critically as well as engages students in conversations. Furthermore, teachers need to teach through the strengths of the students, making learning more relevant for them as well as making them feel successful.

In conclusion, we have begun to touch the surface of our question, “How do we best prepare teachers to work in racially diverse schools?” To start, we need to engage our pre-service teachers in critical self reflection about their own experiences, beliefs, and biases. Secondly, we need to instill a belief that all students can learn, regardless of their race. Finally, we need to teach them how to respond through relevant pedagogical practices.

References

 Conchas, G.Q. (2006). The color of success: Race and high achieving urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013) Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Gay, G. (2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of a man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Freire, Paulo. Education for critical consciousness. [1st American ] ed. A Continuum    book. New York,: Seabury Press, 1973.

Howard, T.C. (2003) Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, 42(3), 195-202.

Howard, T.C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paufler, N.A. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2013). The random assignment of students into    elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations.   American Education Research Journal, 51(2), 328-362.

 

 

 

The Power of Believing in Cultural Capital

— by on — 1 Reply

“If I am willing to look in that mirror and not run from what I see, I have a chance to gain self-knowledge – and knowing myself is as crucial to good teaching as knowing my students and my subject….In fact, knowing my students and my subject depends heavily on self-knowledge.  When I do not know myself, I cannot know who my students are.  I will see them through a glass darkly, in the shadows of my own unexamined life – and when I cannot see them clearly, I cannot teach them well.”  (Palmer, 1998 as cited in Howard, 2003)

Where has this article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy:  Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection” by Tyrone Howard (2003), been all of my professional career? This is critical information that I have tried to explain to my fellow colleagues over the years.  To the ones who simply do not understand the need for culturally relevant pedagogy and to those who do not understand that their own cultures often overrule the cultures of those they teach, both consciously and subconsciously.  If they aren’t going to listen to me, maybe they’ll listen to a peer-reviewed journal article…you know, since us teachers are more inclined to place more value in research data than one person’s opinion.

Research recognizes the need for culturally relevant pedagogy.  Research understands the importance of setting aside one’s own beliefs in an effort to understand the needs of another culture’s beliefs.  Research supports that the best way to teach a student is to know the student.

Howard (2003) stated “teacher educators must be able to help preservice teachers critically analyze important issues such as race, ethnicity, and culture, and recognize how these important concepts shape the learning experience for many students.”  It is important to note that this understanding cannot be superficial, as in being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct. It’s about having the desire to open your mind to new cultures, beliefs and lifestyles and a willingness to accept them as equally important as your own.  It’s about truly valuing the “cultural capital” that walks into your classroom each and every day (Howard, 2003). I love that phrase, “cultural capital.”  Absolutely looooove it!  Capital is an asset.  Cultural capital means that culture is seen as an asset.  What better way to think about the diversity of our classrooms?  A room filled with cultural capital…including our own!

It is also about getting to the core of who you are by engaging in the “critical reflection” that Howard (2003) talks extensively about.  As stated in the opening quote, if you cannot understand yourself, you cannot understand your students, which, in turn, means that you cannot achieve the success that you wish to achieve with your students.  Critical reflection requires us to dig deep within ourselves to shed light on our belief systems and to be honest about what we believe and why we believe in them.

This task can be very difficult, especially if you hold beliefs that you don’t want to admit.  And, really, that’s ok.  But, to get to the core of your being, you must acknowledge they exist.  Critical reflection isn’t used as a mean to criticize your beliefs, but is used to foster a deeper understanding of those beliefs.  We have all learned what we know and believe in from sources that are important to us and through our own life experiences. Whether or not you are comfortable speaking about them openly, self-reflection is not about letting the world know or attempting to change your beliefs, it’s about engaging in honest and in-depth reflection about how your “positionality” can influence your students, both positively and negatively, and how it “can shape students’ conceptions of self” (Howard, 2003).

I often joke with my students that I am just as much a part of their families as their parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins!  After all, I do see them all day, every day five days out of the week.  If we take a minute to think about that, this should speak volumes.  What kind of influence has our own families had on us?  What did they teach us and how has that molded us into the adults that we are today?  Have the people closest to us seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, yet, have continued to love us, believe in us and encourage us to achieve great things?

We have this type of influence on our students.  We can build up or break down any one of our students.  That’s how much power we have.  But, we also have to be careful that we preserve and appreciate each students’ individual cultural capital.

Once we have a full appreciation of who our students are and have reflected on how our own personal beliefs can impact our teaching, then we can truly begin to effectively teach them.  Howard (20030 stated that we must “construct pedagogical practices in ways that are culturally relevant, racially affirming, and socially meaningful.”  How motivated would our students be if they felt like their beliefs/culture/life experiences, etc. matter, are important and are worth learning about?  Just think about why you are in this program and what you hope to accomplish…

References:

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

 

Disrupting Small Business Owners Realities

— by on — Leave a reply

For the week 3 readings, Bautista et al. (2013) stood out the most to be, particularly in the idea around limitations of what is available to students and disrupting their reality around all the possibilities out there (p.9). The idea that many of these students could not even think about how good their school could be and what resources could be available to them spoke to the ceilings that we can create for ourselves. Disruption to their reality broke open the idea that there was so much for them.

This reminded me of the small business learners I work with in my Small Business Leadership Academy Program. The program itself is an 8-week, scholarship based program designed to help local small business owners be better business leaders. Within the program, these business owners are exposed to strategy, services, negotiations, systems and organizational behavior lessons all in an effort to improve their business acumen while also building a network of small business peers.

Many of these individuals have never pursued higher education, often coming to their business through family. Much like the students in the Bautista et al (2013) reading, the small business owners often do not know what they do not know meaning they often move forward with their business only doing what they are aware of, not realizing the resources or opportunities out there for them. Our program often serves as a disruption to their reality in a way that helps them find greater success through exposure to new lessons, life experiences from peers and understanding of what resources are available to small business owners within the community.

This actually made some connections to me within Denzin et al (2008) through the idea of shared “lived experiences” (p. 89) as well as getting “voices from the bottom” (p.94). Although Denzin et al (2008) is referring to Critical Race Theory (CRT), I see the parallels here with the small business learners. This is a group that is truly living and breathing their practice every day and often have to make decisions that will shape the rest of their future.

Being exposed to shared lived experiences with other small business owners, even if it is across industries, often does more for their success than our business lessons. Hearing the struggles and successes of others in similar situations as them often inspires them to new heights. Small business research is often done not from the perspective of a small business owner but from statistical or financial perspectives that dehumanize much of their experiences. The idea of having more small business owners take control of some of that research and get involved makes so much sense in the potential outcomes.

As I look towards my professional practice, these readings, along with the other week 3 readings give me much to consider. One area I want to focus on within my research is the application of supply chain principles to graduate business student processes from admissions through graduation. While looking at things from a process perspective, the readings from this week remind me that I need to think about setting up processes that don’t leave the student behind but take into perspective their ideas, knowledge and potential.

References
Bautista, M., Bertrand, M., Morrell, E., Scorza, D. & Matthews, C. (2013). Participatory Action
Research and City Youth: Methodological Insights From the Council of Youth Research.
Teachers College Record, 115(100303), 1-23.

Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous
Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Diversity in Virtual Classrooms

— by on — Leave a reply

With more of our courses going online, I find myself struggling with creating programs and student experiences that have value across cultures, language, technology and curriculum.  From our week 1 reading, what stood out most in this area was the Howard (2003) reading. Of particular interest is the shifting perspective of the teaching population and the idea around better representing the cultural aspects of the classroom populations that the teachers teach in (p.195). This brought to mind many of the virtual programs that I manage with individuals who are across the world.

I currently run a certificate program for professional Supply Chain students who are dispersed around the world with individuals in countries like China, Egypt, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. When working with these students, our professors have to find a balance within the virtual classroom that can work with such a diverse audience yet still maintain the educational standards of the program. This becomes an interesting balance for them but also for our staff as we work to assist the students with navigating through the courses and ensuring they have the tools needed for success.

One of the pieces that really stuck out to me is how much we may overlay our own ideas of the persons culture over their actions and let the stereotypes we know about the culture interfere with the students creating their own identity (Howard, 2003, p. 200). In some cases with my students, I assume the learning styles that I am used to and that our system of education will all work for them. I need to remind myself and the professors that the context that these individuals may be coming from could be quite different from what we are accustomed to. Getting a better sense of who these students are, how they learn and approach education will help us better serve these populations.

Garcia and Ortiz (2013) also forced me to pause and think through some of my actions and approaches to the virtual programs. Similar to above, the idea that intersectionality “makes possible the examination of the simultaneous interactions among race, class, gender, and (dis)ability for any individual child, family and community, as well as the interplay between these individual or group characteristics and organizational responses to them” stood out as an interesting dynamic that I had not looked at in this way (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013, p. 34).

What most stood out was this idea that there are so many interactions that go into not only who we are but how we perceive others and how our actions both take place and may be received. Within this, I was able to further draw parallels back to the work I do within higher education but also able to look across the W. P. Carey School of Business and think about how important this is in how we set up our courses, our processes for moving students through the system and the other interactions that play into graduate business student success.

I realize that I often get lost in my daily operations and interactions and forget to look more holistically at the actions and interactions within the day to day. Thinking through the research really put into perspective how we, as educational leaders, need to take a step back from time to time to see the full picture and how I can be more cognizant of my perceptions and how I present myself and my work to others.

References
Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research
in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2),
32-47.

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection,
42(3), 195- 202.

Reflection Starts with You

— by on — 2 Replies

Access, Excellence, and Impact

Howard (2003) highlights the need for critical teacher reflection in the article “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection.” He sets the stage by explaining the demographic divide and how “US schools will continue to become learning spaces where an increasingly homogeneous teaching population (mostly White, female and middle class) will come into contact with an increasingly heterogeneous student population (primarily students of color, from low income backgrounds.)” (Howard, 2003, p. 195) The author explains the importance of supporting teachers in gaining the knowledge and skills for teaching today’s diverse student community.

One of the ways Howard (2003) suggests acquiring the knowledge and skills for teaching our diverse learners is through critical reflection. He describes critical reflection as, “attempts to look at reflection within moral, political, and ethical contexts of teaching.” (Howard, 2003, p. 197) I can see how this type of reflection would be challenging. As teachers, we are familiar with reflecting on our actions and how it impacted student learning. However, this type of reflection requires much more than just identifying strengths and challenges within a lesson.   Howard (2003) pushes educators to “ask challenging questions that pertain to one’s construction of individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.” (p. 198)

This year I had an opportunity to participate in systematic reflection with colleagues. The experience was difficult but rewarding. We used journal writing to reflect and make sense of our experiences. Each session the facilitator would pose questions and give us uninterrupted time to write and reflect. One of the greatest gifts I received in this experience was the opportunity to go back and reread what I had written in my journal at different times throughout our journey. I could see how my thinking had grown and what I needed to do to move forward in my practice. During the systematic reflection, we were invited to share out with the group, but it was not required. I believe a similar format focused on critical reflection would be beneficial for teachers. The author refers to this format as race reflective journaling by Milner (2003) and further describes it as a “process wherein teachers are able to process issues of racial differences in a more private manner through writing as opposed to sharing ideas of racial and cultural differences in a more open and public forum that might be uncomfortable and difficult for some.” (Howard, 2003, p. 199)

I believe that race reflective journaling would be uncomfortable yet eye-opening for teachers and that is what is needed. It would force teachers to engage in an inner dialogue centered on race, ethnicity, social-class and gender and expose what Howard (2003) refers to as deficit-based thinking. In the article, deficit-based thinking is described as an authentic belief that students from culturally diverse and low-income backgrounds are incapable learners. (Howard, 2003, p. 197) My parents experienced the harmful effects of deficit-based thinking. Both my parents are second language learners. I grew up listening to stories about the difficulties they experienced in school as second language learners. As a result, they chose not to teach my brother and I Spanish. The language stopped in my generation because they saw it as a deficit.

I believe that the first step toward becoming a culturally relevant educator is to start with reflection and the article “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection” offers steps to consider, possible pitfalls, and the positive impact critical teacher reflection can have on our diverse student population.

References:

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Theory Into Practice. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4203_5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Enemy of Polygeny

— by on — 1 Reply

Analysis of Journal Article “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould

The aim of this blog is to analyze and evaluate the article The Mismeasure of Man (Gould, 1981), as it relates to this week’s theme, Balance and Scholar Identity. The importance of this concept is seen in every human being as we strive to maintain balance, and achieve our identity. Whether that identity is social, spiritual, or scholarly, it is important to establish one. The article from Gould’s 1981 publication was an excellent piece to explore and investigate, as it made me questions the origins of my own identity. As I read the article I was surprised, disgusted, angered and offended. As an African American male, it is very hard to imagine and accept that society identified African slaves, my ancestors, as descendants from an ape species.

Prior to reading this article I had very little knowledge of the concept of Polygeny or Craniometry. I found it very interesting that our Country’s fore fathers, held closely the idea that people of color were inferior and those devoid of color were created in Gods own image.

The Africans (slaves) and the indigenous Native Americans didn’t stand a chance at equality. Scientifically, the deck was stacked against them. Not only were we not considered equal, we were considered a different species. In Medicine Stories (Levins Morales, 1998), the author talks about how the slavers that kidnapped millions of West African people found endless ways to justify their behavior, even to the extent of claiming that slavery was a civilizing influence on the lives of the enslaved.

The idea of biological inferiority was common knowledge and was widely accepted by society, including our Country’s founders. These ideas were substantiated by science, research, and inquiry. Only one problem, the research was wrong.

Samuel George Morton’s was considered the most reputable and respected scholar on the theory of Polygeny. His theories were rooted in science. He studied Craniometry as the science to determine intelligence in different species. His research was extensive, but very faulty. Which led to an absolute incorrect premise that smaller skulls meant smaller brain capacity, thus less intelligent. Although his collection of human skulls was vast and he dedicated his life’s work to the idea that the Negro people were inferior mentally and physically, he was ultimately put to shame by his Mismeasurement of man.

In conclusion, I could not help but think about how this article relates to my scholar identity and my scholarly journey. Action research is a vital component of both. The article The Mismeasure of Man was a brilliant example of how quality research, data, and facts rather than faulty premises are so very important. If his studies were conducted correctly, good ol’ boy Samuel Morton, could have changed the perception of an entire race of people and possibly changed the course of history. Indeed, one of the core values of this program and my scholar identity is impact. The readings made me reflect on the impact of science and the public perception of people of color for centuries.

“There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” – Abraham Lincoln

References

Gould, S.J. (1981).  The Mismeasure of Man.  New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Levins Morales, A. (1998). Medicine Stories: History, Culture and the Politics of Identity. Cambridge: South End Press.

The Impact on Higher Education: Is Creating a New Doctoral Degree Worth it?

— by on — Leave a reply

After reading Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal by Lee Shulman, Chris Golde, Andrea Conklin Bueschel and Kristen Garabedian (2006), I pondered if a Professional Practitioners Degree (PPD) is a step in the right direction as  I agree that having a distinction between a PhD in Education and a Practitioner’s degree is important and relevant to the times. However, after much thought, I would argue that it is more of a hindrance.

One challenge that the article failed to develop was the difficulties in creating a new degree. The article mentions that creating a new degree lets one start at “ground zero” thus being able to create the exact degree one would like (Shulman, 2006). This statement seems to ring true, however it does not acknowledge the complexities of creating a well respected degree. A new degree lacks history, proven effectiveness, and quantity in field examples. How could one presume that a new degree without any standing would gain more respect in the academic community than the current degree already in place? What then happens to people with an EdD? Are they expected to go back and get a second degree to gain get more academic respect? Who is then in charge of making sure that the new degree maintains its intended integrity? All of these questions are rather large and unlikely to have an answer until a degree is implemented. In saying this I believe that revamping the EdD is the route to go.

In the past several years, large, prestigious universities began revamping their EdD programs – University of Southern California, Harvard, University of Washington, Vanderbilt. From personal observation, when large, prestigious universities begin to make changes, other large, prestigious universities begin to make similar changes. Thus, in this case, creating a national spur of revamping and redefining the EdD. I believe this rings true for ASU as well. A couple years ago, when I first started looking into ASU’s EdD, there were two different tracks. One was demolished and the program was remodeled. Part of the remodel (rumor has it) was due to budget constraints and for redefining the difficulty and purpose of the EdD. I dont know if it was mere coincidence, or just timing, but none-the-less the EdD at ASU is being redefined even if just for growth purposes. This would seem to support the ideas that there is a national shift beginning to happen in regards to reinvigorating the EdD programs. With this shift, it would seem better to keep the EdD rather than establishing a PPD.

References

Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from the ASU Blackboard database.

 

Self-Reflection and Cultural Relevance

— by on — Leave a reply

At what point will educators be mandated to assess their own personal biases before they assess the academic abilities of their students? Tyrone C. Howard’s 2003 article, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, truly resonates with me, as an assistant principal in a K-8 Title I elementary school. Throughout my years in the K-12 education system I have encountered the issue of educational inequity for my minority students and have often questioned what the school system can do to do create more culturally aware educators. In a diverse society we need to ensure that all of our students have access to education, which requires educators to be aware of the needs of their specific student population. I wholeheartedly believe that in order to create a school environment that meets the needs of our heterogeneous student population we must create “culturally relevant teaching practices” (Howard, 2013, p. 198). In order to make such an elaborate change we must ask our educators to go through a process of “critical reflection that challenges them to see how their positionality influences their students in either positive or negative ways” (Howard, 2013, p.198). This idea of self-reflection is required before we can begin to address an educator’s feelings about race, culture, and social class, which shape the ways they instruct their students.

As I have experienced in the past, teachers are capable of subconsciously projecting their negative concepts of culture and race onto their students on a daily basis, which can negatively impact a student’s level of academic achievement. Unfortunately, I have witnessed teachers who project personal biases onto their students leading to an awful crushing of young academic spirits. Stephen Jay Gould (1981) speaks to the idea that humans have battled with racism throughout history, in his book The Measure of Man. According to Gould, “racial prejudice may be as old as recorded human history” (p. 31). With this being said, educators need to be aware of their own possible prejudices and determine the best ways to adjust their ways of thinking as to not project any negative thoughts onto the students. As previously stated, the first step is self-reflection in order to first determine which prejudices each person possesses, allowing the educator to move towards lessening or even possibly eliminating such biases.

Although there is a clear necessity for teacher self- reflection, I continue to ask myself if teacher training programs can appropriately address the issue of honest, in-depth teacher self-reflection. Such reflection will require educators to come to terms with their own cultural identity and personal biases.Are we ready to have these difficult conversations? In order to see the change in teacher mentality, teachers will need to ask themselves challenging questions, discuss honest answers openly, and address any concerns discovered during this internal journey (Howard, 2003, p. 198). The question still remains, how will we integrate this critical self-reflection into our current teacher preparation programs and daily lives? Also, how do we determine if teachers are reflecting in an honest fashion that allows them to create teaching practices that are more culturally relevant? These are questions that we will have to address within our educational system immediately in order to ensure that our students are receiving an excellent and culturally relevant education.

In the United States we have a very diverse population, which affects our ability to give all students access an excellent education. We must devise ways to allow all students to access culturally relevant curriculum. In order for us to determine if a teacher is being effective in their classroom we need a way to appropriately assess a teacher’s efficacy. Leading to the question: How can we accurately assess a teacher’s value in our K-12 education system? According to Pauler and Amrein-Beardsley’s 2013 article, we must have random assignment of students in each classroom in order to analyze assessment scores by means of value-added analyses and interpretations. “Value added models (VAMs) are used to measure changes in student achievement on large-scaled standardized test scores from year to year” (Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley, 2013, p. 1). This measurement system depends on random assignment of students, which is not the case in the United States, so biases are inevitable in such a test score analysis technique. With this being said, do we need a better way to determine the quality of teachers or are we able to counteract the biases that exist?

References

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher

                      reflection, 42(3), 195­202.

Paufler, N. A. & Amrein­Beardsley, A. (2013). The random assignment of students into

                   elementary classrooms: Implications for value­added analyses and interpretations.                                 

                   American Education Research Journal, 51(2), 328­362.

 

Confronting Bias

— by on — 1 Reply

Issues of race have hindered students’ access to an excellent education. Gould (1981) pointed out that racism has been around as long as “recorded human history,” (p. 31) however it has only been in recent history that there has been a biological justification by scientists that attempted to make an argument that people of color are biologically inferior. This shows that there was ‘proof’ for racism that the scholar community provided. Even President Lincoln, who had respect for freedmen who fought in the Civil War, believed that “freedom does not imply biological equality” (Gould, 1981, p. 35). These beliefs, held by historically respected academics and leaders, are sure to have been passed on to many in society, both the educated and non. Therefore, we can infer that minority groups have been long viewed as not deserving of an excellent education.

Gould (1981) described that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that “arguments did not contrast equality with inequality” (p. 31). With that, we can see that equality and access are fairly new concepts. So, as a teacher who got into teaching to serve students of color who are mostly poor, I questioned, are educators concerned about making equality a priority? What can we do to ensure that educators are concerned about this? Garcia and Ortiz (2013) made it clear that educators need to think about students’ cultural context in order to make the right decisions for them, especially students with disabilities, but unfortunately do not. Instead, “researchers and practitioners tend to locate the source of achievement and behavioral difficulties within students, without examining performance in the context of teaching and learning environments in which that performance occurs” (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013, p. 38). As Howard (2003) made it clear that our future teaching force will continue to be mostly middle class women and that our student population will increasingly be low income students of color, it is important that our educators confront their biases in order to ensure that every decision we make is in students’ best interest.

The idea of educators confronting biases in order to be culturally relevant practitioners is something that must be made a priority.   As the EdD “focuses on preparing practitioners…who can use existing knowledge to solve educational problems” (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006, p. 26), I cannot begin to use this degree to solve the problem of early literacy for low-income students without examining the context that many of my students are living and learning in. For example, are they given the proper support at home? If not, are the schools supporting the parents with strategies to increase their children’s literacy? Last, are educators providing the right methodologies and interventions that respect the cultural context of their students? It seems unlikely that educators are currently making unbiased decisions with their students or even trying to. For example, in the study conducted by Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley (2013), the majority of principals were against randomly assigning students to classes, meaning that teachers and principals make those decisions. This means that students will undoubtedly be grouped based on many subjective factors, which will surely be somewhat biased.

Therefore, in thinking about my own research in investigating the best ways to teach students how to read, I will need to consider how and why students were grouped. I will need to consider their educational settings, such as Special Education (SPED) inclusion, English Language Development (ELD), cluster (gifted), heterogeneous, homogenous, etc. and the rationale for putting students into those settings. Lastly, I will need to look at the training and beliefs of the teacher to get a sense of why they are implementing certain instructional strategies. Overall, this week’s readings made me see that action research must consider the culture of students in order to actually make change.

 References

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47.

Gould, S. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Teacher Reflection and Race in Cultural Contexts, 42(3), 195–202.

Paufler, N. A., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2013). The Random Assignment of Students Into Elementary Classrooms: Implications for Value-Added Analyses and Interpretations. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 328–362. doi:10.3102/0002831213508299

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32. doi:10.3102/0013189X035003025

Critical reflection of identity toward access, excellence, and impact

— by on — 1 Reply

Knowing oneself intimately, in part through a practice of critical reflection – independently as participant in dialogic exercises with those whom you share a history and a worldview – is integral to becoming a socially responsible scholar, activist, or teacher.  This is a challenge we must pose to ourselves, as we embark upon our roles as educational leaders; regularizing reflexivity may make us more aware of our roles as learners ourselves, and our immense obligation to our students and our institutions to participate in a culture of excellence, providing all students with equitable access to fruitful learning experiences.  Parallels between the important messages of Aurora Levins Morales in Medicine Stories (1999) and Tyrone Howard’s “Culturally Relevant for Critical Teacher Pedagogy: Ingredients Reflection” (2003) emerge around one’s own identity and the relationships one has with content and their context, including the fabrication of “the other.”  The experiences, cultural traditions, positionality in terms of power and the socio-economic landscape, and education are part of what make up one’s identity.  These factors also cultivate the perspective, including judgments, biases, and imaginings, one carries with him/her.  Critical reflection is a “personal and challenging” process of looking at “one’s identity as an individual person and as an active professional” (Howard, p. 201), and that “gives attention to one’s experiences and behaviors, [wherein] meanings are made and interpreted from them to inform future decision-making” (p. 197).

 

My professional agenda involves developing a college preparatory independent learning program, delivered online, for grades 7-12.  It is precisely the broad acknowledgement that each individual student has his/her own context, impacting his/her learning needs, preferences, and abilities that led to this endeavor.  The new charter school is a part of the Arizona Online Instruction Program, and will attempt to support each student to clarify goals, connect academic expectations to nonacademic interests, and creatively pursue aspirations within the flexible program structure.  I recently engaged in research on online learner characteristics, which proposed that certain characteristics seem to lend to greater success in online education settings (or, that the absence of these characteristics may require more substantial or targeted support and intervention strategies).  This work helped me think about how I would build a program that understood and was designed to adapt to each student’s characteristics/context from the moment of our first meeting.  The combined works of Morales (1999), Howard (2003), Garcia and Ortiz (2013), and Gould (1996) have helped me see the immense value of my participating in the exploration of [my own] personal characteristics and how they may impact my performance as mentor, program advisor, parent counselor, facilitator, and administrator.

 

Howard quotes Palmer (1998) who wrote that “we teach who we are,” and “knowing myself is as crucial to good teaching as knowing my students and my subject” (Howard, p. 198).  It may be that our positionality enables a blindness to our beliefs and the behaviors that stem from them.  Teaching is not a neutral act (Howard, p. 200), neither is storytelling (Morales, p. 25).  Morales encourages us – scholars, teachers, socially-responsible citizens of the global society – to make ourselves visible (to ourselves, in our writing, in verbal our story telling), as she has chosen to do.  This, in and of itself, is an act of resistance against the dominant approach – the imperial history is one where the narrator is detached, and makes no explicit moral judgment, or demonstration of partisanship, though, this story is an unabashed construction of the oppressors.  For Morales, the work of the “oppressed” or the underprivileged breaking silence and voicing memories, experiences, including and especially about trauma, offers a pathway for collective healing, empowerment, and a way to restore our sense of humanity.  The author advocates for the crafting of “medicinal histories” which “seek to re-establish the connections between peoples and their histories, to reveal mechanisms of power, the steps by which their current condition of oppression was achieved through a series of decisions made by real people to dispossess them; but also to reveal multiplicity, creativity and persistence of resistance among the oppressed” (Morales, p. 24).

 

Morales’s “handbook” for medicinal histories recommends similar actions as Howard, the broad purpose for both seems to be to enhance the access to personal and collective narratives not born entirely from the dominant narrative, and enhance equitable access to quality education and to achievement, not entirely fraught with invisible devices of the privileged, that unconsciously or consciously deploy to impact learning opportunities and outcomes.  Morales urges the inclusion of nonwritten, and, for lack of a better characterization, nonobvious or mainstream media or sources of “evidence.”  By this she does not mean fabricating data to report it as science (which might invite the reader to recall the example of craniometry, which was hailed as scientifically justifiable in the nineteenth century (Gould, 1996)); rather, the objective is to offer a space or an ear to the voice of the silenced, which may yield a yet untold story or perspective.   She encourages proposing questions as an important investigatory tool, even very broad-based or seemingly unanswerable ones, as they can lead you in directions perhaps underrepresented in the dominant narratives.  The author contends that we perpetuate injustice by not revealing power dynamics and by not revealing the agency and the “real people” among the oppressed; the new narrative must be as complex as the reality it tells, embedded within and expressing connections from its context.

 

Then, it is up to the story teller to further make meaningful the narrative through careful choice of language and approach, and an understanding of the contexts within the audience – much like a teacher.  By not making accessible, which for Morales involves the actual “delivery,” or digestibility (p. 36) of the story, the narrator has effectively excluded some.  Sharing stories and working to understand each other’s contexts may help denigrate the myth of the monolithic oppressed or “unprivileged” class, reducing cultural variations, and rendering insignificant major differences within groups – including within one classroom.  As Garcia and Ortiz (2013) point out, “a master category like race/ethnicity fails to account for within-group diversity based on people’s multiple social identities” (p. 36), which, in the context of teachers and students, can have real impact on how educational institutions address the particular learning styles and needs of individuals.  Much as “ecology undermines ownership” (Morales, p. 100), because it is inherently full of highly variant, dynamic, and interrelated components, whole groups of people, irrespective of their commonalities, cannot fairly be referred to as a unit devoid of internal contradictions, inconsistencies, and uniqueness.

 

Howard is concerned particularly with deficit-based characterizations of non-dominant or culturally diverse students, suggesting that this may lead to the reification of these individuals as better suited for special or remedial education or even directly impact their achievement.  Culturally relevant pedagogy may well be a way to help “increase the academic achievement of culturally diverse students;” it “uses ‘the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant to and effective [for students]. …It teaches to and through strengths of these students. It is culturally validating and affirming” (p. 196).  Strategic critical reflection among teachers, facilitated by skillful and open teacher-educators is the neverending process that can engender culturally relevant pedagogy.  It must be guided by specific questions or foci, e.g. “Who am I? What do I believe? Does who I am and what I believe have ramifications for the students I teach?” (p. 199), the musings on which inform one’s behavioral modifications.

 

It is through purposeful critical self-reflection, along with iterative, reflexive, behavior change that we may be able to push back against the status quo to strive for excellence in our educational institutions, providing an environment better suited for all students to feel comfortable and to participate fully in the learning experience toward individual academic success.  At the very least, we can use this as a tool to interrogate that which guides our own behavior and the potential impact it has on those around us, particularly our students, and remind us that part of our identity is as active participants in the context within which we engage with our students and our schools.  Sounding the rallying cry of a sustainability scholar (which appeals particularly to me, having done my graduate work in sustainability), Morales writes that “the denial of our interrelatedness is killing the planet and too many of its people” (p. 14).  It is not just to the detriment of our ecosystem that we ignore the interconnectedness of all things, it is a social justice issue and truism that can guide teacher critical reflection.  Because of this role and our individual and collective desire to have a(n) [evermore] positive impact on our students’ intellectual pursuits and lives more generally, we have a responsibility to make visible the invisible, including things about ourselves, from where we came, our positions [of privilege], and interrogate and take action on how they affect our outlook and approach.

Garcia, Shernaz B.; Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. In The Mismeasure of Man (p. 444). Norton.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

Morales, A. L. (1999). Medicine stories: History, culture and the politics of integrity (p. 135). South End Press.

Who We Are…Culture and Education

— by on — Leave a reply

In the article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Reflection” by Tyrone Howard (2003), the author argues that in order for teachers to be most effective in teaching culturally diverse populations, they must first go through their own critical, self-reflection, with regards to their own cultural identity, and how that identity is reflected in their teaching style.

In addition to experience, education, training and a specific skill set(s), teachers also bring into the classroom their own cultural values, and cultural identity. According to Howard, teachers must “reflect on their own racial and cultural identities and to recognize how these identities coexist with the cultural compositions of their students” (p. 196). Only when teachers have an understanding of their own cultural identity, can they create a learning environment best suited for their students. Howard goes on to say “Effective reflection of race within diverse culture requires teachers to engage in one of the more difficult processes for all individuals – honest self-reflection and critique of their own thoughts and behaviors” (p. 198).

This was a powerful statement as I began to reflect on my own culture, and the how my cultural identity impacts me as an action researcher.

Having been raised in a predominantly Caucasian, affluent community, I have often thought back on how my own upbringing shaped my attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts regarding race, ethnicity and my own cultural values. As I now consider my own cultural identity, I wonder how that identity influences my ability to effectively, or ineffectively, engage students in the work that I do.

While I am not a teacher in the classroom context, I am an educator. As such, I can see how this information might also apply in my own work with students in higher education. While the aim of the article is primarily from the context of ethnicity, language and race, I wonder, to what extent, more subtle cultural contexts also play into the development of cultural identity. For example, how they were parented, the community where they grew up and the values that their community espoused.

Recently, I had the opportunity of working with a student who had been caught smoking marijuana. As I met with the student, and learned more about the context for why they made the decisions that they did, I learned that their family dynamic and community culture, partially formed the basis for their decision making process. The student was from a state where marijuana was legal. The student’s parents smoked marijuana in their home, and allowed their children to smoke at a young age. In her small community, it was common place to smoke socially.

While this situation does not fall into the cultural categories indicated in the article, I believe it raises further questions as to what other values and cultural identities should be considered when engaging with students in the work that we do.

Understanding my own cultural identity, and how that identity was reflected in those conversations with this particular student, impacted my ability to connect with and understand the cultural context for which this student came from, and ultimately my ability to engage the student in a meaningful way. In looking ahead to my own area of research, I wish to explore how meaningful conversations, programs, resources, and targeted outreach efforts improve retention in already at-risk students. Namely, low income, first generation, and students with disabilities.

While Howard focused primarily on the educational process and self-reflection of teachers and teacher educators with regards cultural relevance, I would suggest that those who work with students outside of the classroom, might also benefit greatly from critical reflection with regards to their own cultural identity and values.

References

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Know Thyself

— by on — 1 Reply
The famous maxim in its original Greek. (Photo Credit: etsy.com)

The famous maxim in its original Greek. (Photo Credit: etsy.com)

For the readings this week, there was a common theme between a couple of the pieces that really resonated with me, and probably because I see direct correlations with my field of study, which is education abroad.  That theme is identity.  Not only do I see a relationship to my field, but I find the theme of identity applicable to our course’s guiding question on access, excellence and impact. Let me explain…

In Garcia and Ortiz’s 2013 piece, Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education, their argument is that it is impractical to hope to draw conclusions or prescribe solutions when dealing with a disparate group of individuals; you must acknowledge that every individual is comprised of multiple identities which colors their experiences and how they perceive the world.  As they explain, “A master category like race/ethnicity fails to account for within-group diversity based on people’s multiple social identities. Concomitantly, the education system’s failure to account for within-group differences renders these sub-groups invisible, and increases the risk that some students with special needs are overlooked and may not receive services to which they are entitled” (p.36).  By choosing to examine a subset through the lens of just a single, superficial identity, such as race, we as educators, fail to acknowledge that what works for one member of that racial group might not actually be what is best for another member of that same racial group who also identifies with another subset.

When I think about this principle in my field, one example might be concerning the dearth of African-American participation in education abroad.  When we make sweeping generalizations that the reason for why this population is under-represented in education abroad is because of economic deterrents, we fail to account for other factors that might be contributing to their decision to pursue this opportunity.  Perhaps they also identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and have reservations about navigating another culture with this identity because of difficulties living with this identity at home. Or perhaps their parents never had the opportunity to study or travel abroad and so they do not even have the background from which to ask the right questions and start the research to take part in this opportunity.  The possibilities are as infinite as there are unique identities.

Perhaps more interesting to me, in terms of drawing comparisons to my field, was the 2003 article by Howard, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection.  In my current position, I lead our Student Orientation and Re-entry Team (SORT). The SORT team is responsible for organizing our students’ pre-departure orientation meetings before they depart for their programs abroad.  As recently as this past year, I had a quintessential light-bulb moment when I realized that we were going about preparing students for their short-term programs the wrong way.  We had been focusing on introducing students to their host culture when really, one cannot begin to understand another culture before one understands their own culture, and more specifically, their own identity.  In a similar fashion to Howard’s argument that teacher’s need to engage in critical reflection to understand the particular biases that they bring into the classroom environment, so to do our students who are going abroad need to understand who they are as a person and an American and how that will influence their perceptions and understandings of a host culture.

Therefore, identity is perhaps one of the central foundations of problems related to access, equity, and impact because it is identity which raises the questions of who has access, is there equality across all involved, and what is the impact for individuals?  In terms of education, identity seems as though it may forever be the guiding light to which educational leaders must continually return in order to solve the issues related to these areas.

References

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.  Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Intersectionality and Impact

— by on — 1 Reply

Impact

One of the readings from this week, Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education, was truly life changing and perspective altering (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013). This article was particularly eye-opening because it highlighted and delved into an area of research that I have rarely considered nor at the depth that the authors covered it. As a classroom educator, I’ve often considered my identity, positionality, the funds of knowledge that all stakeholders bring to the classroom, and even the power that I personally held by covering or not covering topics, the texts that were selected and even the people that I recognized historically. In the article, Garcia and Ortiz gather a arsenol of research to really support and propose a framework of intersectionality in research in special education. Through their article however I really have connected with the importance of delving deep into my many identities, the identities of my prospective research community, my insider/outsider status in relation to that community, my biases and stereotypes, the nature of my research, the appropriateness of the knowledge that is to be gleaned, and even who will benefit from that knowledge.

Garcia and Ortiz highlight the importance of this researcher reflexivity because of its nature to impact what we deem as important research, the methods we employ and even the communities we involve in that research. It is possible that my past experiences, skills, and knowledge base comprise, in essence, who I am and therefore who might or might not be integrated into this research that I orchestrate. The authors do an excellent job of highlighting that the inclusion or exclusion of certain subgroups extends our knowledge of them and builds on the holistic body of research that exists. On the flipside of the coin, if our research does not include certain peoples, our knowledge of them does not increase and nor does that information, perspective, unique knowledge become a part of our holistic knowledge from research.

The authors even highlighted an important element of value within the research community that stems from the What Works Clearinghouse which excludes interventions for ELL students that are performed in languages other than English (pg 39). This inherent valuing of interventions done in English over others that are performed in other languages hurts the overall body of research on supporting ELL students as it automatically excludes a whole other body of work that appears to not align with the organizations socio-political beliefs on language instruction. If The Clearinghouse is supposed to be a gathering of what works so that this information can guide political, district and school leaders in a decision-making process, then all interventions surrounding this population should be considered and analyzed.
Throughout my entire reading, highlighting and notetaking of this article I found myself continuously nodding my head in agreement, saying, “huh, hmmm, huh”. I really connected with the topic and found myself convicted in analyzing my own scholar/researcher identify closely, the community of learners who will and will not be a part of my research, the knowledge that I hope to glean, who will benefit from that knowledge and the methods in which it will be gathered. One question or nagging thought that has persisted throughout the article and continues to surface at the conclusion of reading it would be, when is it healthy or right to participate in research and when isn’t it and who helps to make that call? What if, in my researcher reflexivity, I illuminate areas of bias and stereotypes within my own lens, how do I go about remediating these deficiencies? How do I even notice that I have these? Is this something that can only be explored and identified in groupings of “different’ people? If I have biases, does that mean I should not participate in research at all, to some degree, or only in community of others? How do I move forward after my initial reflection and declaration of my position? Do I engage in this process at every stage of research seeing as that it is often the acquiring of knowledge and interaction with others that does alter one’s identity?

I guess the “bottom line” or greatest connection I feel as though I can take away from this article, is that I have a lot of identity searching and clarifying to do and that it appears that the only way that I can most “safely” traverse the difficult task ahead is to be transparent and in communion with many different people to engage in the reflective and growing process. Earlier, I stated that this article was perspective altering, which it has been, but even more honestly it appears to have been spring-boarding in its effect. It deeply causes me to ask, “What IMPACT will the act of my researching have? Really, what impact and why?”.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

— by on — Leave a reply

The ability to reflect and analyze individual actions or attitudes and behavior can have a significant positive influence on personal and professional growth.  Howard (2003) discusses the importance of having teachers participate in honest self-reflection and critique of their own thoughts and behaviors as it pertains to race in cultural contexts (2003). The goal of critical teacher reflection would be to give pre-service or practicing teachers a space to reflect on and analyze important issues such as race, ethnicity, and culture and recognize how their own attitudes and beliefs can dramatically impact outcomes for students. The act of reflection gives attention to one’s own experiences and behaviors. The meaning that is developed from the act of reflection can help inform future decision making (Howard, 2003).   Through this process, pre-service and practicing teachers can develop pedagogical practices that are racially affirming, culturally relevant, and socially meaningful. This type of awareness and development of culturally relevant pedagogy, I feel will help teachers provide equal access to education for all students regardless of their cultural or ethnic background. In the article, Howard (2003) discussed how Ladson-Billings (1994) argued that one of the key components of culturally relevant pedagogy is the authentic belief that students from culturally diverse and low-income backgrounds are capable learners and if students are treated in that manner, then they will ultimately demonstrate high degrees of competence.

I personally place a high value on teacher self reflection in all areas of teacher pedagogy for both pre-service and practicing teachers. When I think about my teaching experience over the last 13 years, I believe that my success has had a lot to do with natural reflection in my teaching experiences. While I feel that it is innate for most people to reflect on experiences, I think the real skill that brings reflection to life is the ability to honestly engage in reflection in a way that takes a critical look at personal beliefs or actions and makes use of the success or failure of them to make changes that will improve future experiences. Sometimes it can be true that a teacher may not recognize the key areas in their teaching where reflection is needed. This is where mentoring comes into play. Having a mentor to guide the reflection process is crucial for active reflection to be successful. My research interest is in the area of looking at the translation of knowledge and experiences from teacher preparation programs into successful teaching experiences for beginning teachers. For many of the student teachers I have mentored, the act of reflection seems to be a bit unfamiliar. Sometimes pre-service teachers place “blame” on factors that are seemingly out of their control when discussing a lesson that was taught or an interaction with students that may not have gone as planned. As a mentor, I attempt to help student teachers reflect on how their beliefs or actions may have impacted the lesson or the situation. In the area of culturally relevant pedagogy, and awareness of how your beliefs have an effect on your expectations and interactions with students of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds can help pre-service and practicing teachers avoid deficit based-thinking when teaching. It will also allow students to have access to an education that views each individual as equally capable regardless of background and sets a level of high expectations for success for all students.

References

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Self Reflection

— by on — Leave a reply

According to Tyrone Howard (2003), “the formation of a culturally relevant teaching paradigm becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, without critical reflection. The nature of critical reflection can be an arduous task because it forces the individual to ask challenging questions that pertain to one’s construction of individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds” (p. 198). As an academic advisor, I am often the very first person a new student meets upon being accepted to the university. Therefore, I am constantly mindful of how my past experiences, expectations, and biases can be passed on to my students which can result in a positive or negative first impression of the university on the part of my students.

This article was particularly poignant in that it identified a problem of practice and posed a relevant solution that can implemented in a variety of educational settings. The issue is that teacher-educators lack self-reflection in determining how their biases affect their pedagogy. The article posed the question, “what does race have to do with teaching?” Teachers generally build curriculum based on theory and desired learning objectives rarely considering the cultural and ethnic background of their students. While viewing students as learners, regardless of their cultural experience, is one way of leveling the playing field between students, it omits the tendency of students to relate principles to their own experiences. To remedy this problem of practice, Howard (2003) presents the notion of cultural reflection in which teacher-educators become culturally relevant by reflecting on their own experiences and biases in order to see how their position in the learning process affects the student in a positive or negative way.

Howard (2003) proposes a solution to the question at hand by suggesting that teacher-educators engage in a self-reflective process to examine their own biases and how their pedagogy and classroom environment are impacted by those biases. I agree with Howard’s point that the process of cultural reflection poses a challenge for teacher-educators because it forces them to question their own construction and ideas of students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Facing the arduous and possibly painful process of reflection in which the educator must identify the complexities of teaching students who are from backgrounds different from their own. Howard (2003) suggests the process is often painful because it forces the educator to recognize their views on cultural differences were instilled by family members who may have impressed their prejudiced views on the educator, which innately impacts the learning process in the classroom, especially for ethnic minorities.

Cultural reflection also requires that teacher-educators take personal accountancy for their own pedagogy and teaching methods (Ladson-Billings, 1995). While the district or university may mandate certain curricula and learning objectives in the classroom, educators must take personal action to ensure the academic and social competence of their students remains intact. This notion can prove to be challenging as it calls educators to find a balance between the student’s home life and school environment, however, doing so will produce students who are successful academically, are culturally competent, and socially equitable (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

As an African American, I greatly understand the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy in the learning environment. When I was in first grade my teacher sent me home with a homework assignment. The following week we would be studying the 1950’s in class. The teacher asked us and our parents to conduct some research about the decade, and come dressed in the fashion of the day to share with our classmates. The purpose of the exercise was for us to reflect on the “good times” of the decade and pay homage to the happenings of the era. Needless to say, my mother, who was a child during the ‘50s was extremely angry with this assignment, for the era was anything but “good times” for people of color. Sadly, the assignment objectives were completely lost on me as the cultural difference between my teacher and myself (family) were at odds. While the intent was not necessarily one of malice, the learning objectives were not socially, nor culturally relevant to me. Howard’s notion of cultural reflection could have been applied to this example resulting in greater impact for the classroom environment.

References

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagody: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.