…. Fundamental questions must be raised about what knowledge is produced, by whom, for whose interests, and toward what ends. Such arguments begin to demand the creation of a new paradigm and organization of science __ one that is not only for the people, but is created with them and by them as well. (Gaventa, 1993, p.40)
Russell Butson’s response “Teaching as a practice of social injustice: Perspectives from a teacher” has increased my awareness of invisible sites of social injustices in teaching. This thoughtful response has opened space for debate on what can really be considered as teaching for social justice within institutions that support social injustice in both policy and structure. The questions raised about my practice help me to reflect on “dark” and often “hidden” sites of injustices in my own teaching which hopefully will lead to improved practice. Butson has identified three major issues that impinge upon my claim of teaching for social justice. These are (1) teacher control of knowledge consumption, (2) teacher control of knowledge generation, and (3) education as an agent of social inequity.
Butson has an issue with teacher control of knowledge consumption, which he describes as full of “power, privilege and greed”. This description is shocking, but accurately portrays some of the harsh realities facing faculty members who have to work with institutional mandates and external standards that are based on programmatic curriculums. It is evident that faculty have the “power” and the “privilege” to make decisions regarding the content they teach, and sometimes the instructional methodologies used, but “greed” certainly does not characterize their teaching, particularly mine. The question is “greed for what? For more pay? For more privilege? Or for more power?”
In my case, I have always viewed teaching as a responsibility to help students “understand all types of knowledge” (Banks, 1992, p.5). As with Banks (1992-) “teachers should help students to become critical thinkers who have the knowledge, attitudes, skills and commitments needed to participate in democratic action to help the nation close the gap between its ideals and realities” (1992, p.5). Accomplishing this task is often a messy business as students negotiate and organize their own learning and understanding. At the end of the teaching and learning process, it is the student’s decision to “consume” the knowledge that makes meaning to him/her.
It would have been more helpful if Butson had taken the trouble to contextualize the knowledge base that gives rise to his questions, specifically regarding instructors’ levels of control over students’ minds. Until recently, the teaching profession has relied exclusively on knowledge generated by experts to the detriment of experiential knowledge. As Sargor reminds us “it isn’t the teaching profession that drives educational innovation, research and policy” (2000, p.30). When students who are also teachers come into the classroom, and believe that they cannot engage in research endeavors, there is a sense of powerlessness and lack of a sense of self-efficacy. This is what Gaventa calls the knowledge of the “expert” versus “personal” knowledge (1993). The question for me is, “how do we establish a balance?” Exposing students to “expert” knowledge does not sound like control to me; instead, it is a process of gradual empowerment for both “teachers” and students to take control of the knowledge that makes teaching and learning meaningful.
Effective reflection only happens when multiple perspectives are brought to focus. I, therefore, find it difficult to understand why Butson has a problem with using students’ thoughts and ideas as a way of reflecting on my teaching. To begin with, the first part of my article in question focuses on my personal reflections about my standing relative to my school’s conceptual framework. These reflections have helped me to break my teaching into three broad areas of fundamental importance: (1) critical consumption of knowledge, (2) critical production of knowledge, and (3) critical dissemination. Perhaps, I could have done a better job explaining those three broad categories in my publication.
The categories are interwoven into all my in-class activities to show commitment to student learning. Furthermore, there are the informal observations that happen in the classroom as different students negotiate their understanding of course content and the positive effects of their interactions. As Banks point out in reference to action-oriented curriculum, “[it] can best be implemented when students examine different types of knowledge in democratic classroom where they can freely examine their perspectives and moral commitments” (1992, p.5).
Perhaps, I need to refer to Katie’s example in my earlier publication for the sake of clarity. Katie’s comments mimic what Giroux (1989) calls an “approach that allows students to speak from their own histories and voices while simultaneously challenging the very grounds on which knowledge and power are constructed and legitimated” (p.150).
Finally, I have also in my teaching made listening a crucial part of the repertoire of tools I bring to the classroom. Listening to what the students say anonymously is a valid source of information in my reflective journey. I do acknowledge that students have the potential to say what the teacher expects them to say. Nevertheless, such socially approved behaviors occur as a consequence of the questions posed to the student. Could I possibly say I have never used such an instrument? It seems to me, nonetheless, that the voice of the practitioner would be silenced if students were not provided the opportunity to say what they know, and reflect on the knowledge assimilated. This could be what Gaventa refers to as widening the gap between the “student and the studied” (1993, p.30), a practice that is counter to knowledge acquisition in a just society.
The point argued by Butson that sounds somewhat naïve, and not well targeted is that education is the great equalizer. For example, in the introduction of my article I clearly recognize school sites where social injustices need to be challenged if we are to envision an equitable society. Could Butson have overlooked this point? Apple (1990) regards schools as one of the hegemonic institutions that help maintain the status quo: “Schools create and recreate forms of consciousness that enable social control to be maintained without the necessity of dominant groups having to resort to overt mechanisms of domination” (Apple, 1990, p.3). It would be unfortunate for educators to accept and be complacent with protecting the status quo, and ignoring the fact that “the kinds of institutional and cultural arrangements which control us were built by us. They can be rebuilt as well” (Apple, 1990, p.13). Against this backdrop, the very fact that Butson and I recognized teaching as probably supporting injustices is a step in the right direction. It seems, therefore, to me that Butson and I may need to intensify our commitment to the teaching profession (i.e., where necessary), and also strive to implement changes as to ensure that schools become both agents and advocates of social justice. Quite frankly, this belief in social justice is highly espoused in the conceptual framework of the School of Education at the institution in which I am currently employed.
Faculty will continue to tell stories of little accomplishments toward social justice that they are able to facilitate in their own classrooms. All said and done, reading Butson’s response has in many ways caused me to re-examine the way I view my students’ learning and my own approach to teaching; and for that I fault him not!
Apple, Michael (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Banks, James (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction and multicultural education. Education researcher, Vol.22 (5).
Butson, Russell (in press). Teaching as Practice of social injustice: Perspectives from a teacher. Radical Pedagogy.
Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: Knowledge struggles in an information age. In Peter Park, Mary Bryndon-Miller, BuddHall and Ted Jackson (eds). Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Westport: Bergin and Garvey.
Giroux, Henry & Peter McLaren (1989). Critical pedagogy: The state and cultural struggle. Albany: SUNY Press.
Maina, Faith (2002). The practice of teaching for social justice: Perspectives from an educational research course. Radical Pedagogy, 4(2).
Sargor, Richard (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria: Association for supervision and curriculum development.
© Radical Pedagogy