In this paper I critically examine an article published in Radical Pedagogy, issue 4, number 2, by Faith Maina titled: The practice of teaching for social justice: Perspectives from an education research course. I project the author's notion of social justice on to education and the idea of teaching for social justice. The aim of this response is to bring to the surface interesting ideas about the present juxtaposition of teachers and teaching with learners and learning.
A Response to…
Maina, F. (2002). The Practice of teaching for social justice: Perspectives from an education research course. Radical Pedagogy, 4, 2.
Passages taken from Faith Maina’s article are shown in italics.
To… prepare individuals who will continually strive for personal growth and become socially conscious catalysts for change is a great and noble cause. There is only one cause I can think of that is nobler: That people have the ‘opportunity’ to continually strive for personal growth and become socially conscious catalysts for change. Between these two positions lies a great void filled with assumptions, claims, and misconceptions. The gap between these two positions is wide, indeed. It is a story about power, privilege, and greed.
It has often been agreed that education is not the social equalizer it is claimed to be; in fact, it may well operate as an agent of social inequality rather than one for social justice.1 If this is the case, and I believe it is, then what better institution than ‘education’ within which to examine this issue?
The author raises, and rightly so, the… construct of knowledge and the… control of knowledge as being at the heart of the issues of social injustice. For instance, the author includes Gaventa’s (1993) claim that… Research and the consequent knowledge generated has worked to make the power structure relatively more powerful and knowledgeable, and thereby to make the subject population more impotent and ignorant (p. 27). We all nod our heads in agreement; it seems so true – but not of education. What if I suggested that we contextualize this idea not within research but within the art of teaching? In other words, what if the practice of teaching has itself rendered ‘the power structure of teaching relatively more powerful and knowledgeable’, thus contributing to the impotence and ignorance of its subject population – the students?2
Harsh as the above may sound, such a position makes the condition of teaching authoritative. Can such a viewpoint be valid? Is the art of teaching not a humble pursuit taken up by good people? Is it not the act of bringing out the best in one’s students? Surely, teachers cannot be agents of injustice; they who create environments… where learning opportunities are equitable and where learners are physically and psychologically safe and secure (Bell, 1997, p.1).
Before pursuing this train of thought, it is first worth taking a minute to tease out an idea of what the primary purpose of education might be. Why? Because, education, if it is a generator of inequality, is likely to be a …complex and multiple instrument. However, educators most often would accept the more straightforward view that the primary focus of education is the learner. We could potentially extend this viewpoint even further to encompass a perception of education as creating a level of autonomy for learners – a sense that learners are responsible for their direction, learning discoveries, as well as decisions. It appears learners need to defend themselves against instructional exploitation (Giddens, 1994).
In supporting her teaching position, Maina (2002) reduces any opportunity for learner autonomy with the claim that… My responsibility is to create situations in which the students in teacher education are able to acquire the skills, knowledge, and resources needed to enable them to function in and out of each of these levels. It seems that in one swift move, students have lost their autonomy; they are inclined to accept, and are even convinced that they need help and guidance. I hear you say - of course they need help; no one can learn without help - is not learning the result of such help? No! Certainly not - surely you do not hold that learning is the result of help, or that learning is the result of teaching?3
What is teaching then? Is it an art, or a mode? Is it a culture? Or all of these? What is certain is (1) that it is based on the idea that students need to learn, (2) that there is a curriculum to be taught, and (3) that there is a belief that the teacher is a teacher. All these things are good and of vital benefit to the individual and society. Thus, the overall perception seems to be that teaching is a fine and prodigious thing; and that, perhaps explains why many teachers are so eager to teach.
So when the author says… When the students first enter my classroom, this is not a notion to take lightly. Students and teachers are clear about the inequality of power – it is a given! It seems to me the inequality of power is the basis of respect and the platform on which to learn. But does this view not contravene the earlier claims of Bell (1997) and in particular, Gaventa (1993) that… Research and the consequent knowledge generated has worked to make the power structure relatively more powerful and knowledgeable, and thereby to make the subject population more impotent and ignorant (p. 27)? And what of the claim…they have chosen to take the course because “it is a required course”. Under the circumstances described, how does a student assume any learning autonomy?
Given their obligatory participation, it is not surprising that the students… care little about the course materials and might be just as happy if they were handed a grade. This observation is not only interesting, it conveys an important message. In Maina’s class, it may well be that the students were asserting the view that something was fundamentally wrong with her designed learning environment. However, what the profession considers ‘good practice’ does not focus on the learner’s message,4 despite indications that this lack of focus can produce a serious problem… an attitude that is discouraging to the teacher. Hypothetically, however, there seems to be no need for concern about this problem because teachers have at their disposal well-crafted programs to bring about necessary changes in attitude and knowledge.
Teachers unquestionably accept that effecting such change is their responsibility for the same reason that they feel equipped to select appropriate learnable knowledge for their students. Because they are products of societies that have convinced them that they are privileged others in developing… consumers of knowledge (Leblanc, 2002; Girod & Cavanaugh, 2001; Insight, 1998). As for the students… they are products of an educational system that has convinced them that they are incapable of constructing their own knowledge and even when they do, that their knowledge is not valued. That is, they have been lead to think that they should content themselves by consuming what the “privileged others” have produced. It is difficult to counter such deeply rooted beliefs and assumptions.
Maina (2002) is able to meet this challenge by asking the students… to bring a piece of their autobiography to present during the following class. The term ‘asking’ is used, but it would be more appropriate to use the word ‘demand-expect’. In Maina’s teaching, for example, the said task is both generated and orchestrated by the teacher – it is her program. Therefore, it is difficult to perceive of the teacher as concerned about anything but the way students are following the program. What if the teacher, instead follows learning advances of the students?5
How disappointing it is to see teachers controlling their students’ minds6 … My students mirror their own society. The word used as in ‘my’ appears to convey a certain kind of assumption pertinent to personal ownership: . require them to…, I provide them with…, they are expected to…, students are also required to… along with a show of asymmetrical levels of power between this teacher and her students. It is without saying that the privileged power of teachers are felt by all students7 . For instance, the teacher expects students… to challenge existing knowledge systems by carefully looking at the questions that were asked when that particular knowledge was constructed, who benefited from that knowledge and whose values and beliefs are reflected in those questions. Why do teachers not realize a need to challenge their existing knowledge systems by carefully examining the questions following: 1) When was their particular knowledge constructed? 2) Who benefits from the knowledge of this course? And 3) whose values and/or beliefs are reflected in these questions?
Instead, teachers widen the void even further between themselves and students… teachers occupy that enviable position of being interpreters of knowledge for the next generation. Making this knowledge meaningful requires pedagogical skills that will serve all sub-populations equitably. An initial reading of these claims presupposes a discriminatory position on the part of the teacher. However a careful reflection on the statements produces a rather softer image of the teacher’s views. Yet if, as this teacher claims,… all students can and are capable of learning when provided with conducive learning environments, why is there cause for such concern? This is not to say that one does not wonder what will become of those who do not have access to such… conducive learning environments.
The author reminds us that students are temporal – they move on, and as teachers we are left asking… have I given them the skills, resources and knowledge to function as “social catalysts for change”? The answer is, of course… . don’t know. But… what I do know is that I have used the experiences I had with these students to refine my course syllabus for the incoming group. Thus, despite their seeming impermanence, students constitute a crucial component in teachers’ ongoing development of the art of teaching.
I developed an open ended questionnaire… asking the students to tell me to what extent they would say the course had helped them meet that desired goal; what activities would they say supported the pursuit of that goal and which did not. This questionnaire was administered to three groups as part of their exit evaluation.
Maina’s abstract leads with the statement... In this paper, I critically examine my own teaching. Yet Maina’s evaluation concentrates on student conceptions of her performance rather than any self-examination. It may have been more helpful for the author to have examined her teaching from the standpoint of having developed an open-ended set of questionnaires asking to revise her teaching methods, expectations of students and delivery styles, if at all possible.
The author, instead used a questionnaire based on the aim of the course as presented in the course brochure… four themes clearly emerged supporting the idea that consciousness regarding social justice has been raised during the course:
It is always interesting to read summaries of levels and types of change that teachers perceive students have undergone as an outcome of taking their courses. More often than not, the emphasis is on the assessment of performance rather than knowledge.8 As a teacher, I am always left puzzled as to what it is that allows teachers to think that skills used by students in their classes are newly acquired or developed as a consequence of their exposure to certain classes. For instance, the skills and attributes above may not have been learnt in this course. Rather, they may have already been owned by the students. It is, therefore, plausible to argue that the course simply required the students to engage such skills, and perhaps if they had not done so then their grades might have suffered.
Finally, in the opening section of the article, the author states that the intended aim of the program is to… prepare individuals who will continually strive for personal growth and become socially conscious catalysts for change. It would be unfair of me to ignore the evidence that Maina has included as support for this change. I feel that it is only fair to include here comments made by her students; however, I am unable to say whether these responses are simply replies that her students assumed were required (which is standard student practice), or whether they are responses that resulted from careful reflective thought representing the true feelings of students toward the program – given that the ability to engage in meaningful analysis is at the cornerstone of the course. I will leave readers to the task of making up their own minds on this issue. Remember, however, that these are professional teachers returning to college to pursue a Master’s degree. Further, it is also worth recalling the aim of the course: To equip the students with the knowledge, skills and resources necessary to undertake educational research.
As indicated above, what stood out in the students’ responses was that Maina’s students have distinct understanding of the program’s requirements as can be evidenced in the students’ written remarks. There was no indication, however, of whether any of the students were affected by any form of social injustice, which excited their interests; nor did any of the students offer ideas on how to situate their new learning in related learning contexts.
In this paper, I have described some of the challenges of students at the center of teaching. While some teachers are able to recognize injustices within the instructional setting, there are many who are less willing to accept that they have a responsibility to make needed changes. I harbor a disturbing suspicion that many teachers remain happy with the status quo.
As educators, however, we cannot afford to allow teachers with entrenched beliefs about the status quo to continue to maintain such beliefs because of the significant number of students for whom education is of tremendous influence. In my view, it is about time to give education back to learners. To make social justice a component of effective teaching seems, to me, to be a needed challenge, especially where teaching is a part of the apparatus that acculturates the young into civilized society. As teachers, we propagate the myth that learning institutions are democratic sites, where expected democratic values are taught and learned. Unfortunately, though, teachers as cultural managers tend to support those values that legitimize institutional role of education as a system of control and coercion (Chomsky, 2000).
Apple, M. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge.
Bell, Lee Anne (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell and Pat Griffen (Eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A.S. Wells (eds) Education: Culture, economy, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowles, S. and Gintis, L. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Chomsky, Noam. (2000). Chomsky on Miseducation. England: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cranoy, M. and Levin, N. (1976). The Limits of Educational Reform. New York: David McKay.
Gaventa, John (1993). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: knowledge struggle in an information age. In Peter Park, et al. (eds.) Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Toronto: OISE Press.
Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Girod, M. and Cavanaugh, S. (2001) Technology as an Agent of Change in Teacher Practice. T.H.E. Jourmal online. From http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=3429.
Green, B. (1998) Born-again teaching? Governmentality, ‘grammar’, and public schooling. In T. Popkewitz and M. Brennan (eds.) Foucault’s challenge: discourse, Knowledge, and Power in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gore, J. (1998a) Disciplining bodies: on the continuity of power relations in pedagogy. In T. Popkewitz and M. Brennan (eds.) Foucault’s challenge: discourse, Knowledge, and Power in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grace, G. (1985). Judging teachers: the social and political contexts of teacher evaluation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(1): 3-16.
Insight (1998) Good Teaching:The Top Ten Requirements. Newsletter of the Teaching Excellence Center, 6, (1). Rutgers: Camden. From http://camden-www.rutgers.edu/Camden/TEC/PDFs/Fall98__Vol61.pdf
Leblanc, R. (2002). Good Teaching: The Top Ten Requirements. Retrieved July, 2002, from http://airdefense.bliss.army.mil/woes/good_teaching.htm.
Maina, F. (2002). The Practice of teaching for social justice: Perspectives from an education research course. Radical Pedagogy, 4, (2)
Norris, N. (1991). The trouble with competence. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21 (3): 331-341.
1. See the work of Bourdieu, Giroux, Willis, Gramsci, Freire.
2. To understand this educational effect, see the notion of official power in the work of Apple, 1993, and the idea of cultural capital in Bourdieu, 1997.
3. See Green, 1998, for an understanding of the idea that teachers instruct and students need their instruction.
4. Go to the Website of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Institutional learning and teaching strategies: A guide to good practice (2000) http://odtl.dcu.ie/mirror/hefce/99_55.html
5. See Wright D'Arusmont, Frances. (1972) Life, Letters, and Lectures, 1834-1844. New York: Arn
6. See Gore, 1998. Discourse as an instrument of power - an analysis of eight techniques.
7. See the work of Bourdieu, Giroux, Willis, Gramsci, Freire.
8. See Norris, 1991; Grace, 1985; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Cranoy & Levin, 1976.
© Radical Pedagogy