Teaching Teachers Cultural Responsiveness; A Response to Ana Maria Villegas and Tamara Lucas

I appreciated this glimpse into the world of my teachers that Ana Maria Villegas and Tamara Lucas' paper Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers gave me. Their recommended method of integrating culturally responsive pedagogy through all aspects of teacher education makes perfect sense to me. Through experience on the learning and teaching side of education, I know the importance of immersion for true lasting learning to take place. Instead of immersion, the authors call this strategy "infusion strategy whereby issues of diversity are addressed not only in specialized courses but throughout the entire teacher education curriculum" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.20). Another way of looking at it would be a sort of integrated curriculum, a philosophy my school and I both believe in. I can very much see my GSU experience reflected in the passage where the authors describe how "teacher educators can cultivate those dispositions [of change agents] by emphasizing the moral dimension of education, guiding prospective teachers in developing their own personal vision of education and teaching, promoting the development of empathy for students of diverse backgrounds, nurturing their passion and idealism for making a difference in students' lives, and promoting activism outside as well as inside the classroom" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.25).

I also appreciate the very pragmatic way this article is laid out, with the 6 characteristics of culturally responsive teachers broken down and explained part by part, and careful attention paid to all of the nuances of each part. I think the authors are sensitive to the weird condundrum many teachers find themselves in trying to conform to the system while simultaneously sticking by the type of teaching they believe in. "Sociocultural consciousness", for instance, requires teachers to critically examine the role schools play to "maintain structures that severely limit the probability of advancement for those at the bottom of the social scale" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.22). Furthermore, the authors assert that "built into the fabric of schools are curricular, pedagogical, and evaluative practices that privilege the affluent, White, and male segments of society" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.22). The necessity to challenge these inequities can put teachers in awkward or uncomfortable situations sometimes where they stand in direct opposition to what their bosses are asking them to do. However, as Villegas and Lucas say, sounding a bit like Bryan Stevenson, "Despite the discomfort involved, prospective teachers must be helped to recognize ways in which taken-for-granted notions regarding the legitimacy of the social order are flawed" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.23). It's a high expectation to hold teachers to just in the first of 6 strands, but so necessary. As Stevenson said in the Mays Lecture, “we have to commit ourselves to be uncomfortable” to bring about real change for society.

Strand 3, "Commitment and Skills to Act as Agents of Change" is also quite demanding of teachers, Villegas and Lucas warning "if [teachers] see schools through the rose-colored glasses of the meritocratic myth, they will unwittingly perpetuate inequities" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.24). "Good" teachers can't just rest on their laurels and spout philosophy about change, they have to actively use their power to pursue it. This is a delicate place we teachers find ourselves in, while at the same time in the practical world, we need to keep our jobs to survive. I personally had an experience where I was clumsy in walking this line, and got into some trouble with administration and parents for sharing my opinion with students concerning a controversial topic (I discussed it in this blogpost here). In many people's minds I overstepped my bounds, but I did so with the intention of being a committed "agent of change". I have mixed feelings about having to tread lightly around issues I find to be so important. My students and I had a wonderful conversation about civil rights last week, yet I felt like it was a mockery to not bring up the obvious relevant issue under our noses and happening right now in our contemporary society (marriage equality). What kind of teacher would I have been in the 60s when the administration didn't want me to talk about controversial issues like racial inequality? I realize that ethnic issues are probably easier for kids to understand and talk about because it's something they can see with their eyes and are surrounded by every day, whereas marriage equality is above many of their heads and beyond most of their personal experiences at this point in their lives. Nonetheless, it seems ridiculous to not bring it up in a conversation about who has power, who doesn't, what does it mean to have a voice in today's world, and what can we do to change the unfair things we see. Obviously, these are moments with my students that continue to surface in my reflections.

Just in strand 2 about "Affirming Attitude Towards Students" I made several connections to other thinkers we have encountered over the last semester. When the authors speak of "adding to rather than replacing what students bring to learning" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.23), Dr. Fisher's invisible backpack, Freire, and Trilingualism by Baker all pass through my mind. It is starting to feel like common sense, and the more I encounter this idea in new words, the more I can internalize it into my own practice. I think I am at a stage in my practice where my head has been successfully filled with lots of lofty ideas and goals, but I have not yet perfected enacting these ideas and goals in my daily practice. I noted a question to myself in the margin when Villegas and Lucas write "a central task of teachers who are culturally responsive is to create a classroom environment in which all students are encouraged to make sense of new ideas -- that is, to construct knowledge that helps them better understand the world-- rather than merely to memorize predigested information" (Villegas and Lucas, 2002, p.28). The question I posed to myself is "Do I do enough 'knowledge constructing' with my Language and Technology students of all ages? Or am I too far on the memorization side of the spectrum at the moment? As so many of these authors and thinkers have shown us, continued reflection on these self-probing questions is the most necessary part of creating culturally responsive teachers. I certainly have a lot of work left to do.

Reflecting on Pedagogies of the Poor and Oppressed; A Response to Martin Haberman

I have a lot to say and reflect on after reading Martin Haberman's The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching. (Click here to read the article). I was surprised when I noted the date of publication was 1991 because so many of Haberman's points are still right on target in today's education debates. He exposes many flaws of our current accepted, inefficient method of education (which he calls the Pedagogy of Poverty), even revealing the alarming fact that this method "is not a professional methodology at all" and "is not supported by research, by theory, or by the best practice of superior urban teachers" (Haberman, 1991, p.292). It begs the frightening question, What the heck have we been doing for the last 2 decades?! He even has the foresight to include "the technology of information access" in his list of "good teaching" features, saying "computer literacy-- beyond word processing -- is a vital need" (Haberman, 1991, p.294). This really stuck out to me as one of my many hats includes "technology teacher", yet in 2014 I still struggle with a lack of access to good technology resources for students to use. "Computer literacy" is as real and vital a need for students as ever, and majorly lacking in many environments, and yet Haberman gave us a heads up about this need 23 years ago.

Very clearly throughout the article, my Freire bell was ringing in the back of my mind. A particularly strong example is when Haberman describes the troubled dynamic in American schools, saying "the classroom atmosphere created by constant teacher direction and student compliance seethes with passive resentment that sometimes bubbles up into overt resistance" (Haberman, 1991, p.291). I have often considered Friere's description of social class inequities as larger examples of classroom infrastructures, where the oppressed are the students and the oppressors are the adults in charge. It seems both Freire and Haberman would like to resolve the imbalance in this dichotomy, and cultivate a class of empowered questioners and thinkers, where “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (Freire, 1970, p.80). Haberman's "good" teacher sounds a lot like Freire's "problem-posing" one, who “constantly re-forms his reflections in the reflection of the students. The students—no longer docile listeners—are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher” (Freire, 1970, p.81). This last Freire quote is one I use quite a lot, and I am happy to see the idea emerge in Haberman as well. Recognizing this idea's impact on me is also pushing me to turn the question back onto myself: How do I live out this practice of co-investigation when I show up to work each day?

Both Haberman and Freire acknowledge that bringing about the necessary reforms requires overcoming many obstacles. I saw a correlation between Haberman's description of the way students resist school reform with Freire's description of the oppressed doing the same. Haberman says that exemplary teachers "maintain control by establishing trust and involving their students in meaningful activities rather than by imposing some neat system of classroom discipline" (Haberman, 1991, p.293). Similarly, Freire says that “trusting the people is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change. A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust” (Freire, 1970, p.60). These quotes emphasize how reforming education is a lot like reforming oppressive society, and does not come easily. People's thinking stems from old habits and passed down stories (perhaps of the dangerous nature Chimamanda Adichie talks about in her TED talk discussed here?) People's minds on all sides, oppressor and oppressed, educator and student, must be broken free. As Haberman observes, the students themselves often work to maintain the ineffective status quo in education because their "stake in maintaining the pedagogy of poverty... absolves them of responsibility for learning and puts the burden on the teachers, who must be accountable for making them learn" (Haberman, 1991, p.292). This becomes instantly problematic by positioning learning as something an individual can make another do. It goes against everything Freire has taught us about resolving power inequity and honoring people's humanity. But students being stuck in this mindset about their own education is no news to Freire, who asserts that “One of the gravest obstacles to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it and thereby acts to submerge human beings’ consciousness” (Freire, 1970, p.51). In our floundering educational system, all of our consciousnesses have been submerged in the existing oppressive reality, and our job as reflective teachers is to get ourselves, our colleagues, our students, and their parents out of this dangerous cyclical mindset. 

As an educator, I think all of these readings encourage me to continue to challenge and ask questions of myself. It all connects to being a reflective practitioner and recording our reflections each day. To create this improved future that empowers critical thinkers, we have to be critical thinkers in terms of our own practice. We can't get too comfortable and fall into a routine, and fail to work each day to let students find their own voices and work to let those voices be heard. 

Teacher self-reflection is extremely important because reflection is the most vital skill we need to encourage in students. As Haberman says, "good teaching... is the process of building environments, providing experiences, and then eliciting responses that can be reflected on" (Haberman, 1991, p.294). I really wish more parents understood this, that quality thinking isn't always something you can average and score. When Haberman writes, "a fundamental goal of education is to instill in students the ability to use various and competing ways of understanding the universe. Knowing how to spell is not enough" (Haberman, 1991, p.293), I wanted to say CAN I GET AN AMEN? I sometimes feel awkward when a parent brings up their kid's spelling as a kind of major concern or measure of ability, because I don't find spelling all that important in the scheme of things, yet I don't want to disrespect the parent's values and concerns. This is why I love encountering my own thinking in the words of others, because it makes me feel more legitimate in my own stance. Reading Haberman's opinion about what really counts in a "good" education makes me feel less awkward in helping a parent recognize the difference between thinking and recalling. One of my major goals for myself in doing this Master's program is to professionalize myself and have the chops to really make my voice heard in the education community and increase my efficacy. When Dr. Lynch responded to my last Position Statement, she wrote something about the role of citation that has stayed with me since. She said when we cite, "it’s not just us; it’s also some widely accepted thinkers backing us up and nodding their heads with us. That lends us authority that we can’t create for ourselves in just a paper or two" (Lynch, 2013, Livetext). I love this so much because it makes me feel like I have an invisible army of smart people backing me up, who have made observations like mine and come to similar conclusions as mine, and we can all add our voices to this debate and hopefully eventually be heard. 

While singing the praises of reflection, let's not forget the illustrious Freire also values reflection as a tenement of good education, reminding us that “Attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects which must be saved from a burning building; it is to lead them into the populist pitfall and transform them into masses which can be manipulated” (Freire, 1970, p.65). This image of our children turning into objects that could quickly perish in the flames without the means to take control of their own futures is chilling, but Haberman is right behind Freire when he says "graduates who possess basic skills but are partially informed, unable to think, and incapable of making moral choices are downright dangerous" (Haberman, 1991, p.294), perhaps both to themselves and the world at large. My continuing question is what more will it take for us to heed these warnings from as far in the past as 1970?  It's a comfort to know my alma mater is making these ideas accessible to more and more practitioners, which I suppose leads me to my next move as a teacher: Keep the torch burning and keep learning about more thinkers who share my views, so we can add our voices up and start to be heard. Maybe in a few more years as we push into a new age of education reform, Haberman's paper written in 1991 (and Freire's in 1970 for that matter) will finally start to feel dated.

The Power of the Single Story; a Response to Chimamanda Adichie's TED talk

(This is a critical response to Chimamanda Adichie's TED talk, which you can watch HERE.)

I was very struck by Chimamanda Adichie account of being an African girl growing up in a literary world of European characters and problems. I thought it was fascinating that a Nigerian girl would write stories like the European British books she reads, but of course it makes perfect sense. We imitate what we see, and books are our earliest teachers about what belongs in books. In a small way I can relate to Adichie, because my early stories were also populated with kids on a quest, speaking in the English accents I heard in my books on tape. 

While Adichie's anecdote about her childhood expressions of writing is charming and innocent, it's also laced with a tinge of heartache when Adichie expresses her early understanding of books as things that had to be about foreigners. As a teacher, this reminds me of the great responsibility I possess to make sure my students have access to plenty of literature featuring characters like them. I like when Adichie discusses her mental shift in perception of literature and says “Girls like me… can also exist in literature”, and it's something I want to make sure all of my students grow up knowing. In my ever-expanding personal library, it's important I keep a keen eye out for books about characters of all flesh-tones, income levels, genders, family-types, and religions. I want to make sure my students know from the beginning that their worlds are worthy of writing about and books can feature people from all walks of life. 

When Adichie started discussing her childhood understanding of her family's servants as "poor," my mind instantly snapped back to Joyce King and her work on the African American narrative. Really what Adichie describes is a "poor" narrative, similar to Joyce's African American one, that through society's unquestioning acceptance of it, actually serves to dehumanize and undermine the progress of the people it represents. Adichie calls "pity" a "dangerous emotion", which led me on a whole spiral of my own reflections based on this assertion. I think I understand what Adichie means. While well intentioned, pity does not come from a place of seeking greater understanding or seeking to change, but rather of recognizing an "otherness" from yourself. The object of pity is something that lacks its own agency and cannot act on its own to change its situation. This is why the beautiful basket made by the poor family surprised Adichie so much, because their ability to work and create something contradicts the poor narrative that Adichie had accepted, and also challenged her pity. In another way, pitying another is also a way of accepting the status-quo; it's acknowledging your own helplessness to bring about change and indirectly choosing to do nothing rather than work for change. I think Paolo Freire has also reflected on the danger of pity, and he nods his head along with Adichie when he says that “Pedagogy which begins with the egoistic interests of the oppressors (an egoism cloaked in the false generosity of paternalism) and makes of the oppressed the objects of its humanitarianism, itself maintains and embodies oppression” (Freire, 1970, p.54).

When Adichie describes being on the other end of that pity when she went away to school, I made a connection to my own experiences and values about education. Mainly, that children should be taught about other cultures and languages, and if at all possible, enabled to spend time immersed in a way of life different from the one they grew up with. I know that this is only possible for a lucky few, but it is one of my goals in the future to work to provide more people from different incomes the opportunity to have this type of experience. Adichie is a perfect example of what it can do for a person's mindset and understanding of the world, as her experience being a foreigner helped her see her own thinking in a new light, and change her perceptions for the better. My mom has told me my whole life about how we all have our subconscious biases, and some of our life's work is to figure out what those are and confront them. Adichie adds that these biases stem from stories we’ve grown up hearing. As she so eloquently puts it, “show a people as one thing over and over and that’s what they become.” I've thought about this in the classroom when I represent other cultures and ways of life. I'm constantly wondering if I am presenting a three dimensional picture, or accidentally straying into stereotypes or repetitive stories like the ones Adichie finds to be so dangerous. I remember when I was growing up, I was surprised to learn that Native Americans today typically don't run barefoot in the woods communing with deer spirits. I think this is an example of what Adichie is talking about, as I only heard one type of story about these people and this compartmentalized them in my mind as these mystical "others" from another time and place, without considering who and where these very real people are today.

My students and I have been talking for several weeks now about "power" and what it means to have a "voice" in a figurative way. I would like to add to our definition what Adichie says, which is that Power is the ability to tell a story of another person and make it the definitive story of that person. What clearer way is there of being "voiceless" than to have your own story told by another? I'm sure in many ways this contributed to my lapse in understanding of Native Americans as the complex and real human people they are. Of course it is better for the colonialists who marginalized these people to tell the story of their majestic folktale past than of their turbulent, controversial recent history, which paints the story-tellers in a less than flattering light.

Adichie says that a “single story… robs people of their humanity" but also that stories can be used to empower. I think this is where the teacher comes in. By constantly helping children to think critically about the stories they are told, and to ask more questions about who is telling and why, the dangerous "one" stories will begin to lose their power. Through critical literacy, I think it's possible for a teacher to help bring up a generation of people who never accept a single story about anything, and perhaps even "regain paradise" as Adichie hopes.