Blog Left

From AcademicBlogs

I am it seems opening this blog and so will take liberties for two agendas that seem to relate:

   First, I am writing a book entitled, Authentic Dissertations: Alternative Ways of Knowing, Research and Representation, and am seeking out of the box dissertations that have had an impact on social/ecological justice in real life applications. It is important that our examples reflect the advantages of alternative approaches to research and presentations in terms of these applications. I am hoping that here a blog can discuss not only specific examples, but can dialogue about the need for such dissertations in educational arenas especially.
   Second, I am copying the first two entries to another blog that is not getting much action in hopes that more will come from this one, which seems unlikely since this seems to be the first entry, but who knows?

« "New Strategy for Iraq" Glossary of Presidential Euphemisms | Main | Rouge Forum Conference Update - The Wars Left Behind: Education for Action » January 12, 2007 From Rethinking to Reacting -A Call for a Resistance Revolution in Teacher Education From Rethinking to Reacting A Call for a Resistance Revolution in Teacher Education- Beginning the Fall Semester, 2007

Four Arrows, aka Don Trent Jacobs

This is a call for all teacher-educators and their teacher candidates to revolt, beginning with the Fall school semester just ahead. No more research articles that show how current practices are failing. No more complaining about policies that diminish authentic teaching and learning. No more “rethinking schools.” It is time to resist. I am sending this communiqué to as many forums as possible so you will not be acting alone, unless we have all lost our courage completely.

The strategy for the revolution I am calling for is triple-tiered. First, resist all standardized measurement protocols. This includes standing firmly against No Child Left Behind, against the National Council of Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE) and against letter or numerical grading policies. Second, emphasize social and ecological justice in all classroom activities and assignments in spite of the arguments against so doing. This includes, where appropriate, encouraging students to consider possibilities of criminal wrongdoing by the U.S. government with regards to the suppression of environmental science relative to global warming; complicity in the events of September 11, 2001; and deceit in its actions relating to the Iraq war. Third, do your best to implement at least one part of the vision or mission statement adopted by your university or College of Education. Pay special attention to the one that is probably NOT being followed.

It is important that all revolutionary resistance be supported by good educational research. This will give confidence to your actions in the face of opposition. I will do this in my own College of Education at Northern Arizona University beginning with the submission of my “Methods for Teaching Social Studies” syllabus in August. In it I will clearly state my disagreement with Education Secretary Margaret Spelling’s recent statement that No Child Left Behind is “nearly perfect.” I will state my intentions regarding class inquiries about deceptions surrounding 9/11 by quoting similar material from Professor David Smith’s book, Trying to Teach in a Season of Great Untruth: Globalization, Empire and the Crises of Pedagogy. I will refer to a resolution recently passed by the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies at its annual conference in Washington, DC, November 30, 2006, where NCSS and the American Historical Association urged its members “to take a public stand as citizens on behalf of the values and goals taught in social studies and necessary to the practice of our profession; and to do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.” I will restate Postman and Weingartner’s precepts for good learning, including the need for a keen sense of relevance, open-mindedness, and an emphasis on the importance of inquiry.

Under “grading policy” for my syllabus, I will state simply that this will be “negotiated” the first day of class. However, in terms of our revolutionary strategy, I will share with you my plans for this negotiation. First I will explain that I do not believe in grading. I will refer to the abundant studies that show that grading generally depresses creativity, gets in the way of complex learning and undermines genuine interest in the subject. I will say that in previous years the class and I agreed on giving everyone “Bs” if they missed no more than three classes, agreeing that the material would be too difficult to master in one semester. One student appealed nonetheless. Against all logic, the consumerism mentality of the system gave in and the student was given the “A.” Thus, this year everyone get’s the “A” grade. The very fact that the students will be thinking critically might warrant a “superior” rating, although the whole affair if somehwhat ridiculous. I suspect that there will be a class consensus to support this policy, although the college at large will be appalled in spite of the fact that grade inflation at the College of Education is such that around 89 percent of the teacher candidates are somehow “A” students anyway.

My stand against NCATE will be especially challenging since my college is in the early stages of preparing for its first NCATE accreditation and most faculty will have implementation responsibilities. However, in addition to standing by those conclusions of educators who write about how NCATE trivializes the truly important dimensions of teaching and learning, I will also stand against NCATE because of its recent decision to end its support for “social justice” in teacher education because they believe it is not more than a political position.

In fact, the “social justice” imperative for teacher education is a foundation for this revolt. Thus, I will devote a little space here to talk about why NCATE removed this language from its list of dispositions and why the many arguments against university vision statements that refer to social justice are flimsey. If it is wrong or “political” for universities to support social justice then the notion of an Internal Review Board for protecting human subjects should also be criticized. IRB policies stem from the 1979 Belmont Report and the concerns for the protection of human life and values expressed therein. If IRBs can structure justice into research ethics, teacher education can include it in its guidelines.

In fact, all of the arguments against universities using “social justice” as a goal are insufficient. Moral relativity no longer has a leg to stand upon. The complaint by libertarians that social justice implementation violates its non-aggression principle does not ultimately hold water when referring to an educational approach, not some form of coersion or violence. The concern that social justice may be unfeasible economically is but a reflection of a way of thinking guided by an almost exclusive focus on quarterly profit and loss statements. Saying that the subject only applies to the social sciences is not accurate, for “word problems” in math and applications in science are excellent ways to bring forth both awareness and solutions to social and ecological problems.

Finally, the objection that no one can agree on a definition is also bogus. It is easy to see the common theme in all of the definitions that have been offered. “Social justice” is large enough to bring together a variety of perspectives on ways to move toward a world in which we treat one another with love and compassion and where we recognize one another’s value and the interconnections we all have. If the meaning or goals of education have nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of a healthy society, then and only then would I be willing to call off the social justice agenda for educators and retreat from my own call for a revolution of resistance beginning this Fall.

The third and final tier I ask that we address in this revolt of resistance relates to honoring or redefining, if necessary, your university or college’s vision and mission statements. Not many visions truly support the corporatization and militarization of education that currently exists and most do make a commitment to the idea of “social justice” even if they have gone to great lengths to avoid using the phrase. A brief look at such statements for universities that are posted on the web reveals a clear mandate for the kind of education that requires challenging the false rationales for the “tougher standards” movement, for questioning corporate approaches to teaching and learning, and for making an authentic commitment to social and ecological justice in a contemporary world:

• “We support quality of life for our consituents. • “To engage the global community. • “To prepare educators to work in diverse communities. • “We will address equity in students. • “To improve the lives of individuals in complex societies. • “ To prepare our students for community service. • “To enhance commitment to the principles of democracy.

Even where vision statements are sorely lacking in such language, the universities that claim them still use phrases like “collaborative participation” or a “caring environment.” At NAU’s College of Education, our vision is “preparing educational professionals who are committed to creating the schools for tomorrow.” It would not take much interpretative prowess to make a connection between the agenda for our revolt and the vision of the organization. With virtually every life system in our world being in decline, what kind of schools for tomorrow might be envisioned that do not emphasize challenging the status quo? Making the connection will you to use the vision statement to support your “civil disobedience” with regards to procedures that are barriers to authentic authentic work toward fulfilling the vision.

If the vision statements do not adequately serve to support your actions, have a look at the university’s strategic plan. For example, Northern Arizona University’s new strategic plans calls for achieving “multi-cultural understanding as a priority of educational civic life.” One of its seven goals is to “become the nation’s leading university serving Native Americans.” The College of Education’s vision refers to its “long standing commitment to Native American students.” Contradictions abound here and I plan on using my own text for my courses as a result- a recent University of Texas Press publication entitled, Unlearning the Language of Conquest: Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America to help rectify them. For but one example, the university boasts about its “majestic San Francisco Peaks” in its faculty recruitment ads and about skiing its slopes in recruitment efforts aimed at students. Yet all of the twenty-three Arizona Indian tribes, who hold the Peaks to be sacred spiritual grounds, have passionately fought against using recyled waste water to create artificial snow on their sacred lands while NAU has refused to take an official position on the subject in support of the Native people.

Each of our colleges of education, perhaps each of us ourselves, are guilty of such hypocrisy somewhere along the line. In the Fall of 2007, it is time to put ourselves back in balance through an action that will move our “rethinking ” of schools to something more practical. The revolt just might catch on.

Posted by wross at January 12, 2007 12:49 PM

Comments While I agree in principle with most of what 4 Arrows says, his call for revolution rings hollow for the field. Doesn't he get it that teacher educators are among the most passive, the most conservative folks in higher ed? He truly is pissing into the wind on this one.

Rather, we need to put pressure on our Deans who have a direct pathway to Presidents and Chancellors. It's this group, who are also very conservative, on which we need to assert some significant pressure. They purport to "lead" us, but all too often, they promote agendas that seldom question issues like standards or NCLB. In fact, most Deans actually support these issues, in spite of what their faculty says.

Revolution, as called for by 4 Arrows, is a tired cliche that will do nothing to change the system. In fact, his approach will further marginalize the teacher education.

pmm

Posted by: perry marker at January 22, 2007 9:58 AM Hello Perry and thanks for your frank comments. In truth, I think you are correct. This may be no more than a symbolic intervention that, like "pissing in the wind," may serve to soil me more than help the movement we both want to serve. Yet what is my alternative? What are the alternatives for all of us? To continue "doing our job" and implementing policies that contradict good research and harm students or the world at large? Because university faculty and administration are conservative, we are to resist challenging their positions? How do we "put pressure on deans" and why is such resistance not a form of such pressure? Do you really think meetings, letters, articles, etc., will work? Have they worked? What movement in history has not relied upon resistance? I agree that I may be wasting my time but the only way this can backfire for the movement is because more people are not willing to join in!