Theoretical Framework:
Multicultural social justice education, identity development theory, and culturally responsive pedagogy
Multicultural Social Justice Education
“In what ways do schools themselves help to produce patterns of institutional discrimination, and how can those processes be interrupted? …[Multicultural social justice education is built upon] the belief that schools in a democracy can and should prepare citizens to work actively and collectively on problems facing society. …[I]ndividuals will have to work for change… [and] the school is an ideal place for young people to learn collectively how to make an impact on social institutions. …Thus, the multicultural social justice approach holds that the school should consciously and actively teach and model participatory democratic living and that the entire school experience should be reoriented to address difference and justice based on race, social class, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion, and gender, both locally and globally. …It teaches students about justice and power, encourages them to be aware that the ‘isms’ (e.g., racism, sexism) are continually being redefined in order to continue existing as society changes, fosters an appreciation and acceptance of the diverse peoples around the globe, and teaches political action skills and a consciousness that affirms human worth” (Grant and Sleeter 2009).
“There may be times when we encounter discrimination and are unable to do anything to stop. But may there never be a time when we encounter discrimination and do not call it by its ugly name” – Dr. Patricia Marshall, 2013
Racial Identity Development Theory
“It is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false; it is that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false” (Roediger 1991).
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
“Culturally responsive teaching is an approach to teaching that incorporates attributes, characteristics, or knowledge from student’s cultural background into the instructional strategies and course content in an effort to improve educational outcomes. One of the primary ideas behind culturally responsive pedagogy is to create learning environments that allows students to utilize cultural elements, capital cultural, and other recognizable knowledge that they are familiar with to learn new content and information in order to enhance their schooling experience and academic success. …Culturally responsive pedagogy is situated in a framework that recognizes the rich and varied cultural wealth, knowledge, and skills that diverse students bring to schools, and seeks to develop dynamic teaching practices, multicultural content, multiple means of assessment, and a philosophical view of teaching that is dedicated to nurturing students’ academic, social, emotional, cultural, psychological, and physiological well being. Culturally responsive teaching operates from a framework that much of the curriculum, instructional approaches, and assessment mechanisms that are used in U.S. schools are steeped in mainstream ideology, language, norms, and examples which often time place culturally diverse students at a distinct educational disadvantage.” (Howard 2012).
“Successful instruction is constant, rigorous, integrated across disciplines, connected to students’ live cultures, connected to their intellectual legacies, engaging, and designed for critical thinking and problem solving that is useful beyond the classroom. …[W]e must learn who the children are and not focus on what we assume them to be – at risk, learning disabled, unmotivated, defiant, behavioral disordered, etc. This means developing relationships with our students and understanding their political, cultural, and intellectual legacy” (Delpit 2012).
“In what ways do schools themselves help to produce patterns of institutional discrimination, and how can those processes be interrupted? …[Multicultural social justice education is built upon] the belief that schools in a democracy can and should prepare citizens to work actively and collectively on problems facing society. …[I]ndividuals will have to work for change… [and] the school is an ideal place for young people to learn collectively how to make an impact on social institutions. …Thus, the multicultural social justice approach holds that the school should consciously and actively teach and model participatory democratic living and that the entire school experience should be reoriented to address difference and justice based on race, social class, language, disability, sexual orientation, religion, and gender, both locally and globally. …It teaches students about justice and power, encourages them to be aware that the ‘isms’ (e.g., racism, sexism) are continually being redefined in order to continue existing as society changes, fosters an appreciation and acceptance of the diverse peoples around the globe, and teaches political action skills and a consciousness that affirms human worth” (Grant and Sleeter 2009).
“There may be times when we encounter discrimination and are unable to do anything to stop. But may there never be a time when we encounter discrimination and do not call it by its ugly name” – Dr. Patricia Marshall, 2013
Racial Identity Development Theory
“It is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false; it is that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false” (Roediger 1991).
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
“Culturally responsive teaching is an approach to teaching that incorporates attributes, characteristics, or knowledge from student’s cultural background into the instructional strategies and course content in an effort to improve educational outcomes. One of the primary ideas behind culturally responsive pedagogy is to create learning environments that allows students to utilize cultural elements, capital cultural, and other recognizable knowledge that they are familiar with to learn new content and information in order to enhance their schooling experience and academic success. …Culturally responsive pedagogy is situated in a framework that recognizes the rich and varied cultural wealth, knowledge, and skills that diverse students bring to schools, and seeks to develop dynamic teaching practices, multicultural content, multiple means of assessment, and a philosophical view of teaching that is dedicated to nurturing students’ academic, social, emotional, cultural, psychological, and physiological well being. Culturally responsive teaching operates from a framework that much of the curriculum, instructional approaches, and assessment mechanisms that are used in U.S. schools are steeped in mainstream ideology, language, norms, and examples which often time place culturally diverse students at a distinct educational disadvantage.” (Howard 2012).
“Successful instruction is constant, rigorous, integrated across disciplines, connected to students’ live cultures, connected to their intellectual legacies, engaging, and designed for critical thinking and problem solving that is useful beyond the classroom. …[W]e must learn who the children are and not focus on what we assume them to be – at risk, learning disabled, unmotivated, defiant, behavioral disordered, etc. This means developing relationships with our students and understanding their political, cultural, and intellectual legacy” (Delpit 2012).
Pivotal Texts, Resources, and Coursework
While James A. Banks’ (2004) seminal writing, defining
Multicultural Education as an instructional approach and as a field of
educational study, served as the foundation for my theoretical understanding,
the work of Grant and Sleeter (2009) opened my eyes as to how to put the
dimensions of Multicultural Education into action in my classroom. Their “Classroom and School Assessment” (pp.
190-192) became the basis of my own action research project (“A Strategy for
Assessing School Culture and Gender Regimes”), and their chapters on the social
justice approach to implementing Multicultural Education helped me shape my
practice and understand the importance of action as a key component to
meaningful learning.
J. J. Scheurich’s (1993) “Toward a White Discourse on White Racism,” and Peggy McIntosh’s (1989) “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack” aided my movement among statuses of White racial identity (Helms 1995) from “disintegration” to “pseudo-independence.” However, my movement to the “immersion/emersion” status, and eventually to the status of “autonomy,” was facilitated through my ongoing experiences reading Noel Ignatiev’s (1997) work with the “Race Traitor” movement, as well as the writing of David Roediger (1991) and James Baldwin (1963).
When I first read Donna Beegle’s (2003) “Overcoming the Silence of Generational Poverty,” I was moved to consider, for possibly the first time, my history as a child of a family of poverty who just happened to have access, through my mother’s career as a church minister, to the resources of middle and upper-middle class families. This text inspired several meaningful discussions with my family that are still incredibly vibrant in my mind as I reflect on my journey to becoming a Social Justice Educator. Beegle’s writing also helped me link cycles of poverty with an increased need for literacy skills support. This was the first time I recognized Multicultural Education as a concrete influence on the instructional strategies I would utilize in my classroom.
Tyrone Howard (2012), Gloria Ladson Billings (1994), and Geneva Gay (2000) each helped me to define culturally responsive pedagogy and its importance in combating hegemony in schools’ explicit and implicit curricula, but it was Lisa Delpit’s (2012) Multiplication is for White People: Raising Expectations for Other People’s Children that gave me a well-rounded understanding of what culturally responsive teaching looked like, in action. Her emphasis on high expectations and critical thinking for all students, situated in their own “legacies” (p. 38) helped me envision myself as a responsive teacher in a relevant classroom.
J. J. Scheurich’s (1993) “Toward a White Discourse on White Racism,” and Peggy McIntosh’s (1989) “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack” aided my movement among statuses of White racial identity (Helms 1995) from “disintegration” to “pseudo-independence.” However, my movement to the “immersion/emersion” status, and eventually to the status of “autonomy,” was facilitated through my ongoing experiences reading Noel Ignatiev’s (1997) work with the “Race Traitor” movement, as well as the writing of David Roediger (1991) and James Baldwin (1963).
When I first read Donna Beegle’s (2003) “Overcoming the Silence of Generational Poverty,” I was moved to consider, for possibly the first time, my history as a child of a family of poverty who just happened to have access, through my mother’s career as a church minister, to the resources of middle and upper-middle class families. This text inspired several meaningful discussions with my family that are still incredibly vibrant in my mind as I reflect on my journey to becoming a Social Justice Educator. Beegle’s writing also helped me link cycles of poverty with an increased need for literacy skills support. This was the first time I recognized Multicultural Education as a concrete influence on the instructional strategies I would utilize in my classroom.
Tyrone Howard (2012), Gloria Ladson Billings (1994), and Geneva Gay (2000) each helped me to define culturally responsive pedagogy and its importance in combating hegemony in schools’ explicit and implicit curricula, but it was Lisa Delpit’s (2012) Multiplication is for White People: Raising Expectations for Other People’s Children that gave me a well-rounded understanding of what culturally responsive teaching looked like, in action. Her emphasis on high expectations and critical thinking for all students, situated in their own “legacies” (p. 38) helped me envision myself as a responsive teacher in a relevant classroom.
Theory to Practice: "Social Diversity" in Action
Ending the cycle of stigma in sex education and education on transmittable diseases
In a course under Dr. Paul Bitting, entitled “Education and Social Diversity” (ELP 515), I completed an extensive research survey and led a multimedia presentation-workshop for soon-to-be-licensed school administrators, examining sex education policies and approaches and their problematic representations of diverse populations. Developed mainly around science and health educators’ habits of presenting students with information about HIV and AIDS, my work proposed that social stigmas surrounding sexually transmitted infections are a major contributing factor to these diseases’ continuing prevalence among young Americans and may be the direct result of the attitudes fostered in schools’ sex education modules. With these claims, I challenged the seeming discrepancies between national and international data trends, local policies and state laws regarding sex education, and the discomfort felt by many American adults and educators in discussing sex-related topics with adolescent students. I illustrated the stigmatization that has inhibited people living with HIV and AIDS and its root in media and culture. Finally, I offered an action plan for school leaders and educators to, first, reconsider the language and imagery used in discussions of sexually transmitted illnesses, second, commit to combating stigma as it arises in the classroom and student attitudes, and, third, promote a “critical consciousness” (Campbell 2005) of stigma, its sources, meanings, and impacts, and of safety.
In a Forensic Science elective course that I am currently re-developing for my school, I have designed and implemented an American Red Cross-credentialed blood-borne pathogens and disease transmission prevention training program for students who will be working in lab environments which include human body fluids. This training program, integrated within the regular content of the course, follows an anti-stigma approach. To ensure that students recognize the genuine danger of pathogen hazards in a non-stigmatizing context, students are challenged to uncover misconceptions of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis A, B, and C, and other blood-borne illnesses. These misconceptions are also paired with a critical discussion of how these illnesses are represented in media sources as well as students’ personal understandings and previous sex education experiences. Together, teachers and students take the time to appropriately identify the hazards of communicable diseases, the wealth of opportunities for medical and other professionals to utilize effective, preventative precautions, and the dangers that stigma and sources of stigma represent for the reduction of disease transmission, especially among adolescents.
In a course under Dr. Paul Bitting, entitled “Education and Social Diversity” (ELP 515), I completed an extensive research survey and led a multimedia presentation-workshop for soon-to-be-licensed school administrators, examining sex education policies and approaches and their problematic representations of diverse populations. Developed mainly around science and health educators’ habits of presenting students with information about HIV and AIDS, my work proposed that social stigmas surrounding sexually transmitted infections are a major contributing factor to these diseases’ continuing prevalence among young Americans and may be the direct result of the attitudes fostered in schools’ sex education modules. With these claims, I challenged the seeming discrepancies between national and international data trends, local policies and state laws regarding sex education, and the discomfort felt by many American adults and educators in discussing sex-related topics with adolescent students. I illustrated the stigmatization that has inhibited people living with HIV and AIDS and its root in media and culture. Finally, I offered an action plan for school leaders and educators to, first, reconsider the language and imagery used in discussions of sexually transmitted illnesses, second, commit to combating stigma as it arises in the classroom and student attitudes, and, third, promote a “critical consciousness” (Campbell 2005) of stigma, its sources, meanings, and impacts, and of safety.
In a Forensic Science elective course that I am currently re-developing for my school, I have designed and implemented an American Red Cross-credentialed blood-borne pathogens and disease transmission prevention training program for students who will be working in lab environments which include human body fluids. This training program, integrated within the regular content of the course, follows an anti-stigma approach. To ensure that students recognize the genuine danger of pathogen hazards in a non-stigmatizing context, students are challenged to uncover misconceptions of HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis A, B, and C, and other blood-borne illnesses. These misconceptions are also paired with a critical discussion of how these illnesses are represented in media sources as well as students’ personal understandings and previous sex education experiences. Together, teachers and students take the time to appropriately identify the hazards of communicable diseases, the wealth of opportunities for medical and other professionals to utilize effective, preventative precautions, and the dangers that stigma and sources of stigma represent for the reduction of disease transmission, especially among adolescents.
Position Statement:
The subtext of sex ed: The real message of American sex education |
Stigma awareness workshop for school leaders:
An anti-stigma approach science and health instruction Discussion guide for participants Resource 1: What is stigma? Resource 2: Where does stigma come from? Resource 3: What is the impact of stigma? Resource 4: An action plan for eliminating HIV/AIDS-related stigma |
|
|
|
Rooting out heteronormative language and gender regimes in schools and science instruction
For my first three years in the classroom, I was assigned to teach almost exclusively Chemistry. In my third year of teaching this class, I was challenged by readings and coursework for graduate classes on Multicultural Education (ECI 500 and ECI 607), under Dr. Patricia Marshall, that brought to my attention the heteronormative nature of many of the illustrations and metaphors I often referenced in my teaching. I began to question much of the language and imagery around me that might also be reinforcing the hegemony of male-female gender and relationship dualities.
As a gay man raised by a single mother, I was frustrated by my own dysconscious willingness to propagate traditional assumptions that were exclusive of me and my own family experience. I was spurred to complete an independent action research project to better understand the roots of gender regimes (Connell 1987, 2002) in our schools and in the broader society, their presence in my own classroom and school community, and strategies for combating these normative social forces. The product of this action research was an in-progress survey that I could personally use to reflect on my classroom practices, and eventually provide for other teachers and school leaders to begin assessing the culture of gender representation in their own school communities.
The less formalized products of this action research have been an elimination of exclusively male-female relationship metaphors in my teaching and the choice to explicitly challenge gender and relationship normative language and actions among my students and in my classroom. I have made a visible habit of identifying “gender regimes in action” in our school and community (especially if I am their source!) and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. The visibility of these personal choices have initiated an ongoing conversation among my colleagues about gender normative and heteronormative structures in our schools and the need to provide explicit and implicit support for our students who identify as LGBTQ+A (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer, and Allies to this community).
At the beginning of this school year, I began working with my school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), a student-run organization that serves as both a safe place for expression and affirmation of every individual, and a voice in our school community for the rights and safety of students who identify as or are assumed to be a part of the LGBTQ+A community. For the school’s fifth annual International Festival, I worked with GSA student members to create an interactive exhibit entitled “Are you an Ally?” The exhibit was designed to educate students about the positive presence of the LGBTQ+A community among them, the social and political inequality facing this community around the world, and the role of ally that heterosexual students can play to promote their school as a safe, accepting, and affirming place for all young people. Students signed pledge cards to act as an ally for LGBTQ+ students, and added their pledge to a map, representing their role in the larger school community.
At the beginning of this school year, I began working with my school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), a student-run organization that serves as both a safe place for expression and affirmation of every individual, and a voice in our school community for the rights and safety of students who identify as or are assumed to be a part of the LGBTQ+A community. For the school’s fifth annual International Festival, I worked with GSA student members to create an interactive exhibit entitled “Are you an Ally?” The exhibit was designed to educate students about the positive presence of the LGBTQ+A community among them, the social and political inequality facing this community around the world, and the role of ally that heterosexual students can play to promote their school as a safe, accepting, and affirming place for all young people. Students signed pledge cards to act as an ally for LGBTQ+ students, and added their pledge to a map, representing their role in the larger school community.
Using media and research to challenge racial and socioeconomic inequities in American criminal justice
In an effort to situate a hugely-popular Forensic Science elective course in the broader social and political context of the American system of criminal justice, I introduced students to a series of resources that highlighted problematic outcomes of law enforcement and legal system norms in our country. These resources included a PBS Frontline documentary about correlations between race, social class, and pressures to enter guilty pleas in early court hearings, Michelle Alexander’s (2012) controversial text, The New Jim Crow, proposing that Richard Nixon’s 1970s War on Drugs was intended to be and continues to serve as a method of maintaining racial inequalities in the post-segregation era, and historical case studies such as the 1960s trial and conviction of American boxer Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, and the 1913 trial of Leo Frank that demonstrated racial and anti-Semitic tensions in the post-Civil War south. Students were challenged to critique these sources and to consider their own perspectives and experiences.
In response to this in-depth discussion of the larger system into which Forensic Science plays, students were asked to conduct a research project of their own, critically examining an issue they saw in the American criminal justice system. Students were challenged to present the varying perspectives on complex issues from the prevalence and treatment of prison inmates with mental illnesses, to the social and media imagery surrounding domestic violence, to the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, claiming that accessible, legalized abortion is the most reliable crime prevention strategy available to American law makers and officers. These presentations consistently inspired serious discussion among students, challenging one another’s and their own prior perspectives, and questioning the roots of those points of view in their own upbringing and life experience. Students each followed their issue presentations with a personal writing assignment to argue, with evidence and explicit reasoning, their own position. Over the course of the school year, these presentations, discussions, and position papers created a culture of critical consciousness among the students, surrounding the question: “In what ways does the American criminal justice system serve to reinforce social inequities in our society?”