Me, dressed as Clara, Nebraska Wesleyan's resident ghost, in order to tell her nationally famous story to my 2006 Lincoln High students.
In her opening she strikes the nail on the head for me when she argues, "these days, much of the conversation about school literacy casts it only as an object of standardized assessment--something to be scrutinized and remediated rather than a positive force in the lives of students and the larger community" (8). While I realize several of the other authors we have read have made similar comments, for me, what makes Robbins so useful is her explicit explanation of what she sees as wrong with schools and what they might be instead. What draws me to her piece, specifically, is her bent toward explicit explanation, which connect the dots among concepts and values, and admission of the difficulties inherent in enacting the pedagogy she suggests. Her focus is as much on "literacy" as it is on writing, a term she defines, with the help of John Willinsky, as "actively making meaning of the world" and, instead of simply assuming that writing and literacy are important (and that a reader perceives them with the same esteem as she does), she explains that "writing [is] a critical social enterprise" (qtd. in Robbins 11). Further clarifying her perspective on writing and literacy and their importance, she references the negative reaction so many people (in the general public especially, I think) have toward a sort of Elbow-esk expressivist writing instruction. By juxtaposing the KCAC model with that of an expressivist one, she helps to drive home to the "not-already-sold-on-the-critical-value-of-writing" reader, the vital role writing plays in community creation and social actions. She also articulates, in her discussion of the 5 themes of the KCAC project, that the educators in her group engaged first in community research, so as to prepare themselves to be models and co-researchers when they asked their students to do the same. This sort of specific explanation of the values that underpin the KCAC model, without assuming her reader already understands or agrees that writing is important, helps me not only to more clearly understand why the pedagogy she suggests is so useful, but it also helps provide me with a vocabulary for explaining it to others who are less steeped in ideas and values of literacy education.
Furthermore, she acknowledges a significant concern I have encountered in attempting similar pedagogies (though not PCE specifically), and had not yet put my finger on as a concern I carried with me in considering PCE in my own classroom. She draws our attention to the fact that "finding productive, ethical teaching practices that promote civic participation without directing students to particular political positions is one of the needs educators must address in our new century" (12). Firstly such a comment fully acknowledges that the work she is suggesting is not easy, nor do she and her colleagues have all of the answers. And, secondly, she reminds me that many students may recoil at such a pedagogy which they may see as overtly or covertly "leftist." As a student I recall (before I saw the light ;-) being on the "humph, crazy liberal professors!" side of this coin and as a teacher I can now also relate with being seen as the "leftist agenda pushing crazy liberal." Robbins is precisely correct when she reminds us that if this type of education is to survive and flourish we must "recognize multiple viewpoints and experiences," and I would add, treat each of these viewpoints with equal marit and respect.
More broadly, though upon first reading the 5 themes of the KCAC project I was a bit skeptical, after reading Robbins' explanation of them and their subsequent examples, I really do think the authors of this project might be onto something. Each of the 5 themes -- Educating for Citizenship; Reclaiming Displaced Heritages; Building Cities; Cultivating Homelands; and Shifting Landscapes, Converging Peoples -- strike me as a unique way teachers can get at PCE in a way that may work best for them and their circumstances. In particular I am drawn to the ideas associated with "Educating for Citizenship" because under such a heading it seems that there might be a myriad of potential projects in which teachers could engage. Not only does this theme encourage students to look outward at the ways in which education has affected the culture and peoples around them, but it also allows them to look inward at how it is shaping their lives. I can also imagine myself "Reclaiming Displaced Heritages" in my classroom. As I've been reflecting on my connectedness to the Omaha area and Nebraska, I've come to realize that this strong sense of place is due in great part to my knowledge of the area's history. Growing up with an 8th grade American History teacher, I heard more often than I can count the story of how the "South Platters" stole the territorial capital from the "North Platters" and the vital role the rail road and the meat industry played in the development of Omaha. These stories—and many others--which I still love to hear, tightened my ties to my community. And now, as I get older and the area changes, I'm equally fascinated by the developing histories of new Nebraska populations, such as Hispanic migrants and the large refugee population. I imagine that giving students the opportunities to uncover these histories for themselves, hear their stories from the mouths of local citizens and the pages of primary documents, and then have the chance to write these stories themselves for a "real" audience, might help students both feel more connected to their community and, more importantly, more invested in creating positive changes in it.
Closing Questions:
Though I enjoyed much of the KCAC's project materials, I am still not without questions. Though I loved the project LeeAnn Lands outlines in her chapter, it leaves me wondering a couple of things:
1. Can such projects be sustained? Meaning, can they be repeated year after year or last more than one year--including multiple generations of students? How so? Won't these projects, as they are based on immediate community "happenings," loose their real world power for students and render them less meaningful to following years of students?
2. And if we must create new projects each year, how as teachers do we have the time or energy to keep investing in such large scale endeavors? While there is a real chance that I am just particularly lazy, I simply cannot imagine doing the immense amount of preparatory work involved in creating such projects year after year after year. Not only do teachers have to find the "sites" of such work, have their finger on the pulse of a wide range of community issues that need addressing, and gather materials/research the where students will collect information; but they must also contrive the assignments, consider grading, and create unit scaffolding for each project. I’m overwhelmed just thinking about it.
Hi Nicole,
ReplyDeleteThe section you quote from Robbins "finding productive, ethical teaching practices that promote civic participation without directing students to particular political positions is one of the needs educators must address in our new century" (12) really stuck out to me as well. Especially considering we were warned in out T.A. workshop against taking a political stance or being political.
Of course, Robbins hints at a problem with that approach, that many, if not all, decisions inherently send a political message. If you have students do a project on harvesting wheat, that can be seen as a stance on some agricultural issue. Focusing on the rural can be seen as a stance against the urban. I think choosing activities is as much about explaining the reasons behind them as it is choosing them. This is one of the reasons I like the historical approach so much because it feels less political to me. The KCAC project I think did a wonderful job of enacting activities in the community through the lens of historical understanding, and that makes it feel less political.
Whether that's a good thing or not, I don't know. Very thought provoking post ... as usual.
Marcus
Marcus,
ReplyDeleteYou are so correct. I too, think a lot of teaching is about explaining the rationale behind activities to students, political or not. That is something I always have to remind myself. It' so easy to forget that the students aren't inside your head (and thank goodness they're not).
I am always vexed though, by the issue of making things political. I don't want to force students (obviously) into my political perspectives, but I also don't want to have apolitical class. I want to know their views and I think its fair for them to know mine and I think we should all be doing the work of examining those views. What I've struggled with, though, is actually accomplishing that -- I think so often I either come off as pushing a political agenda or as Switzerland. ;-)
Nicole and Marcus:
ReplyDeleteTwo comments: First, read my post to Brett this week. I frankly don't see how teaching can avoid being political, and am on public record as disagreeing with the department official who warned you TAs not to be political. There's a huge bit of slippage in what the phrase "being political" means -- we might all agree that explicitly promoting your personal political agenda (cf. Vote Ron Paul all the time!) is not conducive to developing real citizenship in our classes. But any way of teaching absolutely encodes within it certain powerful assumptions about what it means to be a productive member of our society, and how to do that. I think "traditional school as usual" encodes within it a clear political agenda about passivity, compliance, individual competition versus collaboration. And I think PCE certainly also encodes within it a political agenda, centered around active participation, collaboration, in local place. While we certainly can and should stop ourselves from canvassing for Ron Paul or Barack Obama or Gov. Perry as part of our class structure, I don't see how we can stop ourselves from structuring our classrooms to promote some vision of the social order they serve. So, to be blunt, to be a teacher you have to choose your politics.
Ok, now that that's off my chest, on to the second point: For your first question, Nicole, I don't think these projects are sustainable. Instead, to do this work right, our students will be designing a new one every year. The classic PCE format is Foxfire magazine, which started out as a student-designed way of meeting the 11th grade standards in a rural Appalachia school -- they published a magazine of local interviews with old timers about vanishing Appalachia culture, proving to the school board that in doing so they met ALL the state requirements for 11th grade. But then, the next year's class wanted to do their magazine on entirely different aspects of Appalachia culture -- and the Foxfire series was off and running.
Imagine Lands' classroom a few years later: instead of starting with the lynching photos, she can start by showing her students the virtual museum displays each previous class had created -- maybe last year's was on the origin of the Historically Black Colleges, the year before on the slo-food sustainable agriculture movement around Atlanta. The class project will be to design a museum display, and she now has permission for gallery space with subject to be determined (because it's been a successful program for 5 years). So this year's class needs only to come up with a content for the project that feels important to them. The students now do the work, she facilitates -- and real inquiry becomes EASIER rather than more exhausting....
~Robert
Robert,
ReplyDeleteThanks on both fronts. Your comments about politicizing teaching are much more articulate version of what I was feeling. I still struggle, though, to lead classes without coming off as pushing a particular political agenda that often puts some students off to the course. I'm still not very good at designing and enacting a class that focuses on important political concerns and demonstrates "political" values, but without either having students be entirely unaware of the "political" content, or feeling like I'm shoving something down their throats. In other words, I'm not very good at being subtle.
And thanks for the clarification on the sustainability question. That helps me think in new ways about how this whole PCE thing might work...