Critical Pedagogy: Teachers Can Learn to Teach from their Diverse Students, An Analysis of “Whiteness” in the Classroom.

Critical Pedagogy: Teachers Can Learn to Teach from their Diverse Students, An Analysis of “Whiteness” in the Classroom.

“When language is controlled in schools, thought is controlled in the future.” (Wink, 2005) Many of us start out as new teachers thinking, “I know my subject matter, these kids will do it the right way!” We attempt to control every word we utter, and every response we elicit. Somewhere along the way we realize that we are losing the battle with some, if not all, of our students. We try to control them more, hold them faster to the rules and the standards we’ve always known are tried and true, resulting in even more rebellion and lack of enthusiasm from our students. “Conventional pedagogy models that teach us to ‘maintain control and order’ do not allow us to conceptualize success as a somewhat unsettled classroom.” (O’Brien, 2004) We find ourselves in a power struggle, and when the students feel like they have nothing to lose because they have no future anyway, learning does not get done.
Lisa Delpit (2006) lists these rules regarding the dynamics of power in the classroom:

1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms.
2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a “culture of power.”
3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.
4. If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier.
5. Those with power are frequently least aware of—are least willing to acknowledge—its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence. (p. 24)

These dynamics do not always involve cultural diversity, such as in the case of a white teacher teaching a classroom full of black students. But there are lessons inherent in this racial interaction that teachers must learn in order to balance the weight of power back into the hands of the students, where it belongs. “The teacher cannot be the only expert in the classroom. To deny students their own expert knowledge is to disempower them.” (Delpit, 2006)

Regardless of whether you are Black or White, an individual’s political point of view is heavily influenced by their own native culture. It requires a high degree of introspection and reflection to be able to see another individual’s point of view. It requires, additionally, a lengthy and thorough analysis of each opposing points of view in order to reconcile them. And finally, it requires sensitivity, empathy, creativity, and an open mind in order to create an environment where both points of view can be shared without conflict. “Teachers who are not truly self-reflective, teachers who fail to challenge their own cultural notions, assumptions, and biases will recreate oppressive models; this is not necessarily intentional. It is the inexorable influence of white supremacy in an inherently racist culture, and it can be extremely subtle.” (Featherston & Ishibashi, 2004) In the modern, multi-cultural classroom, teachers are the ones who require all of these things in order to provide a safe, stable, learning environment for all students regardless of their cultural heritage and political point of view.

The authors responsible for the materials for this course have demonstrated a deep understanding of all of these elements, and not only specifically define the codes for a multi-cultural discourse, but have given us the tools necessary to implement such a balanced environment. It is through their conversations about race, culture, and other “isms” that I have begun to understand my role as a teacher. I have begun to see clearly the mistakes I have made in the past, where they came from, why I should avoid them, and how I can ensure my success in the future.

Being able to care for your students enough to take the time to understand them, and learn from them how they learn best, this is the essence of critical pedagogy. “Critical pedagogy is a prism that reflects the complexities of the interactions between teaching and learning. It highlights some of the hidden subtleties that might have escaped our view previously. It enables us to see more widely and more deeply. This prism has a tendency to focus on shades of social, cultural, political, and even economic conditions, and it does all of this under the broad view of history.” (Wink, 2005). Teachers can use critical pedagogy as a tool to reach their students, particularly those whose cultural background influences the way they think and behave in a classroom. Critical pedagogy goes beyond the immediate problem of teaching the subject matter to ensuring the success of the students to comprehend your methods of teaching the subject matter, and in the process build character and an appetite for learning.

Educators who wish to see the other side of the race issue need to listen to those who have been in the process of reflecting on their own racism. The studies that show the degree to which racism is instilled not just in our curriculum, but in our interpersonal communications and presentation, are an important tool to view the issue from a non biased perspective:

“Many educators who desire to transform the hierarchies of race, class, gender, and other forms of oppression in their classrooms often focus on altering the content of their curriculum rather than on the process by which that curriculum is developed in the classroom space. Yet developing an inclusive learning experience involves not only decentering whiteness…in course material but also making space for nondominant modes of interaction and behavior as wars of processing that material.” (O’Brien, 2004)

The only drawback in this analysis would be the tendency to fall into a position of defensiveness, from which it would take a lot more empirical evidence to convert a doubting teacher. Several people in the class have asserted that there is in fact, no racism in the classroom, or that they would be doing their students a disservice to address it within the context of the learning environment. This runs exactly counter to the points that these authors are trying to make. “Education is never politically neutral. As a matter of fact, the most potentially subversive act is to teach. Everything from the classroom protocol to seating arrangement and pedagogical style can reinforce or challenge traditional power structures.” (Lippin, 2004) What I have noticed, however, through the course of discussions about these topics, is that the very act of discussing them brings to the surface a lot of previously “hidden” topics. The act of hashing out these debates, complete with emotional reaction and aversion, is the very essence of critical pedagogy.

Silence may be golden, but “naming” is essential to the process of recovery for many students who feel left out of the education process. Naming is the act of calling out racism or any other kind of “ism”. It is a powerful political tool in the effort to battle “silencing”. “Naming takes place when the nondominant group tells the dominant group exactly what the nondominant group thinks and feels about specific social practices.” (Wink, 2005) A teacher who encourages naming, and helps foster a true honest discourse about racial inequality, particularly in education, is one who is working toward creating a safer environment for students to work through these feelings. “Naming, giving students a vocabulary to express personal experiences and feelings, is the first step in honoring difference, and it creates a space for transformation.” (Featherston & Ishibashi, 2004) If the student feels respected, even if they are wrong in their assumptions, they will be more inclined to work harder toward a common ground with the teacher.

In my work as a teacher, I must strive to be sensitive and open minded at all times. I should not be afraid of discourse, particularly about race and culture. These authors have shown me why I have to keep my mind aware of my own “whiteness”, and how I can guard against allowing it to influence my teaching style to the detriment of my diversified student body. I must be open to suggestions and the allowance of student-centered learning to guide the students through the difficult process of learning in a cultural setting they may not be used to, just as I must learn to teach students in a setting that I may not be used to. “Pedagogy is not just about me, teaching. Pedagogy is the process of teaching and learning together. It is fundamentally about human interactions, the joy of playing with new ideas, and the challenge of integrating those ideas in the real world.” (Wink, 2005) I also have learned that multicultural education is not simply a matter of including diverse subject matter into the curriculum, but also has to do with the structure of the curriculum, and of the class itself, and my students’ interaction with me and each other.

Language is the primary element in culture, as language choice is the primary source of cultural dissonance in the classroom. As a teacher, I must choose my words carefully to avoid discounting a student’s culture or belief system. Likewise, I must be sensitive to their own language use and not let it negatively influence my opinions about them. “If teachers hope to avoid negatively stereotyping the language patterns of their students, it is important that they be encouraged to interact with, and willingly learn from, knowledgeable members of their students’ cultural groups.” (Delpit, 2006) It is my duty to become familiar with the language of my students, how it reflects their culture, and show respect for these things.
“[Teachers] should recognize that the linguistic form a student brings to school is intimately connected with loved ones, community, and personal identity. To suggest that this form is “wrong” or, even worse, ignorant, is to suggest that something is wrong with the student and his or her family…Teachers need to support the language that students bring to school, provide them input from an additional code, and give them the opportunity to use the new code in a nonthreatening, real communicative context.” (Delpit, 2006)

It is equally important for me to guard against ignoring the issue of racism in the class. Just because I pretend not to notice it won’t make it go away. In fact, my ignorance of a student’s feelings will tend to make the issue worse, and inflame it to the point of permanently damaging my relationship with not only that student, but any other student who might sympathize with her.

We might imagine we're creating color-blind environments for children, but differences in skin color or hair or weight are like differences in gender—they're plainly visible. Even if no teacher or parent mentions race, kids will use skin color on their own… children extend their shared appearances much further—believing that those who look similar to them enjoy the same things they do. Anything a child doesn't like thus belongs to those who look the least similar to him. (Bronson & Merryman, 2009)

Our traditional methods have thus far failed a large percentage of the minority population, and so we as educators must explore alternatives. Particularly with Black students, it is known that their language use and cultural style reflects a more emotional and expressive content than standard English, and we should learn to recognize the significance of this before we become harsh in our criticism of its usage. “Traditional American schooling could be patterned after a communicative orientation that emphasizes something other than the socioemotional, creating discontinuity between the young African-American child’s manner of interacting and the requisite school manner.” (Kinkade, 1994)

For some time, among members of the linguistics community, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) has been an accepted form of dialect reflecting more than just the traditional idea of a lack of education and “lazy tongue”, but also a much more refined concept of a cultural heritage with language as a unique form of social expression, with its own qualities outside of the “normal” qualifications of the ideal “prestige” language. “Children who speak AAVE are faced with multiple conflicts stemming from numerous factors, including teachers’ negative judgments of a child’s speech, children’s desire to succeed in school, and their sometimes incompatible desire to be accepted by their own peers.” (Bonvillain, 2008) Addressing this disconnect between a student’s “lazy tongue” and their proud cultural heritage can go a long way toward reconciling racism in the classroom.
Otis Grant (2003) makes a clear example of how a teacher can begin to address these issues in the classroom in an effective way. It all comes down to building relationships with your students, and through mutual respect, everyone can begin to break down barriers to learning.

Developing a positive relationship with students in a course must occur on two levels. The first level is to accept the students as a group. The instructor must be aware of group conformance, and plan for those students who cannot adhere to peer pressure. The second level refers to personal interaction between the student and the instructor. Students learn best when they have a good rapport with the instructor. Therefore, the instructor must convey respect for the student, regardless of that student’s philosophical position. Respect does not mean that the instructor must agree with the student; rather, it means that the instructor treats the student as a valued member of the class. When both the instructor and the student exercise mutual respect, discussions will rarely get out of control. If there is a personal attack during a classroom discussion, then the instructor should immediately take the position of the student who is being attacked. It does not matter whether the instructor agrees with the position of the person who is being personally challenged. What is important is that the instructor makes explicit efforts to encourage the free expression of ideas within the classroom. This way, all students are encouraged to participate in classroom discussion with absolute ease. (Grant, 2003)

Reading these works have inspired me to speak more openly about race in the classroom and not to be afraid of a little controversy or emotionally heated debates. If we are to always shy away from these debates out of fear, then the issue will never resolve itself. It takes an active, thinking, heartfelt discussion to analyze the subtle interactions of power and the lessons of powerlessness in the classroom.





References:
Bonvillain, N. (2008). Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning of Messages (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2009). See Baby Discriminate. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1

Delpit, L. (2006) Other People's Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.

Featherston, E. & Ishibashi, J. (2004) Oreos and Bananas: Conversations on Whiteness. In Lea, V. & Helfand, J. (Ed.), Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom. (87-108) New York: Peter Lang.

Grant, O. (2003). Teaching and Learning about Racial Issues in the Modern Classroom. Retrieved from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_1/02_grant.html

Kincade Blake, I. (1994). Language Development and Socialization in Young African-American Children. In Greenfield, P., Cocking, R. (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development. (pp. 167-196) Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates


Lippin, L. (2004) Making Whiteness Visible in the Classroom. In Lea, V. & Helfand, J. (Ed.), Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom. (109-131) New York: Peter Lang.

O’Brien, E. (2004) “I Could Hear You If You Would Just Calm Down”: Challenging Eurocentric Classroom Norms Through Passionate Discussions of Racial Oppression. In Lea, V. & Helfand, J. (Ed.), Identifying Race and Transforming Whiteness in the Classroom. (68-86) New York: Peter Lang.