Berry 1

Erica Berry
ENG 776
Dr. Tabetha Adkins
6 December, 2014
The Discipline Gap: A Critical Approach
My social condition did not allow me to have an education. Paulo Frieres well-known
quote rings true in many situations, and in many schools like mine; I cannot help but apply it to
my own teaching environment and the problems I see rooted there. As an intervention teacher,
dealing specifically with students who have been labeled At Risk, my students are in dire need of
help, academically, socially, physically and emotionally, and I get defensive about the way they
are treated, about their rights and their feelings. I get to know their background, their problems,
and the everyday struggles they encounter- and I feel like their social condition is not allowing
them to get the education they need. As Paulo would remind us, there is more to the student than
the knowledge in which we dump into their heads.
While my official job is to fill the gaps in their English education, to strengthen their
academic weaknesses, and basically, teach the STAAR test so that my students can graduate, my
students are in my class for a reason, and they do not struggle only in academics. However, I
cannot put a band-aid on a cut when there are life threatening wounds draining my students, so I
must consider the students as a whole, and address the ones designed to kill him or her. Despite
the fact that there are many other facets to their situations, one that glaringly affects them every
day, non-stop are the issues with discipline in the school. Although I can spend years talking

Berry 2
about ways critical pedagogy can affect them within the academic subject matter, I feel that a
more pressing issue has become what happens outside the paper put in front of them.
It can be argued that the many issues with todays public education system are all crucial;
between curriculum, testing, quality teachers and funding, it is safe to say that there are many
issues prevalent and in need of social reform. Critical pedagogy addresses and applies to many of
these matters, but as a secondary teacher who deals with a majority of students who have been
labeled as throw-away, I find that we pay lots of attention to these things, yet we are still not
making headway. Teachers struggle with classroom management, especially in majority minority
schools, and it seems like the current system for handling discipline is not only flawed, but
actually detrimental to these students. We have heard about the achievement gap, but what about
the discipline gap? Punishment is retribution for an offense, an exclusionary act by which
students are removed from the opportunity to learn (Yang 49). Consequently, the need for
critical pedagogy praxis within the educational institution becomes more prevalent as an
alarming trend in punitive and detrimental discipline practices become more obvious and
troublesome.
Despite the fact that schools are designed for educating, they have created, out of
necessity, a miniature justice system, an organization intended for creating and applying
discipline and punishment to students who do not meet behavioral expectations within the
classroom. There are a few different ideas that drive the discipline punishment system. One idea
is based on creating an environment conducive to learning, and if a student infringes on the
rights of others to learn, then he must be removed. Of the numerous nationwide phenomenons,
one of the most detrimental is the zero tolerance policy in discipline; this policy has shaped
discipline policies in various detrimental ways. Many poor youth are simply excluded from the

Berry 3
benefit of a decent education through the implementation of zero tolerance policy (Giroux 8).
To clarify, a zero tolerance policy operates under the idea that any misbehavior will not be
tolerated, big or small, and swift punishment will be enacted. Often, this idea can be explained to
students with the story of the gangrenous arm. They are asked if there was an infection in an arm,
and were told that it had to be cut off or the whole person would die, what do you think should
be done. Always unanimously, students will say to cut off the arm and save the body. It is with
this metaphor that students are reminded that we must all work together to create a learning
community, and if we cannot, then they will be removed like an infectious, deadly person. This is
why we need a pedagogy for the oppressed, a pedagogy which must be forged with, not for, the
oppressed in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity (Freire 48).
In addition to the purposeful discipline schools enforce on students, there is also the
hidden discipline curriculum established by the mainstream institution centering on middle class
values. Discipline is for their own good. We discipline and punish these students because they
need it in order to normalize them for mainstream learning. We teach them that if we act in an
inappropriate (to whom?) manner, then we must learn our lesson with negative reinforcement.
Because, if we let them get away with it, we are only hurting them, since they did not learn a
lesson. Too often they fall prey to the dictates of a youth-governing complex that increasingly
subjects them to harsh disciplinary controls while criminalizing more and more aspects of their
behavior (Giroux 91). Giroux warns us that if we continue with this avenue of thinking we will
begin an avalanche of failure in students already downtrodden.
These are the justifications we make when deciding how to mete out justice to the
offenders. But if it is such justice, then why is it not proportionate, fair and beneficial? Is the
true definition of justice: what is morally right and fair? The ratio of students who are being

Berry 4
disciplined and punished seems to run along sub-groups including class, academic grouping, and,
especially, race. How can students be expected to participate and gain from critical pedagogy in a
small classroom setting, when the whole system takes away their voice? In order for anything to
get done, we must start seeing them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of
their voice, cheated in the sale of their labor (Friere 50). These are things that need to be
recognized before they can be rectified.
Subsequently, before we can even approach the idea of teaching our student to learn in a
critical way, we are counting them out of the game by treating them in a manner that reflects the
total opposite. It is Giroux who proclaims, Youth in the last two decades have come to be seen
as a source for trouble rather than a resource for investing in the future, and in the case of poor
white, black, and Hispanic youth, are increasingly treated as disposable populations (Giroux
95). We want to use critical pedagogy to grow their thinking, reading, writing and speaking
skills, but we dont teach them how to manage their own behavior in a critical way. If they do not
know how to act, then how will they ever learn? Education needs to commit to increasing the
possibilities of democratic identities, values and relations (100). Critical pedagogy must begin
with the long ignored problem in todays most downtrodden schools- communication,
collaboration and participation. The only effective instrument is a humanizing pedagogy in
which the revolutionary leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the
oppressed (68).
What is wrong with our schools now?
Coming from a place of personal experience, in a semi-urban setting, a Title I
environment and a majority minority school, I could write about the problems with discipline
throughout our school. However, I will focus for a minute on the big picture problems- mainly,

Berry 5
the cycle of failure and the cultural differences that visibly hold our minority students to different
standards and expectations.
Taking the jump from informal classroom management techniques to the next step: inschool suspension and out-of school suspension, exemplifies the controversial issues whether it
happens or not. Accordingly, when behavior escalates to where administrators have to get
involved, students are automatically placed in in-school (ISS), or out of school suspension (OSS)
for a set number of days. Now assuming that the majority of students placed there, are in there
because they cannot control their behavior, and the environment is even stricter, the probability
of repeat offenders is very high. If they could have or would have stopped, they will have had
plenty of opportunity before then. So, it is safe to assume that once they get their ISS assignment,
they will be put in an environment with even stricter rules, where the slightest punishment is
punishable with more days, or more removal. At this point, they will have disrupted class, lost
out on academic learning, and started a cycle of failure for themselves. Subsequently, students
realize that they will not only be missing out on valuable in-class instruction, participation,
discussion and social interaction, that will put them further behind their peers for the day, but
also any additional days, or even more if the cycle continues- it becomes disheartening for these
students. What we see is an emergence of a punishment wave, one that reveals a society that
does not know how to address those social problems that undercut any viable sense of agency,
possibility, and future for many young people (94). When the cycle continues, it is because
behavior has not been examined, analyzed or modified, students are only punished, and will
continue behavior, thus resulting in the same punishments, and eventually frustration and
rebellion.

Berry 6
Crucial to the widening of the discipline gap is the difference in cultures and values
between the minority students and teachers. Speaking specifically, the balance of power and
ideas of what constitutes appropriate behavior. Of course, when there is a difference of culture
and power involved, the more powerful will claim victory. Let us turn to a story about a clash of
cultural values and the hidden vying for power. Usually when I am on hall duty, I will find
students in parts of the building they are not allowed. Often, I will be accompanying a student,
most often one or more black male students, and we can be having a normal conversation as I
escort them back to where they need to be. They will be relatively respectful, and in a willing
mood, almost repentant, until we encounter a male teacher in the hall. For some reason, male
teachers pose some sort of power struggle, no matter what is said, or how politely, and it triggers
these young men to act in ways that they would not with me. Being questioned or directed by a
male teacher often results in the student getting disrespectful, loud, rebellious, and using
obscenities, further creating a discipline problem. When questioned, students can easily tell me
they do not trust men, or think that they are engaging them in a battle of the wills. Usually, the
adult male does not understand this and just expects students to act in a manner that reflects their
own middle class value system. Giroux validates this idea of a culture clash with instances of his
own. He speaks about a boy named Michael who lived in a motel, or other students who went
hungry every day (94). These students culture was so distant from the cultural values and norms
they encountered in school, that they were bound to find themselves in trouble, both
academically and behaviorally, when they could not concentrate on the strict rules and guidelines
imposed when they were either not familiar with them, or had more concerning matters to worry
about.

Berry 7
It also deserves to be mentioned that often misbehavior to a middle class teacher, is not
misbehavior to a student. K.Wayne Yang highlights the need for ethnographic studies of
discipline that account for race, culture and cultural context... Being loud or cussing offends
many teachers and results in punishment, whereas, to a student, that is just a way of life in their
culture- how can we bridge this gap in culture? I am not saying this is the case with all, but it is
one of the many problems I feel are being misjudged, when they could be redirected. Often the
teachers who are culturally cognizant are able to work appropriately and successfully with
students from urban backgrounds. They [teachers] had quick wits and were uent enough in
youth popular cultural codes to win any symbolic confrontation with students, and to detect and
de-escalate most confrontations between students before they snowballed (Yang 56). Bridging
the gap in discipline means coming across the cultural divide, creating relationships and a mutual
understanding for both cultures.
Besides personal experiences, an objective approach provides significant support for
most of these issues. Statistics released by the United States government demonstrate the eyeopening results of our educations discipline gap. The U.S. Department of Education Office for
Civil Rights released a data snapshot on school discipline outlining the difference in discipline
between white students and black and Hispanic. Nationwide, Black students are suspended and
expelled at a rate three times greater than white students (1). In Texas, specifically, the rate is
3.6 times higher for black males than white males (12). That means that, despite there being a
22.32% of whites, and 17.25% of blacks, and 49% Hispanic population, black males are on
average, suspended 3.6 times the amount of white males and 2.25 times the amount of Hispanic
males according to US data and the official Garland ISD data report released. This is only
regarding Out of School Suspensions for males. In the same vein, black females are suspended

Berry 8
five times more than white females and 3.33 times more than Hispanic females (14). Many
would blame students and their own choices, especially as they reach the teenage years, however,
the report clarifies a glaring problem with students before they are truly mentally cognizant and
responsible for their behavior: preschool discipline gaps. The report tells us that it trends even in
preschool (ages 3-4), black children represent 18% of preschool enrollment, but 42% of the
preschool children suspended once, and 48% of the preschool children suspended more than
once. How can these numbers be so high, especially in preschool? This trajectory has been
described as the school-to-prison pipeline and one that mirrors the race-based discrimination
characteristic of the carceral state (Giroux 98). But these are not the ways to handle any type of
offences, especially such small offences that students are committing. Incarceration should be
the last resort, not the first resort in dealing with our children (Giroux 99).
In the end, where critical pedagogy can make a huge impact is the idea of discipline and
punishment happening more than once. To have to keep data on students who have been
suspended more than once, means that the punishment/ discipline is not working. Discipline is
designed to modify behavior, and according to our own very common Code of Conduct for the
Garland Independent School District, Discipline shall be designed to improve conduct and to
encourage students to adhere to their responsibilities as members of the school community (11).
Nowhere in this purposeful statement is it written that discipline was to punish- it specifically
tells us that discipline is there to improve students conduct and create responsible members of
society. So, what do these statistics really indicate? Are these punishments, or are they designed
to improve behavior, but what about when they are focused more on one group of students, and
not inclusive of the student at all? Especially, we should take into account that these punishments
become repeat sentences - and that does not indicate improvement in conduct. If official reports

Berry 9
are published, and objective data shown, then critical pedagogy tells us that we need to challenge
the status quo, make changes and strive to improve lives, not worsen them.The reflection and
action found in critical pedagogy needs to be applied for the oppressed students in our public
school system to have a chance, to become responsible, contributing citizens capable of
governing themselves.
The Code of Conduct
As required by state law, the board of trustees has officially adopted the Student Code of
Conduct in order to promote a safe and orderly learning environment for every student (Garland
ISD 1). This is the first sentence of Garland ISDs Code of Conduct handbook. It is a 65 page
document available online, and only in print upon request by a parent (15). With just that little
amount of knowledge, we already know many things. We know immediately this document is
only here because it is a requirement, not a desire by the district to make an effort for its students.
Additionally, although disheartening at its core, the idea that a 65 page document that orders
what a students actions should be for 13 years of his or her life, is mainly available online, and
not something that is readily available to many of its directed audience who may not have access
to technology, promotes an even greater feeling of exasperation. What parent or child in a typical
urban school district would be interested in reading 65 pages of directives?
Disbarring those simple background contextual facts, the Code of Conduct is a document
that issues orders, requirements and directives- all without discourse, input, negotiation or
discussion of said directives from the people who are required to follow them. There is no
participation in its writing and there are no options for those who believe in different values.
School has become a model for a punishing society in which children who violate a rules as

Berry 10
minor as a dress-code infraction or slightly act out in class can be handcuffed, booked, and put in
a jail cell (Giroux 97).
Although enacting an all-encompassing, tolerance-free, strict Code of Conduct may seem
to be focused on teaching students to be responsible adults, can it really be done with a set-instone document, a concrete policy implemented by the most powerful in the local education
system? The pedagogy of the oppressed cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors. It
would be a contradiction of terms if the oppressors not only defended, but literally implemented
a liberating education (Friere 54). Despite all efforts to fix or discipline there is, by definition no
discipline pedagogy that truly improves conduct if it does not include reflection, action and the
participation of students themselves. So, regardless of Garlands goal, and much of the nations,
whether it is to improve conduct and to encourage students to adhere to their responsibilities as
members of the school community (Garland 11), it cannot happen when the students have not
been included. Schools should not invest in a great discipline policy, but rather a genuine
discipline praxis (Yang 59).
Critical issues continue revolve around cultural misunderstandings including dress code
violations. The district sets a separate dress code policy, but uses the Code of Conduct to order
students to follow the dress code arbitrarily decided by the district officials. Again, this does not
take into account cultural differences, values and independent personalities. It assumes the idea
that one way is the only way, without reflection or inclusion of students who must follow it. Not
following dress code can often lead to Code of Conduct punishments, disruption of the students
class time, and humiliation/ resentment towards the education system that seeks to value a
subjective standard of dress over a students academic progress.

Berry 11
Giroux intimates that critical pedagogy is a moral and political practice premised on the
assumption that learning is not about processing received knowledge but about actually
transforming it as part of a more expansive struggle for individual rights and social justice (72).
In practical application, a student know that the rules say he or she cannot wear a certain type of
clothing, and that they will be disciplined, but the lack of critical pedagogy found within the
system, and then within the students, disincludes the student from learning anything, altering
behavior, or questioning the practice or the rule in any kind of way. The lack of critical pedagogy
impacts this simple discipline procedure many times over, and in the end, leaves the student
without a choice, a plan or ability to critically think for him or herself. In fact, Giroux argues for
a transformative pedagogy that relentlessly questions the kinds of labor, practices, and forms of
production that are enacted in public and higher education (74). To expect our students to not
have a voice neither in the rule making, the practices or the punishments, but requires that they
adhere to it, sounds ludicrous. Students who are critical should be questioning and participating
in the practices of education that govern them, especially ones that have been proven to oppress
certain sub-groups.
We can dissect the background, the wording and the creation of it, but it becomes truly
detrimental when we consider the implementation section entitled: Discipline Management
Techniques. Here is where the students lack agency, and are merely an oppressed people in an
effort to marginalize the students and control their behavior in a manner that is more reflective of
our white, patriarchal value system. These methods have ways that inflict irreparable harm on
their minds and bodies. Many youth now have to endure drug tests, surveillance cameras,
invasive monitoring, random searches, security forces in schools, and a host of other militarizing
and monitoring practices typically used against suspected criminals, terrorists (Giroux 96).

Berry 12
These methods have becomes normalized in many urban school districts where students are
subjected to metal detectors, pat-downs, and restrictions on their personal property. Procedures
like these only serve to criminalize the smallest behaviors, like forgetting an ID badge or not
wearing a long enough sweater. In other words, we are creating a stronger feeling of power for
those in charge, and dehumanizing students.
The school uses a variety of methods including grouping and use of physical restraint of
misbehaving students to one room, utilizing surveillance cameras, placing teachers on hall duty
(like security guards), and using the ever present threat of administration walking in to catch
them in the act of something small and insignificant. My students have blindly been trained to
keep headphones hidden at all times in my class, despite me allowing their use, for fear of the
principal walking in and dispensing punishment. This type of discipline is outlined in
Foucaults book, Discipline and Punishment. Foucault implies that schools are employing the
disciplinary power signified with Benthams Panoptican, helping schools deprive individual of
their freedom (or liberty as Paulo Friere refers to it). Students become anxious and when they do
commit infractions the system is designed to be so controlling that students transgressions
repeat, multiply and then bury them in unfairly, unequally punished environments. The
oppressed have been destroyed precisely because their situation has reduced them to things
(Friere 68). This dehumanization leads to students feelings like they do not matter, that they
deserve to be treated this way.
These techniques handed down in the Code of Conduct do not allow students options, or
involvement with their own consequences. Often when students find themselves into this cycle
of punishments, they are only repeating punishments and no lesson is learned, no praxis is taking
place. Paulo Friere defines praxis as reflection and action upon the world in order to transform

Berry 13
it (51). Students often find themselves stuck in a cycle, an endless circle that continuously leads
them into bad choices because inevitably, they see not change, no hope on the horizon. This is
significant because in order to enact change in conduct, to improve it as hopes we can do,
they must perceive the reality of oppression not as a closed world from which there is no exit
(Friere 49).
The cultural bias, allowing the power structure to reign supreme, is prevalent throughout
the Code of Conduct. It lists lots of management techniques, but in no way implies teachers must
use them, and actually leaves the application of lesser measures of discipline management up to
each teacher individually. As much as we love our teachers, this leaves an extreme amount of
room for cultural differences, emotional punishment, and unfair justice based on a teachers
flight of fancy. As one begins to examine some of the rules, we see lots of subjective words being
thrown around. Respect, Appropriate, or Misbehaviors are all examples of words that
could mean various things across cultures, families, or class to class. Students are expected to
interpret these meanings in the same way as middle class adults do, often without explanation or
participation in the defining of the words or behaviors.
When it comes down to what really needs to be done, the Code of Conduct leaves no
room for growth, self-management or improvement for the students. There are no alternative
solutions, there is no mediation or rehabilitation of behaviors. Even if a student decides that they
want to act on their desire to behave more appropriately, they are not given discourse, or even
recourse. I cannot count how many times students have butted heads with teachers on my
campus. Often, it is just wrong impressions, misunderstandings or personality mixes. The
problem is that a student cannot take him or herself out of that situation. The Code of Conduct
addresses the removal of a student very specifically as a punishment initiated by staff meant to

Berry 14
benefit the class. Administration or teachers may initiate the removal or transfer of the student to
another classroom; however, it cannot be initiated by the student or even the students parent
(Garland 18). So not only are students not allowed to participate in the making of the rules, but
they cannot self-govern themselves in an effort to improve their behavior.
Through a careful reading of Garland ISDs Code of Conduct we have discovered many
weaknesses that contribute to the detriment of students and increase their discipline gap. Not
only is it physically not easily accessible, it is not truly meant to grow student conduct. Despite
its stated purpose, the punishments meted out do not culminate in any type of remediation, rather
they contribute towards worsening a students lifelong citizenship by labeling, isolating students
academically and creating a cycle of damage. Discipline management techniques outlined in the
Code of Conduct are left to the discretion of teacher and lead to cultural bias, misinterpretation
and unfair implementation. The Code of Conduct does not allow for students to take part in
managing their own discipline, rather it prohibits this in many ways from allowing students to act
as the responsible adults they are learning to be. We have also found that the allowance made for
the school contribute to the dehumanizing of students, with monitoring and lack of trust in them.
It is through this examination that critical pedagogy can challenge the status quo. As Yang points
out, Somewhere between Freire and Foucault, we hope, critique, question and act (60); critical
pedagogy and praxis can help students take an incredible step forward.
What is Critical Pedagogy, and how does it apply?
The things that society wants out of every student, the expectations to be contributing
citizens, cognizant of social issues, self-sufficient and able to govern themselves as individuals
and the community as a whole, are something we have lost sight of on a conscious level. Giroux
neatly packs up this ideal human as the goal for the praxis of critical pedagogy. Consequently, we

Berry 15
see how crucial education is in the formative culture of beliefs, practices, and social relations
that enable individuals to wield power, learn how to govern, and nurture a democratic society
that takes equality, justice, shared values, and freedom seriously (Giroux 4). Critical Pedagogy
informs the treatment and teachings of students in such a way that,
only through such a critical educational culture can students learn how to
become individual and social agents, rather than merely disengaged
spectators, and become able to not only to think otherwise, but also to act
upon civic commitments that necessitate a reordering of basic power
arrangements fundamental to promoting the common good and producing
a meaningful democracy. (Giroux 13).
Giroux puts it so succinctly when he reminds us that schools should be teaching students
how to be responsible, contributing adults who need to operate on their own after they graduate.
We cannot treat them as things, giving orders, expecting submission, and not modeling critical
thinking, and then expect them to step into that role when we exit their lives. Critical pedagogy
asserts that students can create their own learning from a position of agency andthrough a
culture of questioning (Giroux 14). Students must be able to ask why? and know the
reasoning behind actions; they must be able to reflect and learn how to make decisions and
choices of their own volition. Being told to act a certain way requires no maturity on any level, it
only maintains that a student cannot think for him or herself.
Many may still doubt the students are victims of this society, oppressed people who need
critical pedagogy to recover from schooling that depends on power and a banking education.
However, Friere notes the characteristics of the oppressed as people who often hear that they are
good for nothing, know nothing and are incapable of learning anything- that they are sick, lazy

Berry 16
and unproductive- that in the end, they become convinced of their own unfitness (63). How
often do we hear students being treated as such, and then students claiming it of each other? It
becomes almost like Stockholm syndrome, believing and identifying the oppressors despite
knowing the truth about themselves. Not only do the oppressed start judging themselves on
others beliefs, another characteristic of the oppressed is being submerged in reality, the
oppressed cannot perceive clearly the order which serves the interests of the oppressors (Friere
62). Often, students are so caught up in their reality, their day-to-day life, they do not see how
unfairly they are being treated.
It is imperative that students are able to involve themselves in their own governance, to
perceive when the status quo has begun to treat people unfairly, and then take part in changing it.
Once they understand this, students should be able to use that knowledge to critique the world
in which they live, and when necessary, to intervene in socially responsible ways in order to
change it (Giroux 14). Many of the praxis involved with critical pedagogy involves action:
active listening, active participation, collaboration, asking questions, asking why and changing
the things that are needed. But critical pedagogy is not an easy process; it is complicated in that it
requires the oppressed (our students) to be the change. Leaders, oppressors, sympathizers- they
cannot truly employ critical pedagogy until the students have fully realized their situation and
committed themselves to changing it. Students must see examples of vulnerability of the
oppressor until this occurs, they will continue disheartened, fearful, and beatenThey will
continue to accept this exploitation (Freire 64). It is a distinctive trait of any oppressed that
they will see the system as unbeatable, as all-powerful, but the vulnerabilities Freire talks about
are there, and when they can be seen, the spell is broken and the oppressed can see that.
How do we fix it?

Berry 17
Ira Shor suggests problem- posing teachers create problem- posing students, and in the
same manner, an administration and staff who consistently problem solve will generate students
who use thought and speech as the base for developing critical understanding of personal
experience, unequal conditions in society, and existing knowledge (33). Subsequently, the
educational environment surrounding the school implements the traditional curricula along with
traditional handling of discipline. In the same regard, they treat their academic issues
comparably; they have also learned that societal relations and discipline is something they must
put up with, to tolerate as best they can, to obey, or to resist. Their role is to answer questions,
not to question answers. In passive settings, they have despairing and angry feelings about
education, about social change, and about themselvesThey wait to be told what to do and what
things mean (26). It is this unbalanced power dynamic that allows discipline to be used as
another tool to oppress students, especially ones affected by class, race, grouping, religion or
culture. Students are taught not to fight it, and accept their punishment despite it becoming a
constant drill without meaning or substance behind it.
Shor wants to use education to empower students, and he reiterates that the difference
between empowering and traditional pedagogy has to do with the positive or negative feelings
students can develop for the learning processTheir consequential negative feelings interfere
with learning and lead to strong anti-intellectualism in countless students as well as to alienation
from civic life (23). This helplessness, and meaningless discipline process creates a backlash in
students leading to an interference in their academics. So despite the desire and purpose of
discipline to increase academic productiveness, it seems to have the opposite effect.
In essence, critical pedagogy calls for a discipline praxis, where reflection and action are
the solutions in which students actively participate. Teachers and administration must help in this

Berry 18
regards by making this praxis available and being willing to work with students in the same
manner. Freire warns, However, it is necessary to trust in the oppressed and in their ability to
reason. Whoever lacks this trust will fail to initiate dialogue, reflection, and communication
(66). He further reminds us that This conviction cannot be packaged and sold; it is reached,
rather by means of a totality of reflection and action (67).
Yang, in a comparison of two similar schools using holistic critical pedagogy methods
and another using zero tolerance, can close not only the discipline gap, but the achievement gap
as well, when students are included in a holistic manner. This also demonstrates how working
together and creating an open dialogue intent on rehabilitation improved not only school
discipline, but also increased achievement as compared to a school using zero tolerance policies.
This is important because education practices need to be deliberate and planned. A
revolutionary leader must accordingly practice co-intentional education (Yang 69). Critical
pedagogy will not happen overnight, and it cannot be forced, rather it can be nurtured and
supported. Critical pedagogy must remain a praxis initiated and substantiated by the oppressed;
teachers and administrators cannot lead the charge, rather they must support and join.
Attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation
is to treat them as objects (65).
In Conclusion
Our education system has faced many reforms, fads, trends and always seems to be at the
mercy of politics of the hour. The problem forming in the last few decades has created
environments where populations are often warehoused in schools that resemble boot camps
(Giroux 92). Rather than focusing on educating students, teachers and administrators frequently

Berry 19
leave their chosen profession because it has become so focused on discipline. Students leave
disheartened, and disenfranchised. Teachers see students come in hopeful and leave broken; the
solution never seems enough, the latest trends do not have lasting effects, and school starts to
seem like students are incarcerated in prison s that privilege punishment over rehabilitation
(Giroux 92).
In a space where discipline is sometimes a taboo subject associated with repression
and authoritarianism and seemingly at odds with a priori assumptions of democratic, student
centered classrooms, we need to bridge that gap, and make a connection between the two and
make discipline a democratic process (Yang 53). Our education system has been modeled on a
society that has no idea how to handle social problems; and therefore, seeks to control what it
does not understand. I am not likening critical pedagogy to a fad or trend, rather, it should be
viewed as the original way of educating students. Dewey bemoans the loss of hands-on
education that taught critical thinking in a practical way; education that trusted its students to
engage themselves and conduct themselves according to their own cultural dictations. Friere,
Giroux, and Shor all draw on this idea of student participation and growth. In the end, what we
can hope for in applying critical pedagogy to discipline praxis in schools is to instill a
responsibility in our students for their own behavior to the point where complexity of
knowledge, culture, values and social issues can be explored in open and critical dialogue
(Giroux 124).

Berry 20
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon, 1977.
Print.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000. Print.
Garland Independent School District. 2014-2015 Code of Conduct. N.p.: Garland Independent
School District, n.d. Garlandisd.net. Garland ISD, 2014. Web. Dec. 2014.
<http://www.garlandisd.net/departments/school_operations/>.
Garland Independent School District, comp. District Profile. Rep. Garland ISD, 2014. Web. Dec.
2014. <http://www.garlandisd.net/about/documents/District%20Profile_14-15.pdf>.
Giroux, Henry A. On Critical Pedagogy. New York: Continuum, 2011. Print.
Shor, Ira. Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: U of Chicago,
1992. Print
United States. Office of Civil Rights, comp. Data Snapshot: School Discipline. Rep. N.p., Mar.
2014. Web. Dec. 2014. <ocrdata.ed.gov>.
Yang, K. W. "Discipline Or Punish? Some Suggestions for School Policy and Teacher Practice."
Language Arts 87.1 (2009): 49-61. ProQuest. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.