This author, Finn argues that student's social standing predetermines educational outcome. He outlines distinctions between the two types of education in America, powerful literacy, which empowers, and functional literacy which is produced by a domesticating education. He cites a multitude of theorists, a few appear here:
Aronowitz and Giroux identify three kind of intellectual qualities of teachers, Hegemonic (maintain existing order), critical (social critics, apolitical, represent the status quo) and transforming." Transforming intellectuals,..are self-consciously critical of inequities in our society". They see teacher's role as empowering students to become "agents of civic courage" that will make "despair unconvincing and hope practical". WOW-isn't that the kind of educator you want to be?
Freire made literacy desirable. He convinced the illiterate poor in Brazil of the value of literacy by showing them its power to "secure justice". They could relate. They struggled, they knew they would continue to struggle, they could see its direct applicability in their life, Freire made it real. Cleverly beginning with leaders in the community, he demonstrated through his culture circle that, "The more advanced a people's technology is, the greater the power they have to transform the world. Education, technology, and power are closely related". Through pictures, he came to a discussion and conclusion with his poor students. "Power is partly derived from advanced technology, and advanced technology relies on literacy. The lesson..:The literate are powerful and you're not. What are you going to do about it?" His students came to "want what the teacher has", namely an education and were cooperative. His goal was consciousness raising or "conscientization". Ultimately Freire's focus was on empowering those within their current class to affect change and not social class border crossing.
Anyon's describes differences in social class groups. I was taken back by the startling reality of the concrete differences between the very rich and poor. I couldn't help but notice the focus on adherence to rules and conformity when educating the poor. Anyon identifies three discretely "dominant themes" in each of the classes. Working class schools theme was resistance (they identify the teacher with oppression, "the hated one" and resist attempts to join camp), middle-class schools theme was possibility (hard work yields a good job), affluent professional schools theme was" individualism with a minor theme of humanitarianism", and the executive elite school was excellence.
Recognizing the importance of dialogue, Finn discusses the "discipline game" he uses to acquaint his students with the differences between dialogue and anti-dialogue (identified by the Study Circles organization). Anti dialogue limits dialogue, as educators we want to avoid this! The discipline game is practice in negotiation, with the added benefit of understanding "that teachers cannot accommodate students' requests without having their own needs met", and "of the parallels between good negotiating and dialogue and bad negotiating and dialogue".
Finally Peterson, a Freirian, and Bigelow and Christenson had students examine their own oppression, identifying with others oppression, employing dialogue and demonstrating for real, political activism. They recognize that creating an awareness of oppression in those oppressed without teaching and demonstrating action will lead to "cynicism and despair".
I am so inspired, I think I'll take a look at Peterson,Bigelow and Christensen's publication Rethinking Our Classrooms for some more ideas on social justice in the classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment