Critical Pedagogy For Educator

Critical Pedagogy for Early Childhood
and Elementary Educators

Lois McFadyen Christensen • Jerry Aldridge
Critical Pedagogy for Early

Childhood and Elementary
Educators
Lois McFadyen Christensen Jerry Aldridge
Ph.D, Professor Ed. D, Professor Emeritus
School of Education UAB
University of Alabama
OMEP Representative to UN/UNICEF
Birmingham, AL, USA
North American OMEP Representative
to OAS
New York, NY
USA
ISBN 978-94-007-5394-5 ISBN 978-94-007-5395-2 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5395-2
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012948710
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions
for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to
prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface
Introduction
How might educators develop a sense of social justice as teachers of young children in
elementary schools? A more specific, central question that you might utilize to guide
the study of this text would be something like this: How do early and elementary
educators and candidates develop, connect to, examine, and enact the tenets of critical
pedagogy in their lives and extend critical pedagogy into curriculum and instruction
with young children?
In order to meet the fundamentals of social justice and the diversities that all young
children bring to into classrooms across public educational systems, the study of
critical pedagogy assists early childhood and elementary teachers to discern the
myriad democratic dynamics involved in K–6 elementary educative settings (Kincheloe,
2008). Not only is the landscape of social and economic life changing in the twenty-
first century, now education has the challenge of preparing children for workplaces.
Knowledge and skills rapidly become outmoded, and diversity in every sense of the
word is commonplace. McLaren (2007) prompts early and elementary educators to
openly and critically confront the complexities of our diverse society, to investigate
the foundation of and inequality and injustice in our lives, and then help our students
to do the same. McLaren (2007) states, “As teachers we must face our own culpability
in the reproduction of inequality in our teaching, and that we must strive to develop
a pedagogy equipped to provide both intellectual and moral resistance to oppression,
one that extends the concept of pedagogy beyond the mere transmission of knowledge
and skills and the concept of morality beyond interpersonal relations. Pedagogy in
this instance must be linked to class struggle and the politics of liberation. This is
what critical pedagogy is all about” (p. 48).
The need for citizens who are self-directed, lifelong learners, and who think
morally, justly, and democratically is becoming increasingly apparent. When focusing
on broad-ranging educational outcomes, there emerges another definitive need. That
is a well-informed citizenry that is able to thrive as quickly as social and economic
environments change. Teacher educators have as a challenge to assist teachers of
v
vi Preface
young children, candidates, and the young children that they teach to profoundly
consider, rethink, accept, promote, and proceed to enact critical pedagogical practice
in primary and elementary school settings (Giroux & McLaren, 1992).
The Testing Paradox
Despite this auspicious endeavor, Alfie Kohn (1993) illustrates the existing extreme
paradox. Schools are still hampered by outmoded practices. Elementary schools are
often the least democratic places within the democratic republic of the United States.
Grimly, democracy, civic competence, and its involvement are now acknowledged
as anecdotal to elementary curriculum and seemingly of limited educational benefit.
It is seldom if ever taught. In 2007, the National Council for the Social Studies
(NCSS, 2007) issued a position statement about the neglect of teaching civics and
social studies in the primary and elementary grades and overall erosion of the content
area due to the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) is an economic
scheme and moves funding from schools to private, for profit institutions (Bracey,
2009; McLaren, 2007; Nichols & Berliner, 2007). Some elementary schools spend an
inordinate amount of time in test preparation, like automated plants, with children
bubbling in Scantron™ sheets in order to pass tests with items and questions
developed by noneducators for extreme amounts of money. Literacy, math, and now
science, added in 2006, are tested. Yes, and these tests are administered over a 2- or
3-day period. Do you think that an academic year’s worth of young children’s learning
can be measured by one half of a week sitting for tests?
Where is civics on the mandated test? Social studies and history are not evident
on any of the tests. Why are these disciplines eliminated? These are questions for
you and your colleagues or class to discuss. This irrational educative legislation and
practice in the United States has vast and discordant outcomes. How are young
children and youth prepared to comprehend fundamental civics, history, geography,
economics, and sociology as fundamental concepts? How will our youngest citizens
begin to comprehend enough civic competence to maintain a free and just society
for our nation within a global community (NCSS, 2007)? Teachers’ direct and
present didactic information for students’ recall are still the methods of choice for
many teachers, despite the now wide range of exciting possibilities that have the
potential to enrich the educational experience of students and provide teachers with
greater levels of professional and personal satisfaction (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007;
Fullan, 2007).
Elementary Student-Centered Teaching Practice

for Democratic Social Justice
Elementary youth, teacher candidates, and teachers merit learning in powerful, in-
depth fashions, combining their interests alongside teachers who facilitate active, social,
cognitive, and affective growth. These are characteristics enacted by humanistic,
Preface vii
reflective primary and elementary teachers in democratic settings. Humanistic

teachers offer democratic learning experiences characterized by exploration and
inquiry within a challenging and caring environment where students have choices
about curriculum, problem solving, and decision-making.
There are some primary and elementary schools that are now returning to more
humane and child-centered practices shaped from the bygone progressive era (Kohn,
2008; Mitchell, 1934; Young, 1901). Hence, nurturing early educators’ growth is
featured toward acceptance of every form of diversity representative of each and
every classmate around the world. Through reflection, discussion, demonstration,
and immersion, about local, community, and global social action topics, enable
learners to apply what they have learned. Educators and teacher candidates who
read this text, consider the content, reflect, connect reflections to life and teaching
contexts, and ultimately plan and enact approaches to sound elementary pedagogy
while implementing humanistic, innovative, child-focused teaching for social justice
are more likely to become critical pedagogues.
Elementary Students as a Part of a Global Citizenry
Unmistakably, the past enlightens our way into the future. As Kierkegaard reminds
us, life can only be understood backward. Yet, life is lived forward. Consequently,
opportunities for early and elementary educators to move past reflection and enact
critical pedagogy establish memories for youngsters to pass through the windows
that enlighten the future. To comprehend social action more deeply, it is key that
young students develop as responsive learners through circumstances that offer
them active, social transformational learning. Having recollections about that
involvement creates a personal formative history (Levstik & Barton, 2010). For
young students to become fully aware of just situations in the present, and having
experiences with active social action promote and engender the development of
personal moral codes as citizens in the local, national, and global society. This is the
essence and nature of learning and enacting critical pedagogy for social action with
young children (McLaren, 2007). Are there socioeconomic and class issues that
enter into where elementary children attend school? This is just a problem-posing
question to begin the discussion.
Organization of the Text
The chapters in this text are arranged in an organized fashion to build on the reader’s
knowledge as critical theoretical understandings are systematically considered,
accommodated, and enacted. The text encompasses ten chapters. Each builds on the
next. Readers consequently should be able to challenge their own thinking and
teaching, in order to enact a more just and critical pedagogy for transformational
teaching. This in turn has potential to perpetuate social justice ideals with a younger,
more malleable citizenry, who will lead us into a more enlightened present and future.
viii Preface
What Is Critical Pedagogy?
Chapter 2 is designed to discuss the definition and nature of critical pedagogy from
a practical standpoint for elementary teachers (Vasquez, 2006). This chapter also
seeks to define and explain the numerous terms that pervade critical pedagogical
literature. Critical pedagogy has its own vocabulary, and we present the most salient
and used terms in the field. A brief discussion of conscientization, codification, cul-
tural capital, dialectic, diversity, hegemony, hidden curriculum, patriarchy, and
praxis is necessary in order to illuminate critical pedagogy and enter in the
dialogue.
Being Critical of Critical Pedagogy
Critical pedagogy has its critics. There are three major criticisms that permeate the
literature. We believe these criticisms have to be addressed. In Chap. 3, we pose
solutions to these criticisms that will help elementary teachers move beyond the prob-
lems of critical pedagogy and work toward positive solutions.
Assumptions: Where Are We?
Critical theory is a vast and expansive discipline with multiple points of view. However,
most critical theorists share three assumptions (Kessler & Swadener, 1992). These
include the following:
• Certain forms of knowledge are valued over others.
• School knowledge belongs to a particular group.
• Those in power use their position to maintain their dominant position in society.
This chapter considers each of these assumptions and ways to transcend and
transform them. It assists readers to consider where their assumptions lie and what
underlies them. Readers begin to deconstruct assumptions constructed through the
myriad contexts from familial living to institutional formation.
Identity
Students begin rudimentary reflection about experiences of citizenship in action

and then move beyond to begin enacting citizenship that is contextually connected
to democracy and humankind. Traditional classroom learning is predominantly an
autocratic endeavor. Inspiration, creativity, and intelligence of teachers and students
Preface ix
alike are snuffed out while textbooks the peddlers of scripted behaviorist modes of
learning proliferate and make millions. Teachers are “deskilled” rather than profes-
sionalized (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007). Educators live and teach in contradiction
and paradox! How can society expect learners to describe democracy and graduate
from school knowing how to subsist within one with minimal experience?
Democracy is the principled ideal in the USA. Except all too often the ideals of
democracy are violated. There is a huge chasm between valuing democracy and the
reality of how the pluralistic society in the USA lives. Racism and sexism ram-
pantly exist. Because of perpetuated stereotypical perceptions, gender discrimina-
tion relies on restricted roles and educational and occupational options for women
students.
So foremost when the present educational situation sounds so dire, how do edu-
cators begin to see the contradictions? (Posner, 1992) Subsequently, how do they
move into a more democratic approach to teaching and learning that is the experi-
ential heart of transformational social action? The fundamental solution is to con-
nect teachers and students to people and organizations where their actions can make
a difference. Once that is achieved, personal interest and social relationships become
“habits of mind,” which do secure social change. Making a difference in a local or
global setting is transformational social action, the essence living.
Praxis of Critical Pedagogy
Praxis is the interplay between theory and practice. As critical theory is applied to
pedagogy, classroom practices change. As change occurs, together, elementary
teachers and students begin to carefully reflect and reexamine cherished belief
systems. How to navigate between theory and practice is the focus of this
chapter.
If learners do not have firsthand experience with social action, how will they
internalize citizenship or come to understand democracy? Schools in the USA are
often the least democratic places. Democracy is seldom the way in which teachers
plan, implement lessons, or evaluate learning. And most of the time, the regime of
directed learning is expected and ordered by administrators.
Kincheloe (2001) describes how education can be civically challenging and
result in social action. His conception includes teachers assisting learners to develop
enough content knowledge to be able to analyze and construct self and social know-
ledge. Consequently, students would have the cognitive tools to knowledgably ques-
tion and become self-directed. It is peculiar that so few schools administrators seem
unaware that within the walls of learning lies the training ground for democracy. If
students are involved in transformational social action, students envision belonging
locally and globally. Democracy becomes authentic. Students see how democracy is
connected to justice and equality. Social change is possible (Kincheloe, 2001).
Schools of today focus on academics to the detriment of personal development and
x Preface
identity. Both individual and group identity are relegated to a backseat or simply not
considered. This chapter considers how through education we come to know who
we are and how educators can assist with this process from a critical theoretical
perspective. Critical pedagogy should assist students in asking the following
questions:
• Who am I?
• Why am I here?
• Where am I going?
• How do I get there?
• What obstacles are in my way? How can I transcend these?
• Who travels life with me, what groups?
Discrimination
While most critical theorists reject the notion of universal stages, we consider how
discrimination develops over time, posing the question, “Does discrimination
develop in stages?” We suggest that discrimination moves from prejudice to hatred
and ultimately can conclude in dehumanization. We trace several examples in history
from the Diaspora in Africa, the Holocaust in Europe, through the civil rights movement
in the USA and apartheid in South Africa.
In this chapter, we ask you to examine power relationships and practices in early
childhood and elementary education. We examine framing classroom practices from
more than one perspective, providing numerous scenarios for student problem solving.
A major emphasis is on how knowledge is partial and context specific. Finally, we
examine the historical, social, political, economic, and cultural contexts from which
our students must negotiate and navigate. Learning about people different from us
is key. How do we get to know others? Again, we go back to Banks’ model of studying
diversity (Banks, 2008).
Revisiting some of the ideas in other chapters concerning identity, we look at self,
others, and institutions. We reconsider “Who am I?” but also “Who are others?” and
what does that mean? How do we accept others? What does that look like? What
doesn’t it look like? Who can we accept? Are there people we don’t accept?
Gender, Ethnicity, and Disability
This chapter moves beyond discrimination and considers the unique opportunities
teachers have to address characteristics of gender, nationality, and differences in
abilities. Critical educators can make a difference in how uniqueness and differ-
ences are perceived in the classroom. Teachers can also move to help all children
develop to their full participation and value their gender, national, ethnic, and ability
differences.
Preface xi
The Dilemma of Social Justice
Chapter 9 considers social justice and citizenship and places these topics in the
context of Fraser’s model of social justice (Knight-Abowitz & Harnish, 2006). Beyond
the definitions of social justice and citizenship, this chapter considers what constitutes
appropriate social justice and citizenship experiences. Liberal and conservative dis-
courses are presented as well as social action at the micro- and macrolevels.
Teaching for Transformation
There are basically four types of teaching. These are (1) transmission, (2) transac-
tion, (3) inquiry, and (4) transformation (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007). Chapter 10
describes each in detail. Transformation is discussed as the most congruent with
critical pedagogy, with explanations of the nature of this connection. Also described
are teaching types, how to implement each, and strengths and weaknesses.
Looking Back and Moving Forward
The concluding chapter is concerned with taking action. Readers that develop a plan
and move from planning to practice have a “toolbox” constructed from reading the
text. Teachers and candidates will be enabled to further expand a civically minded,
competent, transformational approach to citizenship. Teachers of young and elemen-
tary children perpetuate and help students to do the same. Seeing the oneness in just
schooling and citizenship by enacting praxis to examine assumptions and identity,
educators transform. Shalem, contemplative living through compassion and collabo-
ration are goals. Will you participate? You and your students are the critical pedagogues
in the making. So are we. Everyone is.
References
Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 653–690.
Aldridge, J., & Goldman, R. (2007). Current issues and trends in education. New York: Allyn &
Bacon.
Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education (4th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Bracey, G. W. (2009). The Bracey report on the condition of public education. Retrieved January
18, 2011, from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/BRACEY-2009.pdf
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of learning
(4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1992). Forward: Education for democracy. In J. Goodmans (ed.),
Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
xii Preface
Kessler, S., & Swadener, B. (1992). Introduction: Reconceptualizing curriculum. In S. Kessler &
B. Swadener (eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum. Beginning the dialogue
(pp. xiii–xxviii). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/social sciences in the
twenty-first century. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer. (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Knight-Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of
Educational Research, 76(4), 653–690.
Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let student decide. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(1), 8–20.
Kohn, A. (2008). Progressive education: Why it’s hard to beat but also why it’s hard to find. Independent
School, 19–28.
Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2010). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and
middle schools. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of
education. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mitchell, L. S. (1934). Social studies and geography. Progressive Education, 11, 97–105.
NCSS. (2007). Social studies in the era of No Child Left Behind: A position statement of the National
Council for the Social Studies. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts
America’s schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill.
U. S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference. Washington,
DC: Author.
Vasquez, O. A. (2006). Review of Research in Education, 30, 33–64.
Young, E. F. (1901). Isolation in the school. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Acknowledgements
This text is dedicated wholly to the intellectual spirit-filled essence of the critical
pedagogue and inspirational life of Joe L. Kincheloe.
It was this initial e-mail contact after a hiatus of years of nothing much but hugs
and hellos that inspired the initial writing of it.
On Oct 13, 2006, at 1:54 PM, jkincheloe@aol.com wrote:
lois,
i’ve been noticing some of the good work you’re doing in your publication and your
interest in critical pedagogy in elementary school. i’m always looking for people--even who
graduated from a & m (ha)) who can express complex critical pedagogical ideas in acces-
sible ways. reading your work i think you can do that. i have a new series with springer in
the netherlands who has agreed to produce transgressive critical textbooks for less than
30 dollars. i have asked the authors with books in the series to use their pedagogical imagi-
nation to write an accessible reader friendly book that takes chances about critical pedagogical
ideas in education. there aren’t many textbooks like that out there.
would you be interested in doing a 250 page text in you own pedagogically smart ideosyn-
cratic way on teaching critical pedagogy in elementary education?
let me know if you’re interested and if you have any questions.
say hello to everyone in Birmingham.
many regards,
joe
Hence, there would be no text without Joe L. Kincheloe. Shirley Steinberg, Joe’s
beloved, now with his gift of essence, fulfills his unfinished work. Shirley, we are
profoundly grateful to you and extend solace to you. Your transcendent bonds to Joe
will always remain. Ken Tobin, who willingly assists Shirley, we are extremely
indebted to you.
xiii
xiv Acknowledgements
Writing this text has been a long journey of the soul for various reasons. Mainly,
we have learned an immense amount from writing it and from our students in criti-
cal pedagogy. Numerous iterations finally brought this book to fruition. We are
deeply indebted and thankful to Paul C. Christensen and Conor and Kathleen
Christensen. We are so very thankful for Winnie and Titus Aldridge and to Ricky
Aman and Jonathan Chao, as well as Jessica Capp, Susan Durant, Jennifer Kilgo,
and Maxie Kohler for always providing such strong support. We extend gratitude to
all of you.
Acknowledgements xv
Acknowledgements xvii
xviii Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements xix
Contents
1 Introduction: Critical Pedagogy in an Age

of the Marketization of Education.......................................................... 1
The Marketization of Education ................................................................ 2
The Hope of Critical Pedagogy.................................................................. 3
References .................................................................................................. 4
2 What Is Critical Pedagogy? .................................................................... 5
Glossary ..................................................................................................... 7
References .................................................................................................. 10
3 Being Critical of Critical Pedagogy ........................................................ 11
Specific Criticisms of Critical Pedagogy ................................................... 11
Transforming Criticisms into Solutions ..................................................... 12
Making Accessible the Language of Critical Pedagogy ....................... 13
Incorporating Other Voices Beyond Those of White Men .................... 13
Becoming Part of the Solutions and Not Just the Problems
of Critical Pedagogy.............................................................................. 14
References .................................................................................................. 15
4 Assumptions: Where Are We? ................................................................ 17
Particular Forms of Knowledge Are Valued Over Others.......................... 18
Standards ............................................................................................... 18
School Knowledge Belongs to the Privileged ............................................ 19
Those in Power Positions Try to Maintain
a Dominant Position in Society.................................................................. 20
What Can We Do to Make a Difference?................................................... 21
Get all Students Involved in Planning the Curriculum.......................... 21
Learn as Much as Possible About Diverse Populations ........................ 22
Examine Stereotypes and Assumptions
About Socioeconomic Status ................................................................ 23
References .................................................................................................. 23
xxi
xxii Contents
5 Identity ...................................................................................................... 25
Who Am I? Why Am I Here? .................................................................... 26
Family Structures .................................................................................. 27
What Are Obstacles to Identify Formation? .............................................. 28
How Do We Overcome Obstacles to Identity Formation?......................... 30
How Do We Get There? ............................................................................. 30
Who Will Advocate for the Children? ....................................................... 31
References .................................................................................................. 32
6 Praxis and Critical Pedagogy .................................................................. 35
Theoretical Background ............................................................................. 36
Educators’ Making Meaning...................................................................... 36
Examining the Unexamined ....................................................................... 36
What Is White Privilege? ........................................................................... 37
Cultural Capital .......................................................................................... 37
How to Accomplish Praxis ........................................................................ 38
Application................................................................................................. 39
Technology as Application .................................................................... 39
References .................................................................................................. 40
7 Discrimination .......................................................................................... 41
Legislation.................................................................................................. 42
Time and Space Context........................................................................ 42
Civil Rights Timeline ............................................................................ 43
Importance of Children and Resistance to Segregation ............................. 45
The Struggle for Voting Rights .................................................................. 46
Voting Rights Timeline .............................................................................. 47
Stage Development of Discrimination ....................................................... 48
Assisting Young Students to Accept and Enact
Antidiscriminatory Practice ....................................................................... 49
References .................................................................................................. 50
8 Gender, Ethnicity, and Disability............................................................ 53
Gender Strides and Declines ...................................................................... 53
Women in Higher Education ...................................................................... 54
Women and Compensation ........................................................................ 54
Theorists in Educational Foundations ........................................................ 55
Women Left Out of Educational Psychological
and Historical Foundations ................................................................... 55
Ways for Faculty to Promote Equity in the Classroom .............................. 56
Hands and Minds on Ideas for Elementary Learners
to Learn About Women in Education ........................................................ 57
Integrating Women into Elementary Critical
Pedagogy Classrooms ........................................................................... 57
Lesson Plan ................................................................................................ 58
References .................................................................................................. 59
Contents xxiii
9 The Dilemma of Social Justice ................................................................ 61

What Is Social Justice? .............................................................................. 61
What Is Citizenship? .................................................................................. 62
Fraser’s Model of Social Justice ................................................................ 64
We Pray for the Child................................................................................. 68
References .................................................................................................. 69
10 Teaching for Transformation .................................................................. 71
Teaching as Transmission .......................................................................... 71
Role of the Teacher ............................................................................... 71
The Role of the Students ....................................................................... 72
The Role of Materials............................................................................ 72
Are There Any Strengths of Transmission Teaching? .......................... 72
What Are Problems with “Transmission-Only” Instruction? ............... 73
Teaching as Transaction ............................................................................. 75
Role of the Teacher ............................................................................... 75
Role of Students .................................................................................... 75
Role of Materials ................................................................................... 76
What Are the Strengths of Transaction Teaching and Learning? ......... 76
What Are Problems with Transaction Teaching? .................................. 77
Teaching for Transformation...................................................................... 78
The Role of the Teacher ........................................................................ 78
The Role of the Students ....................................................................... 79
The Role of Materials............................................................................ 79
What Are the Strengths of Transformational Teaching? ....................... 79
What Issues Are Related to Transformation? ....................................... 80
References .................................................................................................. 82
11 Looking Back and Moving Forward ...................................................... 85
Reference ................................................................................................... 87
Index .................................................................................................................. 89
Chapter 1
Introduction
Critical Pedagogy in an Age of the Marketization
of Education
Beginning with what was called the common school movement in 1800s, public
education has been a decisive cornerstone on which the United States stands. To be
sure, the citizens who have substantially contributed to the constructive growth of
this country are those who—in no small number—have been schooled by an educa-
tion that was public. Currently, approximately 90% of school-age youngsters attend
public schools in the USA, and since the inception of public education some 150
plus years ago, public school teachers have been the unsung heroes of all what is
good in our nation. Without doubt, they are the ultimate public servants.
Alas, however, we have a short memory of all that is right with public education,
and many have forgotten why it remains a vital cog for the furthering of our democracy.
In fact, a disturbing phenomenon has been unfolding for the last number of years
which should be concerning for every citizen. That is, public education has been
under unprecedented attack whereby public school teachers are being blamed for
everything that ails our country. Teachers are clearly faced with multiple challenges
for numerous multilayered complex reasons, but these attacks are short-sighted, and
even devious. Responding to this reality, Matt Pavia, a teacher in Connecticut, wrote
an Op-Ed piece in his local newspaper expressing his concern, his outrage. And
while he was speaking to the political climate in Connecticut, he could have written
the same words in any state, USA. Pavia, in part, states:
Teachers are the reason for the achievement gap, teachers are the reason for unemployment,
and teachers are the reason there’s such a staggering economic divide between the rich and
poor… If politicians continue to point the finger at educators every time it is convenient for
them to do so, it won’t be long before they ask the public to believe that teachers are
accountable for climate change!… Because of the way the debate has been framed, any
educator who stands up to “reformers” in defense of teachers is caricatured as complacent,
ineffective, and quick to hide behind the protection of the union at the first sign of a threat
to the status quo… It has become too easy for politicians to convince the public that teacher
tenure is the enemy, that teacher evaluation and pay should be linked to students’ test scores,
and that teachers should bear sole responsibility for correcting all of the inequities in our
society. This type of thinking is not only simplistic; it has dangerous consequences for
schools and students. (Pavia, 2012, StamfordAdvocate.com)
L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 1

Childhood and Elementary Educators, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5395-2_1,
2 1 Introduction
Whether push-back responses are coming from a teacher in Connecticut or Diane

Ravitch, the former go-to-person for the right-wing establishment regarding all
things educational, the attack on public education is extraordinarily unhealthy for
our country.
The Marketization of Education
This systematic assault is particularly being hurled by neoliberal forces, which

has as its ultimate aim to dismantle public education. Backed by near bottomless
coffers in promoting its point of view, neoliberalism possesses an ideology that
propagandizes privatization, individualism, competition, and profit, all of which has
disturbingly, though quite successfully, shaped public opinion regarding what
direction education should take not only in the United States but is also having a
marked influence on a more global scale. This trajectory can be characterized as the
marketization of education, where school-aged youngsters are viewed as commodities,
school teachers as functionaries, and the emphasis for the purposes of education is
to singular equip youngsters to become contributors to the economic development
of the community.
The marketization of education views education as a positivistic endeavor, endorsing
rigid standardization while at the same time dismissing the notion of developmentally
appropriate practice and culturally sensitive teaching; promotes the mythical melting
pot mentality at the expense of marginalizing the pluralistic society we actually are;
advocates for the individual over the group; is more interested in competition than
collaboration; fosters self-centeredness over cooperation; and, overall, possesses no
interest in the common good. The marketization of education also works to defund
public education through the promotion of vouchers, charter schools, corporate
takeover of schools, and the promotion of so-called choice.
And, finally, the marketization of education views teacher education programs as
not relevant, with an advocacy to eradicate their existence. In other words, there are
efforts to systematically deprofessionalize the notion of teacher education, and the
teaching profession in general, and simultaneously promote a corporate model of
education that touts privatization, alternative certification, and “fast-track” programs
(Kirylo, 2011). These types of programs focus on “teacher training,” emphasizing the
learning of methods, techniques, and skills, simply steering prospective teachers to
become functionaries or what Stokes (1997) describes as technicians who uncriti-
cally abide by a standardized or a one-size-fits-all model of doing things. The trivial-
ization of teacher education and the emphasis on fast-track programs chillingly
minimizes the complex art and science of teaching, the importance of theories of
human development, the nature of learning, the nature of knowledge, the impact of
social and cultural forces on teaching and learning, critical thinking, the theory-practice
connection, and the inherent political nature of education.
In the final analysis, the deskilling of teachers, the objectification of school-age
youngsters, the marginalization of teacher education programs, and the systematic
The Hope of Critical Pedagogy 3
dismantling of anything public should necessarily raise gigantic red flags in our
collective consciousness because of the negative impact it will have (and is having)
on the survival of our very democracy and that very important space called the public
square. In his observation of the current landscape, Giroux (2011) makes the point
that neoliberalism fosters a way of thinking and acting whereby “…the language of
the social is either devalued or ignored altogether as the idea of the public sphere is
equated with a predatory space rife with danger and disease—as in reference to
public restrooms, public transformation, and urban public schools. Dreams of the
future are now modeled around the narcissistic, privatized, and self-indulgent needs
of consumer culture and the dictates of the alleged free market” (p. 112).
The Hope of Critical Pedagogy
While this existing reality is certainly cause for alarm and presents great challenges,
Freire (1998), however, reminds us to remain in that space called hope, a critical
space that he characterizes as an ontological requirement in which human beings
maintain that visionary activism toward a more humanizing reality. Giroux (2011)
further argues for an educated hope which “…demands that educators become more
attentive to the ways in which institutional forces and cultural power are tangled up
with everyday experience” (p. 123). In that light, the notion of critical pedagogy
offers a path to walk in hope and provides a frame in which educators can move
toward that attentive activism in fostering a more humanizing world.
While there are multiple descriptions as to what critical pedagogy is, there are,
however, central characteristics that are woven throughout all explanations of critical
pedagogy. That is, critical pedagogy is theoretically grounded; realizes that there is
no such thing as a neutral education; is aware of the political nature of education;
does not view education and life itself from a reductionistic or a deterministic point
of view; seeks to comprehend the link between knowledge and power; is contextually
attentive; promotes human rights, justice, and democracy; is a process of transfor-
mation; is a way of thinking; pays attention to gender, class, race, and ethnicity
issues and its relationship with oppression/liberation; moves both teacher and
student in a horizontal relationship as subjects; challenges the status quo; and is
continuously evolving. In short, the thinking of critical pedagogy provides percep-
tive insight to not only understand disparities and injustices in education but also
offers an incisive language to explain marginalization, alienation, and oppression,
ultimately guiding the opening of the proverbial door to transformative solutions
in fostering an authentic education that is democratic, just, and inclusive (Kirylo,
2011).
To be sure, there are numerous books and articles that have been written on the
topic related to critical pedagogy, indicative of the need for such literature in a world
that amazingly seems enamored with a fool’s gold ideology of neoliberalism.
Clearly, more literature is necessary in order to challenge this disturbing ideological
direction, particularly literature that has early childhood and elementary educators
4 1 Introduction
in mind as the audience. Enter in the work of Lois McFadyen Christensen and Jerry
Aldridge with their insightful book Critical Pedagogy for Early Childhood and
Elementary Educators. Christensen and Aldridge skillfully thread together a text
that accessibly discusses the nature of critical pedagogy, emphasizing it as a way of
thinking which celebrates differences, speaks for justice, and is particularly mindful
of advocating for those who have traditionally found themselves at “…the short end
of the historical stick” (Kincheloe, 1992, p. 644). But Christensen’s and Aldridge’s
book does more; without being formulistic, they explain with various examples
throughout the text what critical pedagogy might look like in action. In other words,
Christensen and Aldridge call for what Giroux (2011) characterizes as citizenship
education, which necessarily should be manifested in making “…connections
between theory and practice, reflection and action” (p. 171).
Reading Christensen’s and Aldridge’s book gives me hope in their clarion call of
challenging us to concretely work toward a more just world, a more humanizing
education for all children. Indeed, the tireless efforts of dedicated teachers who
work day in and day out is central to fostering that justice. In the end, Critical
Pedagogy for Early Childhood and Elementary Educators is scholarly, practical,
reader friendly, and a book whose time has come. This text is not only a must read
for the experienced classroom teacher and anyone who is interested in a more just
and right education for all but should be on the required reading list for those
studying to be early childhood and elementary school teachers.
James D. Kirylo
Author of Paulo Freire: The Man from Recife
References
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum.

Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.
Kincheloe, J. (1992, October). Liberation theology and the attempt to establish an emancipatory
system of meaning. Paper presented at the Bergamo Conference on Curriculum Theory and
Classroom Practice, Dayton, OH. In W. Pinar, W. Reynolds, P. Slattery, & P. Taubman,
Understanding curriculum (1995). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kirylo, J. D. & McNulty, C. P. (2011). Introduction: Teacher education programs in the midst of
change (Guest Editors for Annual Theme Issue). Childhood Education, 87(5), 315–317.
Pavia, M. (2012). Op-Ed: School reform: Teachers are not the problem. StamfordAdvocate.com
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Op-Ed-School-reform-Teachers-are-not-
the-problem-3478458.php
Stokes, W. T. (1997). Progressive teacher education: Consciousness, identity, and knowledge. In
P. Freire, J. W. Fraser, D. Macedo, T. McKinnon, & W. T. Stokes (Eds.), Mentoring the mentor:
A critical dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp. 201–227). New York: Peter Lang.
Chapter 2
What Is Critical Pedagogy?
Critical pedagogy is a composite term that theoretically encompasses and extends

one’s experience in a continuous struggle to accept and embrace another’s knowl-
edge, morals, language, class, sexual orientation, nationality and cultural mores, and
the gaps between and the connections among each of the listed groups (Friere, 1989;
Kincheloe, 2004). The question that critical pedagogues attempt to answer in early
childhood and elementary education is whose history, interests, future, and knowl-
edge does the school represent (Giroux, 2006). Truly, critical pedagogy is a personal,
lifelong journey. It is qualitatively different for each early childhood and elementary
teacher and candidate because every person has a unique worldview. Through
myriad identities, morals, assumptions, and values, we use all as a filter or lens in
which to interpret or make sense of every context, comment, and experience that we
encounter. Unconsciously and consciously we apply this filter interchangeably
based on the circumstances.
As the topics of class, ethnicity, power, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality
are central aspects of critical theory, all are often difficult topics for early childhood
and elementary teachers and candidates to discuss and accept. The related issues
folded within these subjects are sometimes de-emphasized rather than celebrated in
elementary settings. Instead of pretending that we live in a falsely unified society as
often presented in history, critical pedagogues examine what is historically invisible
(Levstik & Barton, 2010). It is a hope for critical pedagogues to create an equitable
educational system and model where all classes, ethnicities, sexual orientations,
nationalities, languages, and voices are included Darder, Torres, & Gutierrez, 1997).
It is through reflection on our lived experiences, especially in classrooms with
young children, that we can choose to see commonplace patterns, or we can choose
to look more introspectively as if into a prism and visualize how the commonplace
could be further interpreted by each of our students or coworkers and try to accept
life from their perspectives (Friere, 1989). Critical pedagogy provides a theoretical
base and systematic means to self-critique common theories of curriculum and instruc-
tion. It also offers an alternative approach for teachers at every level to intensely
reflect on teaching and learning practice (Stringer, Christensen, & Baldwin, 2009).

6 2 What Is Critical Pedagogy?
Moreover, critical pedagogy assists us in understanding what happens when we fail

to take into account the richness of cultural knowledge that walks into the classroom
with our students and families (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009). Greene (1995)
reminds us that critical pedagogy has the potential to illuminate teachers’ thinking
and enhance our teaching practices. Merleau-Ponty (1962/1967) identifies this pro-
cess as “to learn again to see the world” and “a power to signify a birth of meaning…
an expression of experience” (p. 60). Critical pedagogy is not just an educational
term but also political, social, and economic as defined by many theorists and edu-
cators (Friere, 1989; Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2007).
Elementary teachers and young children create a community of principled learn-
ers in their classrooms (Kohn, 2008). Some communities are more rigid about how
learning takes place and others are more child-sensitive and centered. Responsibility
in some classroom communities is not simply limited to the classroom. It might
extend to the local community or well beyond it. For example, an elementary teacher
we know well, Marcie, invited her students to email children a world away in Depok,
Indonesia, which is part of the greater Jakarta metropolitan area. As pen pals, both
groups could not be more disparate. The stereotypes that both elementary groups
had about the other are as diametrically opposed as anyone could imagine. As the
children in Depok all have computers at home and at school, they all wanted Marcie’s
students’ Facebook profiles. The puzzle in this exchange is that Marcie’s students
have access to computers and the Internet only at school. The school in Depok is
part of an upper-class socioeconomic community. Marcie and her students live in
rural Alabama where most of the children live in lower socioeconomic homes.
Preconceptions could not be more incorrect. Misconceptions abound. Some of
Marcie’s students have never been to a mall or ridden an escalator. They perceived
that their peers in Jakarta lived on dirt roads and had no idea about malls, when in
reality they do. In fact, the mall video sent to them displayed a modern mall structure
with five floors and the escalator exposed to the outside glass windows.
Marcie’s situation is the exception when it should be the rule. She is a responsive
teacher to her students. Delpit (1995) and Gay (2000) discussed how the academic
system, in particular, elementary classrooms, has a profound effect on their behavior
in adolescents. Children’s level of tolerance has a relationship to the amount of
opportunities they are given exposure to transact people of rich and diverse cultures.
As Bronfenbrenner (1979) posits, students locate themselves in widening concen-
tric circles, with themselves in the center that extends beyond the self, next to family
(interpersonal relationships), then to friends, peer groups, and the school which he
termed the “exosystem.” The “macrosystem” follows next beyond children’s ethnic
and cultural groups and often outside of their countries. This is where Marcie’s stu-
dents are engaged in the world. They are involved in a transformational critical peda-
gogy project. She offers opportunities for her elementary students not only to learn
about other countries but about the regions and localities through geography, social,
political, and economic disciplines. Essentially, Marcie and her students’ pedagogy,
the art and science of teaching, is put into social action and shared throughout the
school and community. They are committed to authentically learn about global diver-
sity and thus humanizing, examining, and investigating the concerns, belief systems,
issues, and lives of children across the globe in Depok, Indonesia.
Glossary 7
Maxine Greene (1995) emphasizes that critical pedagogy is a way for elementary
teachers to be mindful of learners’ lives and voices. Citizenship, she suggests, is
first learned in the classroom. It is one of the first communities to which a child
belongs. Questions related to issues of power, democracy, and justice allow young
students and their teachers to share values and cultural meaning that remake them to
who they are and can be. Classroom learning experiences consist of being citizens
in the classroom through to global citizenry. That is what citizenship is about. When
teachers and learners actively solve problems identified together, they are better able
to envision how others believe, live, and perceive the world. Thus, students are able
to become more fully conscious through reflection about how classroom culture is
shaped through a cyclic experience of a discursive and active process of looking,
listening, thinking, and acting (Stringer et al., 2009).
Simon (1988) suggests that critical pedagogy is also a way for teachers and
students to see the world using specific contexts to more fully appreciate and accept
people, their varied forms of knowledge, and the contextual situations beyond their
familiar and immediate social and physical surroundings and lives. For example,
children living in urban settings may frighten novice teachers for many reasons.
It might be because children may talk differently than they do. The neighborhood
may also look unlike the teachers’ own. People lead different lives and manifest
different diversities (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009). This is neither right nor
wrong. It is simply different.
Critical pedagogy is a way to distinctly rethink assumptions and teaching prac-
tice that might fail to take into account the richness of cultural knowledge that
“walks into the classroom” with our students and their families (Stringer et al.,
2009). By careful and thoughtful approaches to understanding specific contexts, we
grow as critical educators. People often with the least money and power and their
particular perspectives, frequently introduce newly inducted elementary educators
with opportunities to consider social and cultural diversity that affect our students
and families. Once educators are able to become more aware of family contexts, it
should become urgent to enact more just, equitable, and inclusive teaching
practice.
Glossary
Critical educators have a vernacular of their own. Many elementary teachers and
candidates are threatened by the verbiage. Critical theorists often use the following
terms and many are found throughout this text. That is why we put the glossary into
this chapter.
Conscientization Conscientization is bringing to consciousness what we know we
know. For example, many teachers are aware that scripted teaching limits chil-
dren’s educational experiences, but they are afraid to acknowledge this.
Conscientization arises when teachers acknowledge and stand up for what they
know is good for children. Lourdes Diaz Soto (Cannella & Diaz Soto, 2010)
encourages readers to confront conscientization and lift its limits past awareness
and speaking out to what is best for children to a third level. This third and hybrid
level is where inspired teachers would raise loving students to supersede all. In
solidarity, forces that unite the community for the good of all children against any
oppression in any of its faces, perspectives, languages, and social class is what is
best for children. In choosing to love all people and in early childhood and ele-
mentary teachers’ cases, it is children in classrooms. Love equals freedom, free-
dom to practice social justice (Cannella & Diaz Soto, 2010; Hooks, 2000).
Codification Simply put, codification is any form of representation. Students can
show what they have learned on a mural, through a PowerPoint presentation, by
making a Venn diagram, or constructing a web. When we codify, we make
known, through some form of representation and presentation that which we
know or have recently learned.
Cultural Capital Cultural capital refers to the power the dominant culture has over
others. It can be found in the way students talk, what they wear, and who their
parents or guardians are. Often schools are institutions where the reproduction
and perpetuation of specific class behaviors, structures, and relationships are
routinely produced to continue classism in particular settings while excluding
people and children in poverty (Bourdieu, 1984). Students from higher socioeco-
nomic backgrounds are frequently provided with cultural capital keeping them in
an upper-class dominant hierarchy. That is one reason why school uniforms are
popular in some school systems. Students who can afford the clothing that repre-
sents a part of cultural capital are required to wear the same type of clothing as
those from less comfortable circumstances.
Dialectic In order to have a dialectic, you have to have what we call the tension of
opposites. A dialectic is that space between two opposing views or ideas that are
incompatible or contradictory. It is also in that space that we are not sure where
we fall. Carl Jung (1954) said we must hold that union of opposites and not try
to provoke a solution. The solution will come to us in its own time. For example,
both conservatives and liberals must deal with the dialectic of abortion and the
death penalty. Conservatives tend to be opposed to abortion but are more likely
than liberals to support the death penalty. Conversely, liberals tend to believe a
woman has the right to choose but are often opposed to the death penalty. Both
conservatives and liberals live with these contradictory views. How can you be
opposed to choice and yet support the death penalty? How can you be opposed
to the death penalty but support the right to choose to have a baby or not?
Diversity What constitutes diversity? This chapter begins with our own personal
experiences with diversity, including religious, cultural, ethnic, social, economic,
and gender issues. There are several approaches to diversity from assimilation to
celebration. We describe each approach and consider how unity is formed through
diversity. Utilizing Banks’ model of studying and understanding diversity, read-
ers will reflect formatively about how they learned about people different from
them and how to begin to teach students about people of diversity.
Hegemony It is the power of direction by moral and intellectual persuasion,
without physical force. An example might be that in traditional school settings
only the teacher is given the power to ask questions and students answer them
Glossary 9
(Greene, 1988; Rorty, 1979). Gramsci first wrote about hegemony while impris-
oned in Italy during the long-standing fascist regime. In coining the term, the status
quo is supported, the values, beliefs, and attitudes, as those in power are main-
tained by a process of socialization and acceptance of societal conventions.
During innovative early and elementary democratic practice that is driven by
inquiry methods, you would readily notice students asking questions, other
students answering, and maybe a debate occurring. The teacher might be puz-
zled by a student’s question, and an investigation to solve it ensues. For exam-
ple, a student asks, “Who really discovered the United States?” Another student
responds, “Christopher Columbus, of course.” Yet, another says, “Yeah, but
what about Alaska and Hawaii, they did not become states until 1959?” Other
students’ chime in, “What about the Louisiana Purchase?” “Don’t forget about
the Vikings!!” and “What about the Native Americans?” Finally after allowing
her third graders debate and voice ideas, Ms. Daniel says, “The oldest groups
of Native Americans that I know are the Anasazi. But surely, there were numer-
ous Indigenous people in what is now the United States. Why don’t we find out
where all of their groups were and who they were?” So the class has a meeting
and decides on groups and divides into regions of the United States and begins
to research.
Hidden Curriculum The hidden curriculum is the perpetuation of the dominant
culture’s perspective. Gender discrimination is an excellent example of the hid-
den curriculum. We ask our students to write down as many names of famous
women as they can in 1 min. These women are not to be movie stars or wives of
politicians. Many students have a very limited list after 1 min—some as few as
three or four names. Women’s contributions have been neglected in the literature.
This is a great example of the hidden curriculum.
Patriarchy The patriarchy is the male or masculine dominated mandates and
customs that pervade most societies. In the Middle East, there are countries in
which women are not allowed to vote, not allowed to drive a car, and not allowed
to travel without their husbands, father, or a brother. In Western countries,
patriarchal domination is sometimes more subtle, but it is present, nevertheless.
In the United States, men, in general, still make more money than women with the
same education, qualifications, and experience. Patriarchy is seen as an enemy of
critical pedagogy.
Praxis This is an intricate relationship between pedagogy and practice (Darder,
Baltodano, & Torres, 2009; Wink, 2011). As critical pedagogy is implemented
into early childhood and elementary pedagogy, teaching practice changes. The
change to openness that occurs as teacher and students carefully reflect and
reexamine valued belief systems, assumptions, and stereotypes, to accept stu-
dents and people culturally, socially, economically, and/or psychologically dif-
ferent from them. It is this complex act of reflective thinking, the systematic,
insightful process of pedagogical change through viewing people through an
alternate system of lenses. Genuine reflection on teaching practice to change it
toward acceptance and inclusiveness is praxis.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cannella, G. S., & Diaz Soto, L. (Eds.). (2010). Childhoods: A handbook. New York: Peter Lang.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (Eds.). (2009). The critical pedagogy reader.
Routledge: New York.
Darder, A., Torres, R. D., & Gutierrez, H. (1997). Latinos and education: A critical reader. New
York: Routledge.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Friere, P. (1989). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD:
Rowan & Littlefield.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Giroux, H. (2006). America on the edge: Henry Giroux on politics, culture, and education. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts and social change.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA: South End
Press.
Jung, C. (1954). The development of personality: Papers on child psychology, education and
related subjects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Kohn, A. (2008). Progressive education: Why it is hard to beat but also why it is hard to Find?
Independent School, 5, 19–28.
Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2010). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary
and middle schools (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McLaren, P. (2009). Critical theory and educational practice. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano, &
R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962/1967). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Humanities Press.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Simon, R. (1988). For a pedagogy of possibility. Critical Pedagogy Networker, I(1), 1–4.
Stringer, E. T., Christensen, L. M., & Baldwin, S. C. (2009). Integrating teaching, learning and
action research: Enhancing instruction in the K—12 classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Chapter 3
Being Critical of Critical Pedagogy
Critical pedagogues seek to transform social injustice and provide equity for all in
educational settings and beyond. Despite this, there are numerous criticisms of
critical pedagogy (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009; Grey & Antonacopoulou,
2004). Three of the most common criticisms in the past have been the following:
(1) Critical pedagogues seek to eliminate inequity, but the language they use is
esoteric, elitist, and exclusive. (2) Critical pedagogues value the voices of cultural,
ethnic, gender, and economic differences, but the major voices of the past were
white, Western men. However, in the last 20 years, this has improved due to the work
of Gaile S. Cannella (1997, 2010), Lisa Delpit (1995), Maxine Greene (1988, 1995)
and Hooks (2000), among others. Finally, (3) critical pedagogues are long on
criticism but short on solutions (Grey & Antonacopoulou, 2004; Popkewitz &
Fendler, 1999; Stone, 1994). We will address each of these criticisms and then
suggest ways of transforming these into strengths and emancipatory practices for
the elementary school.
Specific Criticisms of Critical Pedagogy
Criticisms of critical theory and critical pedagogy come from numerous sources,
even the popular culture. Jonathan Franzen’s (2001) novel, The Corrections, is one
example. In the story, Chip teaches a course on critical theory. Melissa, one of his
brightest students, lets loose in class 1 day and hammers critical theory. Melissa
says, “this whole class … it’s just bullshit every week. It’s one critic after another
wringing their hands about the state of criticism. Nobody can ever quite say what’s
wrong exactly. But they all know it’s evil. They all know ‘corporate’ is a dirty word.
And if somebody’s having fun or getting rich—disgusting! Evil! … And it’s impos-
sible to radically critique society anymore, although what’s so radically wrong with
society that we need such a radical critique, nobody can say exactly” (p. 44). Beyond
Franzen and the popular media, there are three problems that dominate the criticisms.

12 3 Being Critical of Critical Pedagogy
Critical pedagogy is designed to eliminate inequity, but the language used by

critical theorists was at one time esoteric, elitist, and exclusive.
When critical theorists and pedagogues continually use nebulous terms such as
hegemony, praxis, dialectic, cultural capital, conscientization, and codification, this
criticism is understandable. While McLaren (2006) reports that he is indebted to
critical pedagogues for the abstract language, he also comprehends the elitist nature
in the language.
Critical pedagogy was designed to include the voices of individuals and groups
with cultural, ethnic, gender, and economic differences, but the loudest voices
of critical pedagogy in the past were white, Western men.
Aldridge and Goldman (2007) ask, “Why is it that more than 95% of the indi-
viduals who take care of our children are women—many of them women of color—
and yet more than 95% of the people we use to inform our practice are dead, white,
Western men?” (p. 100). Many of the forerunners of critical pedagogy were women
whose works were attributed to men (Aldridge, 2009a, 2009b; Aldridge, Christensen,
Cowles, & Kohler, 2009; Aldridge, Kilgo, & Emfinger, 2010). And, specifically
related to critical pedagogy, a large number of the voices that educators continue to
reference are for the most part white, Western men such as Apple (1999), Cremin
(1964), Freire (1994), Goodman (1998), Kohl (1998), Kohn (2002), Krashen (2003),
and Popkewitz and Fendler (1999). Some women pedagogues have become part of
the conversation (Hooks, 2000); however, there is long way to go for just and equi-
table parity in ethnicities and cultures (Darder et al., 2009).
Critical pedagogues are long on criticism but short on solutions.
Simply put, critical pedagogues are great at critiquing, complaining, and pointing
out problems but are negligent in their attempts to find solutions. As Melissa in
Jonathan Franzen’s novel tells her professor, “Here things are getting better and better
for women and people of color and gay men and lesbians, more and more integrated
and open, and all you can think about is some stupid, lame problem of signifiers and
signified … there has to be something wrong with everything…” (p. 44).
Not all critical pedagogues are guilty of just criticizing. Darder et al. (2009)
propose numerous practical solutions as to how we can “do” critical pedagogy with
both students and families. Also proposed are some answers to why critical
pedagogy matters in the first place. We, like many researchers, propose practical
solutions in this book. We try to move critical pedagogy from being long on
criticism to also being long on solutions—action (Cannella & Diaz Soto, 2010;
Darder et al., 2009; McLaren, 2006)
Transforming Criticisms into Solutions
Based on the three major criticisms of critical pedagogy that we have described
from the past in this chapter, we now move from criticisms to possible solutions to
the problem. This is the work that critical pedagogues take.
Transforming Criticisms into Solutions 13
Making Accessible the Language of Critical Pedagogy
Listed below are suggestions for increasing the accessibility of critical pedagogy
literature:
1. Theorists, researchers, and practitioners should actively attempt to make the lan-
guage of critical theory accessible. Writers are encouraged to write in a common
language that is available to all or provide an explicit glossary or definition of
terms section to incorporate the disparate background levels of readers.
2. The field of critical pedagogy should actively include multiple voices of the
oppressed, marginalized, and “others” by seeking their input, regardless of their
understanding or use of the esoteric language that appears in the critical peda-
gogical literature. As Gaile S. Cannella (1997) stated, “when certain group, indi-
viduals, or even forms of knowledge are privileged, others are subjugated, placed
in the margin of society” (p. 60).
3. The practical language and knowledge of “teacher as researcher” should come to
the forefront in critical pedagogical writing. The language of teachers should be
solicited over the esoteric linguistics that most of the critical writers use today.
Incorporating Other Voices Beyond Those of White Men
As mentioned earlier, most of the individuals who take care of young children in our
communities are women, and many women of color, but the majority of theorists
who inform our practice are white men, many who have never worked with children.
Some suggestions for including other voices are the following:
1. The voices of feminine critical writers should be solicited and valued more so.
Especially, women on the front lines who daily work with children and families,
including teachers, child care providers, social workers, and early intervention-
ists, should be encouraged to take the lead in the dialogue concerning critical
pedagogical knowledge.
2. The history of education should be reexamined and in many cases rewritten from
a critical and feminist historical perspective. Many of the early writings and
direct contributions of women such as Anna Julia Cooper, Lucy Sprague Mitchell,
Ella Flagg Young, Caroline Pratt, Marietta Johnson, and Mary Church Terrell are
not included or attributed to men (Aldridge, 2009a, 2009b; Aldridge et al., 2009,
2010; Christensen, Kohler, & Aldridge, 2012).
3. Feminist definitions and notions of what constitutes science and research should
become mainstream in the critical literature. According to Fee (1986), “we have
been used to a virtual male monopoly of the production of scientific knowledge
and discourses about science, its history and meaning. In response to the current
possibility of transforming the social relations between the sexes, a conservative
ideological movement within science has mobilized to defend inequality, protect
the status quo, and create barriers to change” (p. 43).
Becoming Part of the Solutions and Not Just the Problems

of Critical Pedagogy
The chapters in this book are designed to help us become part of the solutions and
not just the problems. Some of the suggestions that we propose in this text include:
1. Help elementary students develop identities of possibility thinking. One of our
colleagues told us she believes in the bell curve and that students from lower
socioeconomic levels should not be encouraged to be professionals because they
will be disappointed. Critical educators like us wholly reject both the bell curve
and restrictive views of formation identity and possibility thinking. Chapter 4
addresses identify formation from a critical perspective and Chap. 6 addresses
discrimination as an impediment to healthy identity formation.
2. Incorporate praxis into educational practice! Praxis, as Paulo Freire describes it
“as critical reflection on practice” (p. 43). In order for praxis to occur, we must
include both problem posing and problem solving in our classrooms. Chapter 5
is concerned with the praxis.
3. Move toward social justice. This can be addressed at both the micro- and
macrolevels, considered from perspectives of how we are alike and different,
and examined from the lenses of recognition and redistribution (North, 2006).
Chapter 7 describes ways we can engage young children in social justice
education.
4. Teach for transformation. Transmission and transaction are not enough. It is
imperative that elementary teachers and students work together to make a
difference in the world. Both teachers and students must act transformatively
(Aldridge, Christensen, & Kirkland, 2007; Aldridge, Manning, Christensen, &
Strevy, 2007; Hicks, Berger, & Generett, 2005). Chapter 9 of this book describes
transformation and gives examples of how it has been carried out in elementary
classrooms.
5. Remember to begin with yourself. In order to practice critical pedagogy and
make a difference in the world, we have to begin with ourselves. Carl Jung sug-
gests that what we do not like about ourselves we project onto others. It is our
shadow, or those aspects we cannot accept in ourselves that we are most likely
to blame on others. In order to practice critical pedagogy, we must examine
our own shadows before attributing them to someone or something else
(Jung, 1954).
In this chapter, we have suggested that in order to become better critical
educators, it is necessary to first critically examine ourselves and then the princi-
ples of critical pedagogy. Now that we have shared the most common criticisms
of critical pedagogy, what are the major assumptions that critical theorists and
educators share? Chapter 4 describes common assumptions held by individuals
from varying disciplines, all of who subscribe to critical theory and emancipatory
education.
References 15
References
Aldridge, J. (2009a). Another woman gets robbed? What Jung, Freud, Piaget, and Vygotsky took
from Sabina Spielrein. Childhood Education, 85(5), 318–319.
Aldridge, J. (2009b). Four women of Chicago: Mothers of progressive education and developers of
John Dewey’s ideas. Social Studies Research and Practice, 4(3), 111–117.
Aldridge, J., Christensen, L. M., Cowles, M., & Kohler, M. (2009). Where are the women?
Integrating female voices into the historical and psychological foundations of education.
Southeastern Teacher Education Journal, 2(3), 139–146.
Aldridge, J., Christensen, L. M., & Kirkland, L. (2007). Issues related to transformation. In
J. Aldridge & R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving toward transformation: Teaching and learning in
inclusive classrooms (pp. 33–36). Birmingham, AL: Seacoast.
Aldridge, J., & Goldman, R. (2007). Current issues and trends in education (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Aldridge, J., Kilgo, J., & Emfinger, K. (2010). The marginalization of women educators: A conse-
quence of No Child Left Behind? Childhood Education, 87(1), 41–47.
Aldridge, J., Manning, M., Christensen, L. M., & Strevy, D. (2007). Teaching for transformation.
In J. Aldridge & R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving toward transformation: Teaching and learning in
Apple, M. (1999). Power, meaning and identity: Essays in critical educational studies. New York:
Peter Lang.
Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution.
New York: Peter Lang.
Cannella, G. S., & Diaz Soto, L. (Eds.). (2010). Childhoods: A handbook. New York: Peter Lang.
Christensen, L. M., Kohler, M., & Aldridge, J. (2012). Lest we forget: Foundational women for
historically and socially responsive women. Generos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Gender
Studies, 1(1), 28–47.
Cremin, L. (1964). The transformation of the school. New York: Vantage Books.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Fee, E. (1986). Critiques of modern science: The relationship of feminism to other radical
Epistemologies. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Franzen, J. (2001). The corrections. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Freire, P. (1994). The pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum
Publishing Group.
Freire, P. (1998). The pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Goodman, K. (1998). In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about the “reading
wars”. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Greene, M. (1988). Dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Grey, C., & Antonacopoulou, E. (Eds.). (2004). Essential readings in management learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hicks, M. A., Berger, J. G., & Generett, G. (2005). From hope to action: Creating spaces to sustain
transformative habits of mind and heart. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 57–75.
Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA: South End
Press.
Jung, C. G. (1954). The development of personality: Papers on child psychology, education, and
related subjects. New York: Princeton University Press.
Kohl, H. (1998). The discipline of hope: Learning from a lifetime of teaching. New York: Simon &
Shuster.
Kohn, A. (2002). The 500-pound gorilla. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 112–119.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
North, C. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in
education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507–535.
Popkewitz, T., & Fendler, L. (Eds.). (1999). Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of
knowledge and politics. New York: Routledge.
Stone, L. (Ed.). (1994). The education feminism reader. New York: Routledge.
Chapter 4
Assumptions: Where Are We?
Critical pedagogy has numerous theorists sharing multiple viewpoints (Aldridge &
Goldman 2007; Giroux, 2010; Kincheloe, 2004; McLaren, 2008). Basics beliefs
and assumptions about schools and society are informed and shaped by our particular
worldviews (Giroux, 1988, 2010). Ideological assumptions characterize personal
principles and philosophies about pedagogy and the world at large. Frequently our
ideological assumptions are unrecognized and unexamined (Giroux & McLaren,
1989). Elementary and early childhood educators who work toward critical
pedagogical stances also seek to become open to the contradictory and conflicting
influences that teaching and learning encompass. Lilia I. Bartolome (2009) suggested
that teacher candidates in methods programs examine and “evaluate the pedagogical
consequences of blindly and uncritically replicating methods without regard to
students’ subordinate status in terms of cultural, class, gender, and linguistic
difference” (p. 352).
Most critical theorists share three assumptions about schools and society (Giroux,
1988, 2010; Kessler & Swadener, 1992). The assumptions are the following:
• Particular forms of knowledge are valued over others.
• School knowledge belongs to the “privileged” group.
• Those in power positions exercise their position to maintain a dominant position
in society (Freire, 1998).
This chapter presents these three points for consideration. Each of these assump-
tions is discussed. Ways to transform these assumptions are discussed as well. The
information in this chapter encourages each reader to reflect upon long-held assump-
tions and what underlies them. Readers are invited to deconstruct these assumptions
that have been constructed through a myriad of contexts (Giroux, 1988, 2010).
Many educators and the general public assume that schooling is an endeavor
that serves the best interests of students, marginalized groups, and every culture.
The same folks would assume that school curriculum, hiring practices, educational
institutions, and schools are places where politics are nonexistent and that have an
orientation of equity and social justice (Giroux, 2011). A majority of society believes

18 4 Assumptions: Where Are We?
that because they attended school, they know the entirety of concerns in elementary
institutions. Goodlad’s (1984) exhaustive work explains an ever-widening gap
between what a majority of parents and families perceive about education and what
many schools actually make available. Most people assume that education exists
without need of critical examination (Kincheloe, 2004).
Often teacher educators forget how long it takes for candidates to move beyond
the self and focus on children’s learning and the complexities of how teaching,
practice, and assessing affects the emotional, developmental, social, and cognitive
growth of the children entrusted to us (Cannella, 1997). A lack of child development
and developmental psychological content knowledge, developmentally and culturally
appropriate practice, cognitive theory and how to systematically reflect and profes-
sionally act are often causes for teacher candidates and teachers to perpetuate and
reproduce unexamined, discriminatory practices (McLaren, 2009). This occurs in
subtle and explicit forms. It often happens because teachers and candidates’ cultural
values and expressions are often different from those of the children and families
with whom they work.
There is also the assumption that teachers work tirelessly to improve outcomes
for young children with different experiences or language (Aldridge & Goldman,
2007; Delpit, 2009). However, Lipman (1999) questions this assumption, suggesting
that young children and families with diverse backgrounds are often excluded from
full participation in the schools. The children’s knowledge, different from the teachers’
and middle-class families’, is not valued (Freire, 1998).
Particular Forms of Knowledge Are Valued Over Others
We know that the knowledge of all children and families is not valued equally, just as
we know that certain forms of knowledge are always valued over others in schools and
society. For example, at most research universities, medical, business, and engineering
faculties make a much higher salary than humanities, fine arts, and education
professors. We also know from No Child Left Behind (US Department of Education,
2002) that math, reading, and science are valued over social science, art, and music.
Only math, reading, and science are required for testing in each state. Many schools
have now eliminated all but the three required subjects so that children can be prepared
and do well on standardized tests (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).
Standards
As elementary schools are seen as places of learning, typically a high value is placed
on the types of knowledge and competencies produced there (Friere, 1998).
Presently, the standards movement guides knowledge production in elementary
schools. Each content area has board member representatives from each learned
School Knowledge Belongs to the Privileged 19
society that gathers to set the valued goals of knowledge and competencies through
standards. Math, science, literacy, geography, history, art, social studies, and many
more organizations have national standards that guide elementary teachers’ instruction.
The national standards in each content area in turn serve as a foundation for each
state’s development of and adopted standards for every curricular content area.
It would make sense if textbook information at elementary grade levels followed
the national and state standards. However, that is another book altogether. The issue
for us to consider as elementary educators is that textbook writers are purveyors of
valued forms of knowledge. In addition to social, political, and economic interests,
textbook companies have a value-laden agenda. Textbooks will be further discussed
in this chapter. Textbooks of course are powerful, as large sums of money under
contractual agreement are involved. Elementary textbooks have particular postures
toward knowledge and information, what is written, how it is written, and what is
not, and literally, what is in the margins of the written text.
Teachers, students’ families, community members, school system administrators,
policy makers, educational university faculty, media pundits, and business leaders
believe, from their perspectives, that there is a body of particular knowledge that
elementary children should learn (Friere, 1998; Greene, 1995; Kincheloe, 2008;
McLaren & Kincheloe, 2008). It is as if these groups solely value their perspectives
of knowledge to the exclusion and alienation of other groups. The voices of people
of poverty, mentally and physically challenged, immigrant families, and people
without high school and college educations are excluded from people that have
valued knowledge to contribute to the educational arena.
School Knowledge Belongs to the Privileged
In many schools today, college preparatory courses and advanced placement classes
are more common in privileged schools. Children from lower socioeconomic homes
are less likely to receive the “good” school knowledge that is available to the wealthy.
Discriminatory practices favoring the wealthy are often a top-down mandate coming
from policy makers, the government, and school systems. For an example of this,
listen to the following Podcast from This American Life entitled, “Shouting Across
the Divide” (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode-322).
Beyond policy makers and school systems, elementary teachers often favor
children who are of the same social group as they are. Social class, ethnicity, and
nationality are all features that influence teachers who have not yet examined their
own assumptions about children and learning (Berry, 2007; Hooks, 2009). The
reading group structure of teaching high-, medium-, and low-level readers in different
groups is a practice in which the better “school knowledge” belongs to the better
students and more affluent. Teachers spend more time with students who are suc-
ceeding than those who are struggling (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).
Advocates of critical pedagogy act to make themselves aware of school knowl-
edge inequities. They seek to uncover long-held beliefs about children from traditionally
dominant groups and consider the white privilege as deeply ingrained and taken for
granted. Critical pedagogues know that individuals in society who are traditionally
on the margins seldom have action taken for them or their well-being. However,
critical educators seek to incorporate the silenced voices and perspectives that have
been excluded. They seek to bring them into the mainstream conversation about
schools and school knowledge (Hooks, 2009; Kincheloe, 2004).
Those in Power Positions Try to Maintain a Dominant

Position in Society
Public education is not an equal or a just system. Schools are political places.
Michael Apple (1999) records the reasons why as schools are powerful. Schools
are funded either by state, government, or tax-based systems, or tuition. Money
is power.
Textbooks are political and economical (Apple, 1999). Often these contracts are
awarded to political allies or beneficial economic agents. Textbooks, for instance,
are sadly the main source of material and information in the classroom (Sunal &
Haas, 2011). But who owns the companies? Years ago when we entered the profes-
sion, there were numerous textbook companies. Presently there are about four
dominant conglomerates. Production of textbooks is controlled by high-profile
media (Apple). This discussion can be extended into the administration of school
systems and schools.
Who attends school in the “better” school systems? Who makes the decisions
about who attends which school? The answer is “those in power” (Apple, 1999).
Recently a fourth-grade student at in urban fourth-grade class asked a teacher
candidate a question while I was there observing. This young man asked the under-
graduate teacher candidate why the suburban schools had so much more technology
equipment than the urban schools. This 10-year-old observed marginalization and
inequity in action. He concluded that the students in the urban school would learn
just as well and readily with new technology as the suburban children (Hooks, 2009;
Kincheloe, 2008). Wise beyond his years, he recognized that teachers in the urban
setting creatively would alter practice “so that the democratic ideal of education for
everyone can be realized” (Hooks, 2009, p. 141).
Testing the youngest of children from preschool, Head Start programs, and
upward solely for the profit of test manufacturers, and to curry favor to the editors
of scripted curriculum programs that are most prevalently used in urban and high
poverty areas. Our country continues to perpetuate a “separate, still unequal” apartheid-
type educational system. Furthermore, in lower socioeconomic and urban areas,
scripted curricula are characteristically mandated! The No Child Left Behind Act
(US Department of Education, 2002), without proper funding, thought, research,
historic understanding, and lack of forethought about consequences, pressured the
adoption of such curricula in most states. It continues unabated. This leads to not
What Can We Do to Make a Difference? 21
having to look too far to find out how certain forms of knowledge are valued over
other forms in particular settings.
In the early 1970s when we began teaching, women taught elementary school
and mainly white men were principals and administrators. White males were almost
always superintendents. Mostly men taught in high school with the exception for
English and maybe other foreign languages. While there are more women as principals
in 2009, most school systems are still led by white male superintendents (Great City
Schools, 2006).
Berry (1998) also discusses why school knowledge belongs to those in power:
• School knowledge is constructed by dominant groups throughout history and
marginalizes those who are different.
• To those in power, school knowledge is separate from the learner. The learner is
a passive recipient of a particular body of knowledge to be learned and is not
privileged enough to construct knowledge on their own or with facilitation.
• School knowledge is constructed by privileged, white, mainly male, middle-class,
Western/Euro-Americans (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).
Berry (2007) questions readers about whose knowledge it is that we learn about
in school. She suggests that people in power often use their positions to maintain
dominance in society. Who are people in power? Who is in power in school systems?
Is it the wealthiest? Consider this Web site: http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-
400/gallery
Other questions to ask include in this short exercise might be the following: How
many of the wealthy are women? How many are people of color? From where did
the wealth derive?
What Can We Do to Make a Difference?
Get all Students Involved in Planning the Curriculum
Children’s rights matter! Young children’s potential and rich diversity add to a
curricular research-based design. Learning that is planned in democratic spaces
through varied methods promotes integrative learning. Teachers are responsive to
children’s organic perspectives of discovery, citizenship, and reflection, which are
integral curricular learning processes (Savage & Armstrong, 2000; Sunal & Haas,
2011). Additionally, the value of social discourse is qualitatively necessary for critical
thinking. Children’s work that is taken seriously and drives an emergent curriculum
based on the diversity represented in the faces of the classroom community and
beyond provides opportunities for young children to transcend discrimination. It
helps youth to value others’ knowledge and thinking as legitimate no matter what
their educational background may be.
Learn as Much as Possible About Diverse Populations
Banks (2008) discusses crucial conceptions for early childhood and elementary
candidates, teachers, and teacher educators to assist students to transcend and
transform personal assumptions of discrimination, deconstruct personal notions of
knowledge and power, and identify the forces at work to devalue cultural capital,
or knowledge that children come to school knowing from home and family. These
are all areas of which educators should be aware and function consciously with a
sound base of information. Foremost, Banks suggests that educators transcend
forces by knowing the patterns of children of immigration and origins of home
countries. This is essential information to know, respect, and represent within the
classroom community. Simply, being aware of unique cultural values and symbols
is helpful to educators and to young children in early childhood and elementary
classrooms.
However, there is a fine line as stereotyping can be taken as a negative. Also,
specific cultural values and symbols connected to particular ethnicities are dynamic.
By asking specific families of students in your classroom to share and explain
characteristics of each ethnicity, nationality, religion, and/or family structures are
usually the best rule of thumb.
An additional concept that Banks (2008) outlines is ethnic or religious identity. He
further explains that identity is a notion that includes a sense of peoplehood.
Whereas, members that belong to a group often share a common historical experience.
For example, almost all people who are Jewish from New York, London, and Italy
identify with the Holocaust (Dershowitz, 1997). Survivors from the Holocaust are
few. Daughters, sons, or other relatives can be brought into classrooms to share
personal histories. Films and Web sites are available on the topic to help older
elementary children build meaning about historical and horrific events of the
Holocaust.
This site from the Unites States Historical Holocaust Memorial Museum offers
primary documents and firsthand accounts of survivors suitable for elementary
children (http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/phistories/phi_individuals_
kurt_gerda_klein_uu.htm).
Often, members of the same ethnic group share like perspectives and have similar
views that tend to be different from others within society. For instance, nearly all
Latinos view bilingual education in a positive manner and think that early childhood
and elementary children should be allowed to speak both languages at school which
is contrary to what conservative views are about English language learning or as
second language. However, sometimes they do not. Flor Ada (2000) suggests that,
“we ensure inclusiveness by focusing on general, shared human experiences” (p. 1).
Because of long-standing prejudice, people of color formed various types of
organizations. Institutions formed by ethnic groups were done so out of exclusion,
segregation, and discrimination, many of which still exist. Parochial schools,
historically black colleges and universities, the NAACP, and other such organizations
were chartered to work for civil rights and struggle against discrimination.
References 23
Examine Stereotypes and Assumptions

About Socioeconomic Status
Economic and social status of ethnic groups is dynamic as well. However, often
people of recent immigration come to the United States with a lower economic and
social status. Banks’ (2008) final suggestion is for educators to engage learners in
building knowledge about diverse groups together in the elementary classroom
community. It is a powerful strategy as well as a transformative action that enables
learners to construct their conceptions about diverse groups.
Again, there are plenty of stereotypes and assumptions that we presuppose. Years
ago while making kindergarten home visits prior to the start of school, Lois was
trying to locate a home in an upper social economic neighborhood. She recalls
thinking that the children in her school lived in much nicer homes and neighbor-
hoods than she did. Crossing the threshold of one beautiful home, it quickly became
apparent that there was no furniture inside. Later, after her visit with the soon-to-be
kindergartner out of sight, the mother explained that the father had gambled away
everything the family had, including the furniture. Many times our conceptions
of economic and social status are misconceptions. No doubt economic status is
dynamic.
References
Aldridge, J., & Goldman, R. (2007). Current issues and trends in education. New York: Allyn &
Bacon.
Apple, M. (1999). Power, meaning, and identity: Essays in critical education studies. New York:
Peter Lang.
Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Bartolome, L. I. (2009). Beyond the methods fetish. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres
(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Berry, K. S. (1998). Nurturing the imagination of resistance: Young adults as creators of knowl-
edge. In J. L. Kincheloe & S. R. Sternberg (Eds.), Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical
teaching. New York: Routledge.
Berry, K. S. (2007). Locations (or not) of critical pedagogy in les petities et les grandes histories.
In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York:
Peter Lang.
Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution.
New York: Peter Lang.
Delpit, L. (2009). Language diversity and learning. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres
(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Dershowitz, A. M. (1997). The vanishing American Jew: In search of Jewish identity for the next
century. New York: Little, Brown.
Flor Ada, A. (2000). Gateways to the sun. Miami: Alfaguara. Retrieved January 21, 2011 from http://
www.colorincolorado.org/article/34169.
Friere, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Giroux, H. (October 27, 2010). Lessons From Paulo Freire, Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from: http://staff.washington.edu/changed/2010/10/lessons-from-paulo-freire/.
Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.
Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state and cultural struggle.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw Hill.
Great City Schools. (2006, June). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics, tenure, and salary.
Fifth survey and report. Urban Indicator, 8(1), 1–10.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Hooks, B. (2009). Confronting class in the classroom. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano, & R. D.
Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Katz, L. (1998). What can we learn from Reggio Emilia? In C. Edwards, L. Gandidni, & G.
Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced
reflections. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Company.
Kessler, S., & Swadener, B. (Eds.). (1992). Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum:
Beginning the dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kincheloe, J. (2004). Critical pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lipman, P. (1999). Race, class and power in school structuring. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Listening to children. Young children, 49(5), 55.
education. New York: Longman.
McLaren, P. (2009). Critical pedagogy. A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano,
& R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York:
Peter Lang Publishers.
Savage, T. V., & Armstrong, D. G. (2000). Effective teaching in elementary social studies. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Sunal, C. S., & Haas, M. E. (2011). Social Studies for the elementary and middle grades: A con-
structivist approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
US Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Washington, DC:
Author.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from http://www.ushmm.
org/museum/exhibit/online/phistories/phi_individuals_kurt_gerda_klein_uu.htm
Chapter 5
Identity
Integrity simply means not violating one’s own identity.

Erich Fromm
This chapter enables readers to consider identity formation from a critical perspective.
Identity is considered from the perspectives of self, family, school, and community.
Obstacles will be described, and pathways to overcoming them. We also consider
ways advocates help in the formation of identity.
Identity is linked to social, cultural, political, and economic influences. Kincheloe
(2001) reasons that identity formation is salient to social change and transformation.
How do young children come to know who they are? How do educators assist in
identify formation? Critical pedagogues contribute to young students’ development
in helping them ask themselves the following questions:
• Who am I?
• Why am I here?
• Where am I going?
• What obstacles are in my way? How can I transcend obstacles?
• How do I get there?
• Who travels life with me and in what groups?
Identity is how we see ourselves. It is our self-concept. Greene (1995) speaks
about how children perceive first and then move into language. This is the way in
which they orient themselves to their particular contexts. Identity is dynamic, con-
stantly shifting, and hopefully adding new potential and horizons. Young children
perceive and order their reality that is associated with those with who they live
among. How elementary children experiment with and experience the self as a result
of social memories, histories, and traditions assists them design the personal views
held about the self, the intricately created identity (Giroux, 1992; Greene, 1995;
Kincheloe, 2001).

26 5 Identity
Who Am I? Why Am I Here?
Lucy Sprague Mitchell (2000/1935) believed that teachers bring their own identi-
ties, learning experiences, and particular perceptions of the world to the classroom.
How they experience and understand society in each realm of life at the time affects
the ways in which teachers plan, implement, evaluate, and reflect upon teaching
and learning, she thought. Mitchell’s strong and determined conviction was that
elementary education is a vital means to identity formation, social justice, equality,
and democracy. Because individual development is mutual to integrating social
processes, her aim was to teach teachers to educate young children as rational and
humane individuals. This belief is consonant with the tenets of the Reggio Emilia
philosophical approach to education and learning in Italy.
In Reggio Emilia, learning is considered an emergent process, not one completed
project after another. Children are accepted as individuals who are connected to
other children, adults, and families within the learning community (Delpit, 2009;
Malaguzzi, 1994). They are rich in and of themselves, not in need of enrichment
but active agents in knowledge construction (Dahlberg et al., 2003). Delpit (2009)
further elucidates that accepting young children’s ethnic identity and styles of dis-
course assists in successful school experiences. Having interactions among children
within diverse learning communities prepares teachers and teacher candidates to
take learning seriously from children, teachers, and families in diverse contexts.
Children in Reggio Emilia are recognized as citizens, members of society with
responsibilities in the community, nation, and world. So in this context, the peda-
gogical work of Reggio Emilia is the outcome of how the pedagogues image each
learner (Dahlberg et al., 2003). This is how readers of this text can, as Delpit (2009)
eloquently states, improve on “the humility required for learning” (p. 329) from
every age of citizen in a reciprocal manner.
Teachers, and their sense of self, create a conduit in the classroom climate and a
critical capacity to create a connection to children’s conception of citizenry in the
community, city, national, and global spheres. Maxine Greene (1973) writes, “that
one of the primary aims of education is to motivate the young so that they can
become principled enough, committed enough to reach beyond their self interest
and take responsibility for what happens in the space between themselves and
others” (p. 21). Identity becomes a social and most often familial issue as soon as a
young child acquires language. Toddlers begin most sentences with “I” or “me,”
“I want…,” and “ I need….” Since the family is a dynamic descriptor of identity,
pre-elementary and elementary children use varied terms to identify themselves.
Alba (1990) describes identity as a shared sense of “peoplehood.” He further states
that a child’s ethnic identity results from common history and experiences within
familial groups.
It is during early life that self-identity is predominantly developed (Epstein,
2009). Trust and security assist children to develop within familial relationships and
to respect all characteristics about themselves, such as name, gender, ethnicity,
language(s), religious affiliation, neighborhood, and other contextual information
that are formative in how youngsters come to see themselves.
Who Am I? Why Am I Here? 27
Ethnicity awareness begins in toddlerhood, and young children are aware of

various hues of skin color (Clark, 1968; Ramsey, 1991). It can be a challenge to help
all children to develop positive self-identities, as sadly the previously referenced
researchers have substantiated that some young children, including children of color,
demonstrate preferences for Caucasian peers. Pro-white bias is a crucial issue that
early childhood educators have to recognize. To be able to envision that diversity is
key to planning formative and intentional learning experiences in helping young
children to develop positive self-identities.
Lather (2001) states that young children often live in networks bearing several
monikers or descriptions. The networks sometimes are conflicting and confusing.
All are contextualized. For example, “I am a girl who lives in the barrio (Mexican
American neighborhood) with my family and mi tia (aunt).” Identity is complex and
includes issues of class, ethnicity, gender, culture, language(s), nationality, family
structure(s), religion, history, and community. Identity is not fixed. It is dynamic,
fluid, and always changing. Young children construct and co-construct various and
overlapping identities through interaction among others throughout life (Dahlberg,
Moss, & Pence, 2003; Delpit, 2009).
As children enter social situations, such as playgroups, preschool, and kinder-
garten, they notice differences. They are not color blind. Out of their uninhibited
social consciousness, their questions often focus on the differences. “Why does
Andrew Sanchez have skin that is browner than mine?” “Why does Craig have two
daddies?” Or Jerrita may ask, “Why is my skin darker than my cousins’ skin?”
Researchers document that very young children develop attitudes about their own
and others’ nationalities, ethnicities and cultures, and religious backgrounds which
is the early development of tolerance or prejudice and discrimination or intolerance
(Aldridge & Goldman, 2007). The cultural and social milieus of young children
add to their developing identities. And again a reminder, the teachers’ identities
affect yet another dimension of this development (Delpit, 2009; Mitchell, 1950).
Family Structures
Take 2 min and write down as many different types of family structures as you can.
How many family structures were you able to list in 2 min? How many did you
propose? What about your colleagues?
Teachers of the youngest of children have to be aware of various types of family
structures (Watts & Tutwiler, 2003) because these are ways in which identity is
formed. According to Watts and Tutwiler, family structures are varied and constantly
in flux. Just a few that young children may describe are as follows:
• Single parent families
• Illegal immigrant families
• Married couple families
• Gay and lesbian head of households
• African American families
28 5 Identity
• Asian American families

• Latino families (this group can be further unpacked)
• Native American families (this type has 250+ separate groups)
• Families described by religious affiliation
• Grandparents as parents
This list is hardly exhaustive. Additionally, Watts and Tutwiler (2003) discuss
the hybrid family. This type of family structure is one in which is self-described and
uses terms to particularize. Say for instance, with a foster family or biracial family,
a young child may say they are a biracial or biethnic person. Thinking further about
this concept, how would you describe your particular identity? How would you
describe the identity of your family? Take some time how you describe your identity
in all of its forms.
Young children seldom ask why they are where they are. Context seldom makes
an impression on young children. It is a taken for granted situation, especially with
the youngest of learners. Nor do preschool children have a sense of economic or
social class disparities.
However, recently while I was an observer in a fourth-grade classroom, a student
recalled his experience being in a suburban school the year before and described the
vast differences from the inner city school he is in now. All of the tangible items
such as technology, materials, the appearance of the school, and the houses in the
neighborhood are part of his description. He notices the difference! In his explana-
tion, he mentions the word “privilege.” Imagine that! A ten-year-old articulates who
resides in a school culture of privilege and a school culture which does not have it.
Among all of his African American classmates, he concludes, “No one cares about
black people.” A long conversation ensues, and a discussion about property taxes,
white flight, and voting follows. The educative context of this exchange was the
civil rights movement that was being facilitated by a teacher candidate from my
early childhood/elementary social studies course.
Young children know about their particular part of the world. They are well
aware of where they live, where they play, and the street on which they live. Hunger,
sleeplessness, and fears are known, as are satisfaction, a good night’s sleep, and
being well fed and security.
What Are Obstacles to Identify Formation?
To transcend the myriad obstacles of identity, all pre- and elementary children
should be guaranteed effective education. Young students begin rudimentary
reflection about experiences of citizenship in action and then move beyond to begin
enacting citizenship that is contextually connected to democracy and transforma-
tional to humankind (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007; Kincheloe, 2001). If learners do
not have firsthand experience with social action that is contextually connected to
their identity, then how will they ever begin to internalize citizenship or come to
understand the many faces of transformative democracy?
As we know, schools in the USA are often not very democratic places (Greene,
1988, 1995; Kincheloe, 2001). Democracy is seldom the way in which elementary
What Are Obstacles to Identify Formation? 29
teachers interact with children in schools. Nor is it the way in which teachers plan,
implement, or evaluate learning. And most often, the regime of directed learning is
now so often expected and ordered by administrators who kowtow to policymakers.
Not much in schools is democratic.
Democracy is expected and purported to be the principled ideal in the United
States. Except all too often, the ideals of democracy are violated. There is a huge
chasm between valuing democracy and the reality of how the pluralistic society in
the USA lives. Racism, classism, and sexism rampantly exist. Because of perpetuated
stereotypical perceptions, gender discrimination relies on restricted roles and
educational and occupational options for women students (Savage & Armstrong,
2000; Sunal & Haas, 2010).
Early childhood and elementary learners in affluent school systems most often are
not mandated to the same scripted programs as are children in lower-socioeconomic
or in high-poverty areas (Kozol, 2005). This places elementary children in privileged
schools without scripted programs in a dominant position to maintain the status and
privilege. Children in families that possess the least economically are seemingly
kept in “underperforming” schools and groups that can only learn through a scripted
programs. Higher-order thinking is not valued, and failure is frequently expected in
these settings. In this sense, the culture, ethnicity, language(s), and the very sense of
self identify of the youngest of children is co-opted (Kincheloe, 2001). Talk about a
huge obstacle; this is it!
Paradoxically, as already said, traditional classroom learning is predominantly
an autocratic endeavor. Inspiration, creativity, and the intelligence of teachers
and students alike are snuffed out, while textbook peddlers of scripted behav-
iorist modes of learning proliferate and make millions. Teachers are “deskilled”
and stripped of intelligence rather than professionalized (Aldridge & Goldman,
2007). Educators live and teach in contradiction (Apple, 1996; Wink, 2011)! Of
course, these curriculum materials are “scientifically based” on past research
(old research) that is Taylor type from the mechanistic method (Aldridge &
Goldman, 2007). This is the expectation of NCLB Act (US Department of
Education, 2002). However, young and elementary children are not utilitarian
products. These are thinking and feeling bodies, minds, and spiritual beings.
Through scripted educative processes, educative systems are grooming and
perpetuating generations of children, who just happen to be at the lower end of
the socioeconomic ladder, mostly in inner city schools, as ill-prepared lower-
socioeconomic class people working for meager pay. Do you think that this is
democracy and equity?
Kincheloe (2001) purposes that it is essential for elementary educators to move
young children beyond the synthesis of myriad lived experiences to enable them to
define themselves in relationship to the world. In the expanse, early educators
schooled in critical pedagogy expose children to further explore identity formation,
power, and knowledge in the school setting and how elementary content is taught
and evaluated.
Conversely, most politicians advocate an agenda that endorses a “nationalized”
curriculum. Some use the term “diversity” to create suspicion. How can society
expect young learners to describe democracy and move into middle school knowing
how to exist and subsist within a diverse democracy with minimal to no experience?
30 5 Identity
How Do We Overcome Obstacles to Identity Formation?
So foremost when the present educational situation appears so dire, how do educators
of the young begin to see the contradictions? How can P-6 educators respect cul-
tures, ethnicities, language(s), and identities of every child? Subsequently, how do
they move into a more democratic approach to teaching and learning that is the
experiential heart of transformational social action? One fundamental solution is to
be able to connect teachers and students to people and organizations where their
actions can make a difference and within the contexts where the young children are
being taught. Once that is achieved, personal interests and social relationships
become “habits of mind,” which do secure social change. Making a difference in a
local or global setting is transformational social action, the essence living.
Kincheloe (2001) describes how education is a civically challenging and syner-
gistic relationship. His conception includes effective teachers assisting young
learners to develop enough content knowledge to be able to analyze and construct
self and social knowledge while, simultaneously, teachers construct enough cul-
tural knowledge about their students to involve them, and hopefully their families,
in making connections about the critical issues of citizenship, social action, and
democracy. Consequently, students would have the cognitive tools to knowledgably
ask sound questions in order to become self-directed as learners.
It is peculiar that so few schools administrators seem unaware that within the
walls of early childhood and elementary learning lies the training ground for
democracy. If students are involved in transformational social action, students
envision belonging locally and globally. Democracy becomes authentic. Students
see how democracy is connected to justice and equality. Social change is possible
(Kincheloe, 2001). Schools of today focus on so heavily on academics to the detri-
ment of personal development and identity. Both individual and group identity are
relegated to a backseat or simply not considered.
How Do We Get There?
Remembering children’s contexts is the beginning of identity, as already docu-

mented. Young children have to start with where children are themselves and move
outward. Young children have to have assistance to welcome the unfamiliar. By
extending the range of acquaintance, just within the early childhood and elementary
classroom, teachers can bring in family members of classmates to learn about foods,
clothing, books, life, and origins of varied people and ethnicities.
Children’s literature helps children develop a rich vocabulary to describe them-
selves, their friends, and family and to avoid words placing people into categories
and stereotypes. Photography, digital and photographs, allows children to remember
special people, events, and places in their lives. Activities such as providing various
skin-tone crayons or paints for drawing painting with craft materials to depict skin,
Who Will Advocate for the Children? 31
eyes, hair with different textures, colors, and thickness are other ways to enable
young children to document identity and then readily see how their classmates have
envisioned themselves. Celebrating self strongly enables young children to reach
out to others more easily (Moore, 2000).
Experiencing art as images and as a means to connect their budding identities to
artists and their work, young children become aware of other cultures fixed in the
art. Seeing classmates and hearing representations of their cultures can fill in the
spaces between themselves and others. These are powerful discussions and learning
experiences. Often they are later acted out and tried on during play (Catron & Allen,
1999). Discussing and seeing art serves as a channel for students to identify, become
aware of historical contexts, and evaluate what the art means to them. These are
extensions from an initial art activity to multiple integrated, self-selected interests.
Here is where language development occurs within naturalistic and developmentally
appropriate environments.
Moreover, Maxine Greene (1988) tells us that art education is a vehicle that
emancipates. It offers young learners possibilities to understand others’ points of
view and experiences, not just through the art piece itself but through discussion
about it. Having educative events where the youngest of students begins to listen
and understand how others express thoughts and impressions about artwork through
their cultural perspectives. It gives them new thoughts and social representations to
consider. John Dewey (1934), in Art as experience, explains that “a beholder must
create his own experience. And his creation must include relations comparable to
those which the original producer underwent… Without an act of re-creation the
object is not perceived as a work of art” (p. 54). Since age-old societies and cultures
created social representations, artwork is and was one way that social and cultural
constructions are promulgated. Of course, values differ from culture to culture in
age to age (Anderson, 1988). This is a mode in which young children begin to learn
about accepting other’s cultural and social perspectives and identities and rethink
their own (McArdle & Piscitelli, 2002).
Who Will Advocate for the Children?
Advocacy is especially necessary for the youngest of our citizenry. Early childhood
educators are familiar with educating the whole child. The National Association
Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) position statement maintains that children
thrive when they experience learning in relevant cultural contexts where language
development is focused (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Further, it is declared that
affective, social, and cognitive development within a high-quality caring community
of learners results in an appropriate early childhood setting for optimal growth. The
interrelated and relevant aspects of social, physical, emotional, and cognitive growth
are stressed in the document. When young children experience a constructivist,
discovery-oriented creative curricular approach to early education, the whole child
is educated (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).
32 5 Identity
Similarly, in 2002, the Association for Childhood for Education International

(ACEI) Global Guidelines for Early Childhood Education and Care in the 21st
Century acknowledges that young children, within safe physical environmental
spaces, need to be provided a sense of belonging. The document outlines how
opportunities for interaction, play and movement, and exploration and discovery,
with and among other children and caring adults, are requisites for adequate growth
and development. Just the word “play” is distributed throughout the document in
conjunction with additional words such as create, extend, materials, constructive,
and active. These are skills that enable children to build identity and develop it in a
healthy fashion with a supportive milieu.
Moreover, the ACEI (2002) document states that exemplar early childhood
settings furnish an abundance of materials to promote problem solving, critical
thinking, and creativity so that children develop innate talents, abilities, and potential
through play, curiosity, and discovery. Offering ample materials and equipment for
young children assists them to cultivate and develop potential of self-identity and
integrity about their own and others’ culture(s).
In highlighting a more equitable and humanistic, identity-focused, early child-
hood elementary approach to critical pedagogy, we, as authors, still have much to
learn. Early childhood and elementary learners and educators have long been
overlooked as critical thinkers and pedagogues. Especially in areas of academic
writing, elementary critical pedagogues, perhaps because most are women, are left
out of the discussion. Yet, here are some champions. People like Lucy Sprague
Mitchell, Maxine Greene, Joan Wink, and Joe L. Kincheloe have helped us to learn
about how to develop critical and reflective thinking skills with the youngest of
citizens in our democratic society.
The young learners in our milieu deserve the finest education by the best educators.
They are so worth having time to learn while exploring and inquiring, within a
challenging and caring environment where they are educated to create and promote
social justice and encouraged to participate in a democracy (Mitchell, 1931). Having
teachers with deep content knowledge and involved in ongoing professional study
is important for all of our youth.
In order to help children develop an identity, they must be understood within the
contexts of the family, community, culture, religious practice, ethnicity, and nationality.
Children deserve early childhood/elementary teachers who passionately believe that
children come first in learning. Identity is everything. It is substantive to all else in
education (Mitchell, 1931). This is social justice and critical pedagogy for all children
(Christensen, 2006).
References
ACEI. (2002). Global guidelines for early childhood education and care in the 21st Century.
Olney Park, MD: ACEI.
Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of White American. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
References 33
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of blacks in the south, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press.
Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Catron, C., & Allen, J. (1999). Early childhood curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
Prentice-Hall.
Christensen, L. M. (2006). Early childhood social studies learning for social justice. Social justice
feature. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1(2).Online journal http://www.socstrp.org/
Clark, K. B. (1968). Race awareness in young children. New York: Collier Books.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs: Serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2003). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care:
Postmodern perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Delpit, L. (2009). Language diversity and learning. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres
(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York/Washington, DC: Routledge/
HighSchope Press: NAEYC.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Perigree Books.
Epstein, A. S. (2009). Me, you, us: Social-emotional learning in preschool. Ypsilanti, MI:
HighScope Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York:
Routledge.
Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational philosophy for the modern age. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectics of freedom. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of Apartheid schooling in America. New
York: Three Rivers Press.
Lather, P. (2001). Postmodernism, poststructuralism and post(Critical) ethnography: Of ruins, apo-
rias and angels. London: Sage Publishing.
Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Listening to children. Young children, 49(5), 55.
McArdle, F. A., & Piscitelli, B. (2002). Early childhood art education: A palimpsest. Australian
Art Education, 25(1), 11–15.
McKinley, J. L., Lim, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2007). Forum: A conversation on ‘Sense of
Place’ in science learning. In Springer’s, Cultural Studies of Science Education. Vol. 1 (1), pp.
143–160.
Mitchell, L. S. (1931). A cooperative school for student teachers. Progressive Education, 8,
251–255.
Mitchell, L. S. (1950). Our children and our schools. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Mitchell, L. S. (2000/1935). Social studies for future teachers. The Social Studies, 24, 289–289.
Reprinted in N. Nager & E. K. Shapiro (Eds.), Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The
developmental-interaction approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Moore, T. (2000). Original self. New York: Harper Collins.
Ramsey, P. G. (1991). The salience of race in young children’s growing up in an all—White
community. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 28–34.
Savage, T. V., & Armstrong, D. G. (2000). Effective teaching in elementary social studies. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Sunal, C. S., & Haas, M. E. (2010). Social Studies for the elementary and middle grades: A con-
structivist approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
34 5 Identity
US Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Washington, DC:
Author.
Watts, I. E., & Tutwiler, S. W. (2003). Diversity among families. In M. L. Fuller & M. L. Olson
(Eds.), Home-school relations: Working successfully with parents and families (pp. 44–70).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Chapter 6
Praxis and Critical Pedagogy
Praxis is the interplay between theory and practice. For critical educators, praxis is
conscious reflection about how power operates in various contexts. Elementary
teachers intentionally employ this process of reflecting on theory, practice, reflection,
dialogue, and action (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009; Kincheloe, 2001).
The word praxis derives from the ancient Greek. It means to enact theory and
skill, or practice, into reflection. As praxis is applied in elementary education, trans-
formational teaching and learning are the result. As transformation occurs, teachers
and children work together to make a difference in the world (Kincheloe, 2001).
Praxis changes classroom practices resulting in a reexamination of cherished beliefs.
How to “do praxis” is the focus of this chapter.
What follows is an example of praxis. Readers are encouraged to download and
then listen to the free podcast of This American Life at http://www.thislife.org/
Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=322.
The middle section of the program is about a Muslim family living in the United
States. The narrative is the story of an extreme experience in discrimination at the
hands of an insensitive elementary school teacher, principal, and school system
because of a child and families’ religious preference. It is a heartbreaking commentary
of what can occur when a teacher is narrow-minded and undereducated about
others’ beliefs. Cruelty and hatred ripple to the point that lives are ruined.
To initiate praxis, readers are encouraged to reflect upon what they heard. How
should this situation have been handled? What should the principal have done?
What assumptions are changed from listening to this podcast about religious dis-
crimination? Ask yourself how did your assumptions change and why? Do you
think that teachers have to remain compassionate to children of all family structures
and religious practices? Is this crucial to early childhood and elementary teaching
practice?
Going through this exercise is praxis. I (Lois) have to add that this particular
exercise was derived from my son, Conor. He is an ardent listener to This American
Life. So on a short car trip, he had me listen to a downloaded podcast of the aired
broadcast. Upon returning home, this broadcast was immediately added to a syllabus

36 6 Praxis and Critical Pedagogy
of a critical pedagogy course that I taught. The early childhood and master’s students
who were all teachers were distressed that this could occur to a child. How could an
adult, elementary teacher traumatize a young child in the classroom?
Theoretical Background
In this chapter, through the act of praxis, several underlying features within the
complexities of classroom practice will be discussed. One aspect is the meaning of
our lives as educators. Another expression revealed from praxis is examining the
unexamined, what is taken for granted. White privilege is another part of praxis
the often lies unexamined. The cultural capital that families and children bring into
our diverse classrooms daily is another, often unexamined, facet of praxis. Lastly,
how praxis is enacted within elementary curriculum and instruction and utilized for
purposes of assessment is covered.
Educators’ Making Meaning
Darder et al. (2009) remind us that we are always building our theory and practice;
however, theory and practice cannot be separated. Theory separated from practice is
nothing. Together they are powerful. Let’s examine some theories that underlie critical
pedagogy and the praxis of it. Maxine Greene (1988, 1998) considers that valuing
human beings and assisting them to be in touch with themselves awakens a person’s
consciousness to become more just and compassionate. It is the meaningful part of
ourselves that leads us to further democratic practice in classroom interactions. She
(1988, 1998) prompts us to reflect on the goals of education. Greene believes that
education should be an act that is in continual support of children’s learning that
nurtures their intellectual talents and capacities. Her theory of knowledge assists all
humans to know who we are in the world in which we live. From Greene’s perspective,
the ultimate purpose of learning is to facilitate the process for early childhood and
elementary teachers and students to perceive the sometimes obscure meaning in our
lives. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Examining the Unexamined
Furthermore, Greene (1988, 1998) envisions mistakes in praxis as failing to act.

Believing in something without due reflection, she also states is a lie. Greene (1998)
challenges teachers to examine the “taken for granted,” the given, the bound, and
what is restricted. She admonishes educators that knowledge grows from beliefs
that have been subjected to deep reflection. Greene radiates light upon teachers’
thinking, perspectives, and teaching practice to enhance reflective processes.
Cultural Capital 37
Peter McLaren (2006) confronts critical questions that most theorists dare not
ask. His critical pedagogy texts squarely meet a radical pedagogy, one of a Marxist
thinker, yet he started as an elementary classroom teacher. So his credibility is
authentic.
What Is White Privilege?
If you as an elementary teacher grew up existing in a sheltered world, or possess

assumptions that have not been thoroughly examined, McLaren’s (2006) work may
result in facing disequilibrium. Praxis is an act of the depth of reflection in which
readers of this text are expected to engage on authentic practice and the complexities
of experience in elementary schools. It is praxis that led Peter McLaren to question
his teaching in an elementary setting as a white, privileged man into the critical
pedagogical realm. His work challenges and causes confrontation of one’s assump-
tions through praxis. Teachers and candidates that want to continue in comfort without
examining the uncomfortable by confronting critical issues and rethinking lifelong
assumptions probably don’t want to read McLaren’s work. His is a path toward
powerful and profound growth.
Peter McLaren’s (2006) questions and approaches to critical pedagogy strike at
the heart of praxis. Being keenly provocative, he assists readers to confront what
underlies veiled classroom practice. Questions braided throughout his texts draw a
depth of reflection necessary for praxis.
Cultural Capital
Paulo Freire (1970) believes in cultural capital. This is the knowledge that children
and families bring to school irrespective of economic social class. It is a result of
acting with praxis. It is discovering the knowledge that is held within the cultures
and families of our students. Home or cultural knowledge welcomed and utilized in
elementary school for teaching and building knowledge purposes is the work that
critical pedagogues do. Additionally, elementary teachers that effectively enact
praxis consistently utilize theory to prompt reflection to inform practice and to
uncover aspects such as cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Wink, 2011).
Elementary teachers that practice critical pedagogy genuinely know their stu-
dents and have taken steps to sift through assumptions and perceptions of how they
see the world from their particular world views (Kincheloe, Slattery, & Steinberg,
2000). Not only do they know their students, they also know their families. They
seek to understand more about countries of origin for each student. For instance,
a critical pedagogue would invite a mother into the classroom from the “barrio,”
a Mexican American neighborhood, to make tortillas for a math lesson that
integrates some fractions and equivalents as children measure ingredients to
equate a whole. By using the cultural knowledge within the local community of
learners, knowledge is celebrated and constructed in a communal and relevant
manner (Moll, 1992).
How to Accomplish Praxis
As Banks (2008) notes, the “contributions” approach that is most frequently imple-
mented to teach about people that are often labeled as others in the elementary and
early childhood curriculum is inadequate. Banks describes three stages to further
increase in-depth learning about pluralism. As levels advance in depth, each adds a
supplementary perspective. The continuum sequence advances, and it consists of
the following levels: “additive,” “transformational,” and “social action.” The upper
limit is the social action level. The social action level is the level that early child-
hood and elementary critical pedagogues and their students determine a “problem,”
whether it be local, community, or global. Next, together with all voices equal and
heard, they make propositions about how to resolve it. Ultimately, they take action
to improve the circumstances for the good of the whole.
Praxis is an early childhood and elementary reflective practice that critical peda-
gogues overlay upon various situations in the classroom. Multisensory resources
and materials for young children to examine, discover, inquire, and evaluate are
necessary as educators know. Together the resources are discussed as meaning is
constructed from students’ personal and historical connections (Levstik & Barton,
2001). It is conscious, wide-awake participation; it is an exchange of creative energy
between materials and perceiver (Greene, 1998). As young learners engage in
detailed observations and lead critical discussions, they are enriched in a depth of
learning that is fundamental to critical pedagogy and praxis. They begin to construct
contextual understanding about events in a critical fashion and certainly more about
themselves. Often questions of conflict arise about why particular occurrences hap-
pened. This is where the discussion of structures of privilege, power, and oppression
comes into play (Levstik & Barton, 2001).
One of our favorite examples comes from a former kindergarten teacher who is
now our university colleague. Her class followed the third graders into the cafeteria
for lunch. The kindergarteners noticed that the first graders had four chicken nuggets
on their trays and they had only three. In the classroom meeting before the school
day ended, many of the kindergartners brought up this problem to Ms. Kirkland.
She asked them what they wanted to do about it. After a discussion, they decided to
write to the workers in the cafeteria. In this case, the workers in the cafeteria had the
power to change things. The young children dictated a letter, and Ms. Kirkland wrote
down what the children asked her to write. Guess what? The next time chicken
nuggets where served, the kindergartners had four nuggets on their trays. This was
the beginning of many reflective lessons in praxis for the youngest of learners.
In another incident with Ms. Kirkland, the local fire department received a call
by a complaining parent about the school hallways having too much student work
Application 39
hanging up. My personal impression was that it was terrific seeing the students’
work, having been in and out of this school. The kindergarten children were the
most upset. Again, Ms. Kirkland asked the children what they wanted to do about
this situation during a classroom meeting.
By this time in the academic year, most of the children were able to write, albeit
“inventive” spelling. Each child wrote to the fire department as they had the power
in the situation. Some children enlisted the help of others. The Homewood Fire
Department did not change the violation or the ordinance. However, the 5- and
6-year-old children utilized their voices, and because the kindergarten teacher,
Ms. Kirkland, employed the wisdom of praxis, the youngest of learners engaged in
multiple opportunities to engage in praxis.
In these two cases, problems naturally arose and were identified by young
children. Generally, this is naturally the way in which problems do. Children noticed
them. Again, this is a human response. It was the critical praxis of the early child-
hood teacher that developed a plan for the youngsters to figure out how to resolve
the problem that they noticed. Next, the young children took action. In evaluating
the results of both situations from the action that they took, the kindergartners
considered why they received the responses that they did (Wink, 2011).
Application
Children are seldom offered opportunities to self-select or contribute to interests

when only teachers plan learning (ACEI, 2002; Kohn, 2004). Moreover, the ways in
which children are assessed should be supportive of total development (NAEYC,
2009). Childhood curriculum in general has the possibility of being the place where
critical pedagogy and social action begins (Dahlberg, Pence, & Moss, 2003).
As Sandra Scarr (1998) warns that in the United States, young children are insti-
tutionally socialized to reform to middle and upper class social mores in school. The
hidden curriculum speaks volumes. When children are not offered choices or given
opportunities to contribute, the democracy is not enacted. Within diverse settings,
children are accepted and celebrated for their unique and richness of difference. It
is here that teachers can begin to offer children freedom and democracy. Learning
to choose is where solidarity can be practiced and built (Bergen, 2001). For example,
when children have a voice in educative studies and opportunities to learn about
moral actions, the classroom and the school become the springboard for democracy,
social action, and transformation.
Technology as Application
Since most classrooms have technological access, additional means to add to learn-
ing about praxis is through children’s literature. Other ways are through visits
focused on learning about particular topics of study by students’ family members.
Children took walking trips in the school neighborhood noting problems and choos-
ing topics in which to engage. Technology is a way for children to research topics
as well as to represent learning for assessment.
There are some wonderfully appropriate electronic means for children to explore
as either intentional or open discovery. For instance, ample and varied videos are
available for youngsters to view and discover at PBS. This site is a place that
teachers can bookmark for student learning groups or children can utilize on their
own as a search engine as sorts for particular topics or simply for fun. http://pbskids.
org/go/video/?campaign=go_eyecatcher
References
ACEI. (2002). Global guidelines for early childhood education and care for the 21st century. http://
www.acei.org/wguideshp.htm (accessed August 12, 2011).
Aldridge, J., & Goldman, R. (2007). Current issues and trends in education (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J. A. (2008). An introduction to multicultural education. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Bergen, D. (2001). Pretend play and young children’s development. ERIC Digest, ED458045.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research
for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2003). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care:
Postmodern perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (1998). A light in dark times: Maxine Greene and the unfinished conversation. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Kincheloe, J. L., Slattery, P., & Steinberg, S. R. (2000). Contextualizing teaching: Introduction to
education and educational foundations. New York: Addison, Wesley & Longman.
Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? And more essays on standards, grading,
and other follies. Boston: Beacon Press.
Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2001). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary
and middle schools (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLaren, P. (2006). Life in Schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of
education (5th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Moll, L. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends.
Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20–24.
NAEYC. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving chil-
dren from birth through age 8. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/
file/positions/position%20statement%20Web.pdf.
Scarr, S. (1998). American child care today. American Psychologist, 53, 95–108.
This American Life. (2008). Retrieved: May 5, 2008 from http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.
aspx?episode=322
Chapter 7
Discrimination
If there is anything that we wish to change in the child, we

should first examine it and see whether it is not something that
could better be changed in ourselves.
Carl Jung
This chapter is about the topic of discrimination in its countless expression. The
history of discrimination in the United States is covered and traced from its entrench-
ment in our society, legislation, and how educators might to begin to overcome it
and assist young students and families do the same.
Granted, in the history of the United States, the subject of discrimination would
take volumes, as every group termed as “other” or newly immigrated has been
subjected to discriminatory practices. The United States has always had newly
immigrated people (Greene, 1995). When we as authors were in early and elementary
education, history of the United States was romanticized. No mention of wrongdo-
ing was present in texts or by educators. In as much as I grew up (Lois) in the south-
west, we studied the continent of Africa and the imperialism of it. We investigated
the first country in Africa, the Belgian Congo, to obtain its freedom from its oppressor.
The Berlin Conference (1885) was covered as a part of imperialism. Slavery in
the United States, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow were investigated as well, which
all caused me to question imperialism early on in my elementary education because
an elementary teacher led us as fourth graders to investigate these topics.
When discrimination is examined truthfully and under many of its guises, some
of the worst occurrences are often glamorized in educational settings (Loewen,
1995). Lastly, we offer hope as how to help elementary educators support young
learners to research and recognize and name discrimination and study information
to assist them to accept all students and families to an understanding heart. Really if
we think about it, learning about anyone different from you, which is everyone, is
vital to accept all people of diversity.
For the most part, anything that tarnished the presidencies, Columbus, or covered
African American education in the south, the slave trade, women’s achievements

42 7 Discrimination
were excluded. For instance, there were Douay Bible burnings in the sixteenth
century, presidential inflammatory remarks made by Woodrow Wilson regarding
the movie, Birth of a Nation, and stealing from indigenous people, along with rape,
enslavement, lynching, proliferating diseases, cutting off body parts, and if imagin-
able, and much worse, occurred against “others” in this country (Kincheloe, 2001;
Loewen, 1995).
Legislation
James Banks (2008) offers elementary teachers ways to implement a plethora of

multisensory materials and resources for students to build knowledge about multi-
cultural and ethnic understandings to eliminate discrimination of all types.
Classmates and families can be invited in to further extend learning into the com-
munity (Stringer, Christensen, & Baldwin, 2009). Realizing change arises by action
or sometimes to a greater extent by inaction in the form of civil disobedience, young
people attending Moton High School at age 16 carefully planned and implemented
a school strike aimed at equalizing education in Virginia county in the United States
in the early 1950s, the only place they knew and lived. Ultimately, John Stokes was
a plaintiff in the famous Brown versus Board case, which changed segregation in
schools in the United States.
Students on Strike (Stokes, 2008) can be a motivational; read aloud for formative
elementary learners, and at the same time as reading the chapters, ask groups or
pairs of children to take particular notice and document details in reading/writing
journals. Tell the students to record to precision in order to capture essentials of life
experiences for each of the characters in the piece of historical nonfiction. Ask students
to also take notes in their journals about how the authors write about the beauty of
nature’s connections so that the story becomes visible to them, a vicarious experience.
What you as the elementary teacher want to do is bring this first person narrative,
the vital message, to each young citizen, and allow them to see how they too can
soar and make sweeping change as John Stokes and his friends did. Allow students
to “try on” historical details of the literary work, for they can and will put it all
together brilliantly. They can wondrously carry out particular action that makes a
difference in their school, local, and community contexts. Youth can stand up and
take a stand to make life better for someone else as well as for himself or herself.
Children are the present. Children teach us about the past. Children will lead us into
the future. Children absolutely make a difference.
Time and Space Context
In 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., arrived in Selma to lead peaceful demonstra-
tions protesting discriminatory voting practices. This legislation was supposed to
terminate discriminatory voter registration and unjust voting practices imposed
upon people of color during the Jim Crow era.
Legislation 43
Civil Rights Timeline
1789 Ratification of the US Constitution; first elections held.

1807 Women lose the right to vote in all states.
1830 Most states have abolished property and religious voting tests.
1838 Kentucky reintroduces women’s suffrage for widows.
1855 Black males can vote in only 5 states.
1870 15th Amendment enfranchises black males.
1876 Black male voters in the south denied participation.
1915 Grandfather clause used to disenfranchise black males declared
unconstitutional.
1920 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote.
1924 Indian American Citizenship Act provided for suffrage for Native Americans.
1944 “White Primary” declared unconstitutional.
1961 23rd Amendment gives vote to citizens of Washington, DC.
Let’s step back in time. Originally, women had the right to vote but lost it in
1807. What happened? Then, in 1919, taking effect in 1920 once again, it is returned.
This is an area for all elementary teachers and students to research.
Just observing the timeline, from some 50 years ago, young children together
with their teachers can examine what life might have looked like depending on the
melanin in your skin, eyes, and hair. Daily life was unlike it is for children and adults
now. Use some of this information for youth to reference and research legislation
that requires equity and justice. However, legislation cannot unravel discrimination.
In l950, for instance, girls wore dresses to school, and boys wore pants, but not blue
jeans. Many women stayed at home. They took care of their children, homes, laundry,
cooking, and cleaning. Women who worked outside the home had limited choices.
They worked at traditional “women’s jobs,” such as a cleaning lady or maid, office
worker, teacher, librarian, secretary, or nurse. Many jobs were “for whites only.”
Black workers were kept in lower-paying jobs. Even if they were doing the same
work as white workers, they were paid less.
Fifty years ago, there were no home computers, Internet, or video games. A new
technology called television was sweeping the country. In 1946, only 6,000
television sets were manufactured. They showed only black-and-white images.
By 1953, factories produced seven million sets. Color had been introduced, but
most programming was black and white. Parents worried that children spent more
time in front of the television than they did on school and homework.
In 1950, there was not a single McDonald’s restaurant. The first one was built in
Chicago in 1955. Rock and roll music began with Elvis Presley in the 1950s. Barbie
was introduced in 1959. More than 200 million were sold in the next 25 years. Like
all other dolls on the market, Barbie was white. Black girls found no dolls that
looked like them.
From 1948 to 1952, Harry Truman was President of the United States. Dwight D.
Eisenhower followed him, serving from 1952 to 1960.
Fifty years ago, all across the United States, black-and-white people were segre-
gated. Their homes, schools, churches, and social lives were completely separated
44 7 Discrimination
from one another. There were large numbers of Mexican Americans or American
Indians; they were also segregated from white people.
In the Southern United States, segregation was the social convention rule of law,
Jim Crow. Throughout the south, Jim Crow forbade black people from eating in the
same restaurants as white people. Black men and women taking the bus to work had
to sit at the back with a sign of demarcation. White people sat in the front. Even
before they started school, black children learned that they were not allowed to use
“white” drinking fountains or “white” bathrooms in gas stations. Black teens could
not swim in public swimming pools or at public beaches reserved for whites only.
In the Northern and Western United States, the laws usually did not require segregation.
Even without such laws, people’s lives were generally segregated. People of color
were not allowed to buy or rent homes in the same neighborhoods as white people.
Because they lived in segregated neighborhoods, children attended mostly white or
mostly black schools.
In the north as well as in the south, employers used color as a reason for hiring
or not hiring people. For example, most northern police forces and fire departments
refused to hire any people of color. Young people went to segregated dances
and social events. Elders did not encourage friendships between black and white
teens. In many states, the law itself forbade marriage between black people and
white people.
In the south, children attended strictly segregated schools from kindergarten on.
Black schools got far less money than white schools. They had fewer books and
unfit buildings and seldom had playgrounds. Teachers in black schools were paid
less than teachers in white schools. The same school board ruled over black and
white schools in each county, but white schools received preferential treatment.
Black parents and children protested against this inequality (Stokes, 2008). They
knew segregation was legal. The Supreme Court, which makes the final judgment
on whether laws passed through Congress or the states are constitutional, had said
that segregation was legal as long as the segregated facilities were “separate but
equal.” Black parents and children knew that their schools were not equal.
For example, the Moton High School in Farmville, Virginia, had no cafeteria and
no lockers. Its science classes did not have even a single microscope. The buses that
brought students to school were hand-me-downs given to Moton High school by the
white high school when it received new buses.
In the spring of 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16-year-old junior at the high school, and
her classmates, John Stokes included, determined a plan to get a decent school for
her little brothers and sisters. The students faked an emergency telephone call to the
principal. He left the building to attend to the “emergency.” Then they delivered
notes “from the principal” calling all classes to a general assembly. When everyone
arrived at the assembly, Johns announced that this was a special meeting to discuss
school conditions. Teachers were asked to leave. Then all 450 students followed
Johns out of school and on strike.
Johns and her group summoned lawyers from the NAACP. The lawyers filed suit
to integrate all the schools at Farmville, and other towns including Topeka, Kansas,
Importance of Children and Resistance to Segregation 45
joined the suit. In Topeka, a young girl named Linda Brown attended a black
elementary school. She had to travel several miles to a segregated school. A white
school was just four blocks from her home. Linda and her parents believed she
should be able to attend the school near her home. They agreed to become part of
the NAACP’s legal challenge to segregation.
Three years later, the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States. In
1954, the court ruled that school segregation violated the Constitution of the United
States. Separate schools were inherently unequal. The court ordered all public
schools to be integrated. Across the south, school boards and government officials
delayed desegregation. Black parents and children, helped by the NAACP, kept up
steady pressure.
Ruby Bridges, age six, was the first black child to attend a previously all-white
school in New Orleans in 1960. Four federal marshals came to take Ruby to school
that day. The federal marshals were there to enforce the law, because the local police
would not. They walked Ruby through the grown men and women who threw things
and screamed insults as her. Ruby walked through the mob and found herself in a
classroom all alone with a teacher. All the white parents kept their children home
from school.
Eventually the angry crowds went away. White parents saw their children sitting
at home and learning nothing. One by one, they decided that education was more
important than segregation. The white children came back to school.
Schools and young children were a very important part of the civil rights move-
ment. The legal challenges to school segregation mounted by the NAACP succeeded
in overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled
that racially segregated schools were unequal and unconstitutional. Adults, lawyers,
and courts were important in overturning legal segregation of schools. But their
action alone was not enough. The courage of young people like Barbara Johns and
Ruby Bridges was needed to make civil rights a reality in the nation. Mary Turck’s
(2000) text has many resources for children to study about how children played a
part in discrimination and the legislative end to it.
Importance of Children and Resistance to Segregation
Why is this information important? Geneva Gay (1990) informs educators of ele-
mentary teachers and candidates that usually it takes over three generations to eliminate
discrimination. She continues to express grief that segregation was a hope for equality
in educational opportunities for children of color. What has sadly materialized from
the legislation is a dual system of education of entry into the halls of similar knowl-
edge and accountability for children of color. Now it is imperative to necessitate
instructional reform. Discrimination is so ingrained to make necessary changes to
the instructional systems in place, institutionalized racism, to become pluralistic
enough to encompass the legislation passed in Brown versus Board in 1954.
46 7 Discrimination
The Struggle for Voting Rights
After years of struggle working for equality, The Civil Rights Act, often called the
most important civil rights law since Reconstruction, finally became law on July 2,
1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation after one of the longest
debates in the United States Senate’s history.
An act to enforce the fifteenth Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, followed
and was mandated in August of 1965 when Congress passed the Act. The Voting
Rights Act of 1965 was legislation intended to terminate discriminatory voter
registration and voting practices imposed upon people of color, most especially
African American citizens.
In 1963, two years prior to these two vital pieces of legislation, fewer than 25%
of the African Americans in Selma, Alabama, were registered to vote. This trans-
lated to one out of a hundred eligible voters in Selma who were actually registered
to vote. Even with the legislation in place for the right to vote, poll taxes and other
ridiculous literacy test tactics kept African Americans from entering voting booths.
Literacy tests (over 100 were developed in Alabama) that most citizens could not
pass and ridiculous questions such as “how many bubbles are in this bar of soap?”
were carefully asked only to African Americans to prevent their right to even
register to vote. In Selma, Alabama, the registrar’s office was only open a few hours a
month, the number of applications for voter registration was limited, and completed
applications were seldom processed. Finally, many citizens of Selma and elsewhere
sought to claim their mandated rights by an organized demonstration in which they
planned to walk to Montgomery, AL, which required a walk across the Edmund
Pettus Bridge.
The Edmund Pettus Bridge stretches across the Alabama River on the southern
edge of Selma. It was Sunday, March 7, 1965, when approximately 600 civil rights
marchers attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a peaceful effort to dem-
onstrate the denial of voter rights and to commemorate the death of Jimmie Lee
Jackson, who was shot 3 weeks earlier by an Alabama State Trooper while he tried
to protect his mother in a demonstration. The bridge is only about four blocks from
the Brown Chapel where the march began. The protesters planned to walk 50 miles
to the state capital of Montgomery. As they started over the bridge, Alabama State
Troopers met them, telling the crowd to turn back. Through clouds of tear gas on the
Pettus Bridge, many demonstrators were attacked and beaten with bullwhips and
clubs. Seventeen marchers were hospitalized, including an 8-year-old girl, Sheyann
Webb. This day became known as “Bloody Sunday.”
Television brought the horrific treatment of human beings into the living rooms
of a nation of peoples who were deeply disturbed at the violence wreaked upon
peaceful marchers. Two weeks later, on March 21st, the Selma to Montgomery
march began again, only this time the marchers had federal protection and scores of
protesters that came from all over the United States to march in solidarity for voting
rights, justice, and equality.
By 1966, 60 % of the African Americans in Selma were registered to vote. This
difference was marked not only by finally having a legislative right but also having
Voting Rights Timeline 47
many African Americans elected to county, state, and federal offices. A few short
years later, in 1969, as we prepared to send human beings to the moon, people on this
planet Earth still couldn’t peacefully live in a just and equal society. However, the
civil rights movement generated powerful and effective social action toward forming
a more perfect union. Nevertheless, the struggle continues for just and civil rights.
Voting Rights Timeline
1789 Ratification of the US Constitution; first elections held.

1807 Women lose the right to vote in all states.
1830 Most states have abolished property and religious voting tests.
1838 Kentucky reintroduces women’s suffrage for widows.
1855 Blacks can vote in only five states.
1870 15th Amendment enfranchises black males.
1876 Black voters in the south denied participation.
1889 Wyoming allows women full voting rights.
1915 Grandfather clause used to disenfranchise black males declared uncon-
stitutional.
1920 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote.
1924 Indian Citizenship Act provided for suffrage for Native Americans.
1944 “White Primary” declared unconstitutional.
1961 23rd Amendment gives vote to citizens of Washington, D.C.
1962 New Mexico was the last state to extend the right to vote to Native
Americans.
1964 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax for federal elections.
1965 Voting Rights Act outlaws literacy tests and sends federal registrars to the
south
1971 26th Amendment gives 18–20-year-olds the right to vote.
1975 Amended Voting Rights Act enables poor speakers of English to participate
in the political process.
1993 National Voter Registration Act makes registration more uniform and acces-
sible (“Motor Voter”).
48 7 Discrimination
Stage Development of Discrimination
While most critical theorists reject the notion of universal stages, early and elemen-
tary educators consider discrimination as developing over time. Obviously children
are not born prejudice. We pose the question, “Does discrimination develop in
stages?” We suggest that discrimination can move from prejudice to hatred and
ultimately can cease in dehumanization and even killing or, a more horrific, death.
In recent times, there have been hate crimes at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum
in Jena, LA., and in Montana. These murders and acts of discrimination occurred
over racism and negative preconceptions of ethnicities, religious beliefs, and gay
and lesbians. We can trace several examples of these discriminatory movements in
history from the Diaspora in Africa and the Holocaust in Europe through the civil
rights movement in the United States and apartheid in South Africa. As the ethnic
composition of our country is dynamic, a curriculum that supports democratic,
pluralistic, and societal goals must consistently reflect the representative diversity
that fosters development of attitudes and beliefs consistent with social justice
(Freire, 1998). As a nation, we have a haunting past of discrimination, bigotry, and
hatred.
Presently, Brown versus Board of Education is virtually rescinded. Fifty-five
years of history has been erased. The Supreme Court of 2007 turned back the clock
on economically and ethnically disenfranchised children. Community schools won
to the end of working toward educational equality. Jonathan Kozol admonishes “still
separate, still unequal” in regard to the apartheid educational system in the United
States today.
The occurrences were unbelievable in Jena, Louisiana, where young Black
students were jailed trying to sit “on the wrong side” on the school grounds. White
students tormented them, hanging nooses from a tree. It is difficult to imagine that
this happened in 2007 in a schoolyard. How could it happen? How was discrimina-
tion allowed to get this far out of control? Where is educational social justice?
Why are we testing the youngest of children? Can you fathom subjecting chil-
dren in Head Start programs to standardized tests? Young children upward are being
tested for the profit of McGraw Hill, one of the largest test manufacturers and
editors of scripted curriculum programs. Scripted program is the most prevalently
implemented forms of instruction in urban and high poverty areas.
In the lowest socioeconomic and urban areas of our nation, scripted curricula are
readily mandated. Elementary children are being subjected to this form of discrimi-
nation in education. Elementary children in lower strata areas spend hours with
teachers reading a scripted program to them, and they are to respond in a rote man-
ner. Worksheets and test booklets add to the less inviting curriculum, while their
over the mountain neighbors enjoy an integrated, rich curriculum that includes the
arts, sciences, and social studies (Meier & Wood, 2004; Noddings, 2005). Which
group of elementary learners will be enabled to become democratic citizens for
civic competence? Which group is experiencing educational discrimination?
Here are teachers with degrees, often with graduate degrees, mandated to implement
Assisting Young Students to Accept and Enact Antidiscriminatory Practice 49
scripted programs. Do you think that this is deprofessionalizing prepared and

degreed educators?
So often, teachers’ voices are not heard. It is double jeopardy for teachers of
color, in our estimation. Especially now in this politically charged school arena
where teachers are deskilled and deprofessionalized, identities are fragile, in urban
settings evermore where politicos’ pressure is focused. If there is anything that
urban children need, it is the teachers who have the autonomy to offer them auton-
omy in learning a variety, minds and hands-on curriculum, rather than a scripted
shallow type. Yes, the scripted curriculum is undermining. Teachers have to have
outlets. Let them be heard! On the contrary, elementary educators, especially in
urban settings, often find that they are not equipped to work with students of color
because of the lack of historical knowledge and ability to comprehend the years of
enduring oppression in a country that prides itself on “justice for all, ” democracy,
and pluralism (Finch & Rasch, 1992). Let our teachers talk. May they write their
frustrations, may publishers print their stories of frustration! Educational discrimi-
nation is rampant. Equity has to prevail over the obvious discrimination as more and
more become apartheid and separate and unequal educational systems.
Another national conundrum in elementary education is our bilingual population
of children. What about children who come to school speaking English as a second
language? They, too, are mandated in the testing trend and most often attend schools
where a scripted program is implemented. Take a moment to listen to a Bank Street
College teacher educator eloquently discussing the situation (http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=AlUEEdj6lkw).
Just imagine moving to Pakistan at age eight and a couple weeks later having to
take a grade level test about your knowledge in all content areas in Erdu. It is easy
to become cynical about the seeming diminished democracy. Please don’t get us
wrong. We see the United States as a remarkable country, a country full of people,
full of potential. However, knowing our past and sacrifices that have been made by
families, we know the best and sometimes the worst of times. However, as educators
we have to be committed to establishing justice and abolishing discrimination.
Assisting Young Students to Accept and Enact

Antidiscriminatory Practice
You, teachers and candidates of early childhood and elementary students, are
entrusted with the hope to transform this generation of youth in schools! You are the
educators who plan, implement, and assess curriculum for young children to nurture
them to build knowledge. You chose to be the educative delegates for our youngest
of students. Their knowledge and development of how to be civically competent
and how to critically think about situations where discrimination is in play are
dependent on your curriculum and instruction. The atmosphere that you create in
your classroom, tangible and intangible, speaks volumes to students and families.
50 7 Discrimination
Families and children in poverty, lower socioeconomic classes of people, and

people and children of color and ethnicity are all open for discriminatory practices.
You are the generation that can make sure there is a working class, which offers
advantages in contrast to those who are extremely wealthy and powerful. We are
counting on you.
What will you do to at least provide for a balanced early childhood and
elementary curriculum within your own curriculum to help young children out of
discrimination and have skills to overcome it? How will you assist children of poverty
in your classroom to reach their potential?
Stop for a minute and think about all of the traditional groups that are marginalized
by discrimination. Let’s name some:
• Children of poverty
• Children from rural areas
• Mexican American children
• Muslim American children
• Jewish American children
• African American children
• Gay children or children of gay parents
• Lesbian children or children of lesbian parents
• Mixed-race children
Lee’s (2008) work examines and challenges myriad assumptions held by countless
teachers. She lists the “deterministic pronouncements p. 275” that so many educators
consistently believe:
• Children who are not read to at home won’t become readers.
• Vocabulary will be limited if there is no “adequate discussion” occurring at home.
• Learning the alphabet and how to count to ten prior to kindergarten are crucial to
later school progress.
• Standard English determines the ability to learn.
• Families that don’t come to school aren’t interested in their children.
Lee observes and researches (2008) the complexities facing education presently.
It is her hope that cadre of researchers swells into an endeavor that attends to
the complexity of cultural communities, multiple learning contexts, and ability for
learners to adapt and multiple means that learners have to achieve the same learning
ends (Mandara, 2006; Nasir, 2002). These are our thoughts on discrimination. What
do you think about these thoughts? What are your thoughts?
References
Banks, J. A. (2008). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Convention Revising the General Act of Berlin, February 26,1885, and the General Act and
Declaration of Brussels, July 2,1890
References 51
Finch, M. E., & Rasch, K. (1992). Preparing preservice teacher students for diverse populations.
Paper presented at the National Forum of the Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges
for Teacher Education, Louisville, KY.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. New York: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Gay, G. (1990). Achieving educational equality through curriculum desegregation. Phi Delta
Kappan, 72(1), 52–62.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts and social change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
http://www.tolerance.org/index.jsp
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/web/ptolerance/index.jsp
Twenty-first Century. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lee, C. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How
an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational
Researcher, 37, 267–279.
Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got
wrong. NY: New Press.
Mandara, J. (2006). The impact of family functioning on African American males’ academic
achievement: A review and clarification of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record,
108(2), 206–223.
Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Nasir, N. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 211–247.
Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership,
63(1), 8–13.
Stringer, E., Christensen, L. M., & Baldwin, S. C. (2009). Integrating teaching, learning, and
action research: Developing an attitude of inquiry in the K-12 classroom? Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Stokes, J., & Wolfe, L. (2008). Students on strike. Washington, DC: National Geographic.
Turck, M. C. (2000). The civil rights movement for kids: A history with 21 activities. Chicago, IL:
Chicago Review Press.
Chapter 8
Gender, Ethnicity, and Disability
Issues related to gender continue to be a major challenge for educators in the twenty-
first century. Generally, one’s culture is the basis for individuals to define personal
conceptions of gender. Conceptions, in turn, influence how individuals perceive their
own identity that includes gender. An elementary teacher’s conceptions of gender
impact interactions between the teacher and the students and among the students
themselves (Arnot, Araujo, Deliyanni-Kouimtze, Rowe, & Tome, 1996; Tupper, 2002;
Unterhalter, 1999). Historically, women, minorities, those without property, of
specific nationalities and ethnicities, religious affiliations, and gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgendered, and/or questioning individuals were relegated to second, third, or
noncitizenship status with few people being full, equal citizens, even in a formal,
legal, sense (Heisler, 2005; Kincheloe, 2001). This continues to exist. While the
purpose of this chapter is to provide ways for faculty to promote gender equity in
the classroom, background information on gender legislation, women in higher
education, the discriminatory recognition of theorists in the foundations of education,
as well as women and compensation will precede our specific recommendations.
Gender Strides and Declines
Traditionally, the United States military took the lead on antidiscriminatory practice
in multiple realms. The military set the tone as one of the first institutions to inte-
grate. Women were admitted into the military during WWII as Women’s Army
Auxiliary Corps (WAAC). Roosevelt signed Public Law 77–554 on May 15, 1942
(Wilford, 2008).
In 1993, the United States military instituted a plan known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass.” This policy is more commonly known as the
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (Congressional Record—Senate, 2003). Basically,
members of all sexual orientations served within the various services of the military.
Every person was an important part of the military in every capacity. The Armed

54 8 Gender, Ethnicity, and Disability
Services has a policy that harassment is never tolerated for any reason. Then in
2001, the Armed Services fired approximately 1,250 gay and lesbian members of
the service. From 2001 until 2003, approximately 7,800 active service members
were fired. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Record in 2003, because
so many members of the Armed Forces were dismissed, it created a shortfall of
speakers of Arabic, Farsi, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and Russian. Currently, in
2011, the discrimination continues to exist. This year alone, the United States
government through The Pentagon budget spent over $193.3 million to discharge
and replace service men and women.
Women in Higher Education
According to West and Curtis (2006), women in academia in the United States only
make up 24 % of the full professors, although there are a sizable number of women
graduate students and working as lecturers, assistant professors, and associate pro-
fessors. Thirty-four years ago, the Congress of the United States passed Title IX.
Thus far, gender discrimination in its various forms exists and thrives, especially in
higher education. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP, West
& Curtis, 2006) tracks the disparity by gender in academia regarding promotion and
salary and has done so for numerous years. The AAUP calls for continuous change
and a deeper level of discourse regarding the disproportionate rank and salary issues
in higher education, especially at doctoral-granting institutions. Equity is nonnego-
tiable. So, the question is, “How is the disparity among women and men scholars in
academe still an operative convention in 2010 across the United States?”
Women and Compensation
Do you ever wonder whether or not the Lilly Ledbetter’s Fair Pay Act of 2009 that
amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will make expansive changes to reawaken fair
pay and treatment of women, not just in academia, but in every walk of employment?
Think about our youngest citizens in our classrooms. Do we want them to grow and
develop thinking and perpetuating gender inequity for a fair day of pay but because
one person happens to be a woman, she is paid less? Did the Equal Pay Act of 1963
make a difference for women and equal pay for equal work? Has The Civil Rights
Act of 1971, Title I, Section 102 in the United States of America made a difference
in the compensation for the caretakers who nurture the youngest citizens in our
midst, early childhood and child development center people? These are issues that
older elementary children are certainly able to discuss, problematize, and act upon
transformationally.
Theorists in Educational Foundations 55
Theorists in Educational Foundations
In 1886, Columbia’s Teacher’s College in Manhattan, New York leased its first
building. In 1898, the prestigious college began its preparation of teachers, and
pioneer educational psychologist Edward Thorndike began his career there in 1899.
Amazingly, the beautifully chiseled circumference of the Horace Mann Education
Building of Teachers’ College is adorned solely with male theorists in the founda-
tions of education. Not one woman’s name is carved into this age-old institution of
teacher education.
Women Left Out of Educational Psychological

and Historical Foundations
According to West and Curtis (2006), there are a sizable number of women students
in teacher education as undergraduate, graduate students, and faculty members as
we have already mentioned. Despite the fact that 34 years ago the Congress of the
United States passed Title IX, thus far, gender discrimination in various forms exists
and thrives, especially in the administration of elementary school systems and in
higher education. Unequivocally, justice for women is nonnegotiable. Consequently,
is there gender disparity in historical and psychological foundations as an operative
convention in 2011?
This section is based on feminist and critical theories. We know from earlier
chapters that certain forms of knowledge are more valued than others. Specifically,
theories of dead, white western men are questioned.
Prominent women educators are distinct in history. Background theoretical and
historical information is taken from the following work by Lascarides and Hinitz
(2000), Gilligan (1993), Kincheloe (2008), and McLaren (2005). Historical contri-
butions were foundational then and continue to be implemented now. However,
their work is often attributed to men. These women’s contributions merit respect in
undergraduate and graduate educational historical foundations and social studies
coursework.
Conventions for women that are sexual in nature (West & Curtis, 2006), as
scholars and educators, women have often been perceived as not as capable. If it
were otherwise, there would be no need to convene ad hoc groups, gather committees,
have explicit statements in faculty handbooks, and write books on the topic. There
would be no need for legislation about social justice or gender equity (Aisenberg &
Harrington, 1988). One of our male doctoral students laughs when he tells us about
being the only male in his elementary school, yet every academic year, the faculty
has a sexual harassment workshop at the school. As social justice educators, per-
petuating the notion that women’s accomplishments did not sustain education by
excluding their contributions is an unacceptable social arrangement.
Some exemplar contributions of social justice and action such as Ella Flagg
Young, Anna Julia Cooper, Charlotte Hawkins Brown, and Lucy Sprague Mitchell
are absent in the psychological and historical foundations. Salient contributions by
Sabina Spielrein, Carol Gilligan, and Diana Baumrind are often excluded as well.
By disseminating feminine theories and histories accomplished in foundation
courses, critical pedagogy courses, and other undergraduate and graduate courses,
educators reform education for the public good. Elementary teachers and candidates
in turn can bring these social activist educators into their classrooms for study. Their
young students, male and female, learn a more just educational background about
contributions by educators who made a positive difference for children.
Ways for Faculty to Promote Equity in the Classroom
According to Lufkin (2009), there are multiple ways that elementary teachers can
encourage gender equity in the classroom. She offers specific recommendations
designed to help teachers examine their biases and make changes to improve prac-
tice. Several of her suggestions are ideas that elementary teachers may have consid-
ered, but some are novel. Lufkin’s notions concerning the grouping of males and
females are in opposition to the recent trend of having same-gender classrooms or
single-gender schools. Lufkin advises, “Do not group students by gender since such
groupings often imply that females are not as qualified as males. Do not group
people by gender in order to have each gender compete with the other” (p. 25). She
proposes, “in most instances, grouping students by gender violates Title IX which
prohibits gender discrimination in education” (p. 26).
Lufkin also cautions teachers to accurately credit students when they contribute
to discussions in class. “Often males get more credit for their contributions, and
sometimes they even get credit for something a female said” (p. 26). To avoid this
situation, she finds that calling students by name is a common way to avoid this
pitfall. These specific points and more cause Lufkin’s work to be a sound gender
equity resource for early and elementary teachers. Use this document for a profes-
sional development discussion.
Other specific recommendations for promoting gender equity in the classroom
include:
1. Incorporate women’s contributions in history, mathematics, science, language,
and the arts. A conscious effort is needed on the teacher’s part to include women
contributors in the mainstream curriculum throughout the year and not just during
“Women’s History” month.
2. Monitor how often girls and boys are called on to participate in class discus-
sions. Sadker and Sadker (1994) found that teachers unconsciously call on boys
more than girls. One way to eliminate this is for teachers to provide a certain
number of tokens for each student. Each time a student speaks, that student
returns the token. This eliminates domination of the discussion by one particular
group.
Hands and Minds on Ideas for Elementary Learners… 57
3. Invite women professionals and leaders into the classroom to tell their personal
stories. Both girls and boys need to experience the direct, firsthand contributions
of women leaders and professionals in the community.
4. Openly discuss, providing examples, the continued marginalization of women in
the culture. How are girls and women discriminated against in the twenty-first
century in the local community, state, and nation? Some women are still not
allowed to vote, drive a car, or hold a job outside the home in some countries
today. What are these countries?
5. Avoid same sex groupings or same gender classes. As mentioned earlier, this
practice is discriminatory (Lufkin, 2009). Discuss with students the fairness of
other forms of segregated grouping? Would it be fair to separate students by race,
eye color, skin color, or any other dimension of diversity?
Hands and Minds on Ideas for Elementary Learners

to Learn About Women in Education
Integrating Women into Elementary Critical

Pedagogy Classrooms
• Have students write the biographies of their mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters
or women relatives, friends, and neighbors.
• Create a web page about particular women heroines.
• Create timelines of the lives of the female relatives who they admire.
• Interview women in their community and report on their lives.
• Create timelines of heroines’ lives.
• Make scrapbooks for each historical female figure.
• Create a women’s bingo game about famous educators.
• Make a crossword puzzle of women contributors to education.
• Make birth certificates for historical women who campaigned for women’s right
to vote.
• Map the travels of historical women, where they lived and worked.
• Play women’s social action trivia games in game show format—Jeopardy for
instance.
• Make T-shirts that outline accomplishments of women of social justice through-
out history.
• Write a song or a rap about famous women advocates.
• Write poetry about favorite heroines who are activists.
• Have mock TV broadcast reporting on famous women who enact social justice
ideals.
• Create epitaphs which portray the achievements of women activists.
• Make posters about women who have created change.
• Display biographies of women who have taken social action on bulletin boards.
• Make a mural of US women contributors.

• Create author studies of women authors of social justice.
• Examine textbooks for women’s pictures versus men’s and graph findings.
• Make a book of inventions by women.
• Make mobiles about women heroines.
Lesson Plan
1. Have students visit this web site and examine the first Amendment.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/
amendments_1-10.html
2. Have students note the date that this amendment was ratified by studying this
web page.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/bill_
of_rights.html
3. Have students determine who they think the writers of the Constitution per-
ceived had the right to speech, religious choice, assemble, file grievances, and
free press.
4. Ask students to examine the list of founders on this web page listed by state.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/
founding_fathers.html
5. Ask them to document what they notice. Then ask, why are all of the signers of
the Constitution are men?
6. Tell them that women have played a strong part in our history of democracy and
freedom, but often, our books and charters fail to recognize how women have
passed the torch of freedom. Ask them to brainstorm some women that they
know who have contributed to our democracy. Document their responses on the
board or on chart paper.
7. Ask students to look at these web sites to see just how much influence women
have had and the courage they exhibited as they carried the freedom torch for
democracy for all people.
http://www.ualredu/~arwomen/timeline.htm
http://search.eb.com/women/
http://home.san.rr.com/jg/USHistory4Women.html
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/women/notable.htm
8. Ask the students why they think women in US history have not been studied or
included in textbooks as much as white men. Document the students’ responses.
9. In pairs, have students research the three featured women who have contributed
to the freedom of people in our country. Have the students write briefs about
these contributors in their own words.
10. Have students choose one of the women featured in the study and write a short
story as if they were a participant in the movement along with them. Ask them to
richly describe the feelings and people and events of their courageous social action.
References 59
11. Have them create a newspaper from their briefs and stories about themselves as
participants in social justice.
12. Have students in pairs or small groups make signs out of poster paper promoting
the cause of civil rights, antilynching, or working toward liberty for all people.
Display their work.
13. Take their photographs while holding their signs and display.
14. Have them write a pledge stating how they will contribute to equal rights for all
people under the first Amendment and state how they will support the freedoms
listed in the first Amendment so that they can help to create a more just and
democratic society.
15. Have students develop a WebQuest or PowerPoint presentation about women
contributors to democracy. Suggest to them that they may research others who
were torchbearers of freedom. Some other women may include Jane Addams,
Marion Anderson, Anna Julia Cooper, Mary Church Terrell, Mary McLeod
Bethune, Elizabeth Blackwell, Fannie Lou Hamer, Christa McAuliffe, Sandra
Day O’Connor, Harriet Tubman, and Gertrude Weil—just to name a few.
Equity begins with the youngest learners. Critical pedagogical elementary teachers
serve as role models as well as provide meaningful educational experiences for
students with regard to gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other
dimensions of difference. At the same time, teachers engage students to consider
our commonalities as well as our unique and valued differences.
References
Aisenberg, N., & Harrington, M. K. (1988). Women of academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Arnot, M., Araujo, H., Deliyanni-Kouimtze, K., Rowe, G., & Tome, A. (1996). Pedagogy, identity,
and the politics of difference. Part 1. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 6(1), 3–35.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heisler, M. O. (2005). Introduction—Changing citizenship theory and practice: Comparative
perspectives in a democratic framework. PSOnline. Retrieved August 8, 2009 from www.
apsanet.org
Kincheloe, J. (2008). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lascarides, V. C., & Hinitz, B. F. (2000). History of early childhood education. New York: Falmer
Press.
Lufkin, M. (2009). Techniques, 84(3), 24–26.
McLaren, P. (2005). Life in Schools (5th edn.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How schools cheat girls. New York:
Touchstone.
Tupper, J. (2002). The gendering of citizenship in social studies curriculum. Canadian Social
Studies, 36(3). Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css/Css_36_3/
ARgendering_of_citizenship.html
United States of America Congressional Record. (2003). Congressional record: Proceedings and
debates of the 108th Congress. First session (Vol. 149 No. 4). Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.
Unterhalter, E. (1999). Citizenship, difference and education: Reflections inspired by the South
African tradition. In N. Yuval-Davis & P. Webner (Eds.), Women, citizenship and difference
(pp. 100–117). London: Zed Books Ltd.
West, M., & Curtis, J. W. (2006). AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Retrieved December
10, 2009 from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/geneq2006.htm
Wilford, M. (2008). Army observes 30th anniversary of integrating WACs. Retrieved January 22,
2011 from http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/10/20/13428-army-observes-30th-anniversary-of-
integrating-wacs/
Wolfe, J. (2002). Learning from the past: Historical voices in early childhood education.
Mayerthorpe, Alberta: Piney Branch Press.
Chapter 9
The Dilemma of Social Justice
Critical pedagogy in the elementary school is not worth its salt unless we address
social justice. This chapter is concerned with three issues related to social justice.
These are posed in the form of questions which include (1) what is social justice?
(2) what does citizenship have to do with social justice? and (3) can the use of
Fraser’s model assist us in implementing social justice?
What Is Social Justice?
Social justice has many definitions and means different things to different peo-
ple. However, most definitions of social justice include the idea that people “are
motivated in one way or another by ideals of democracy, fair play, and equality”
(Nieto, 2004, p. 37). Educators who work for social justice often focus on varying
issues. “For some, social justice has to do primarily with racial and ethnic equality;
for others it is closely tied to economic and resource issues; and for others still,
it is a matter of access to a more truthful curriculum and to opportunities for
higher education. For some, it is a combination of these things, and more”
(Nieto, 2004, p. 37).
How teachers work toward or implement social justice often has to do with their
beliefs about citizenship. Most educators would agree that social justice is inextri-
cably tied to citizenship. In other words, to consistently be involved in the work of
social justice, a person must be a good citizen. But here again, what makes a good
citizen is up to multiple interpretations, often falling under four general types of
citizenship (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006).

62 9 The Dilemma of Social Justice
What Is Citizenship?
Citizenship, like social justice, has many definitions. Most definitions of citizenship
include “membership, identity, values, and rights of participation and assumes a
body of common political knowledge” (Knight Abowitz & Harnish, 2006, p. 653).
Beyond this, there are at least four major types of citizenship discourse. These
include (1) civic republican citizenship, (2) liberal citizenship, (3) critical citizenship,
and (4) transnationalism. Table 9.1 presents examples of beliefs or practices for
each type of citizenship.
A reasonable question to ask is, “So what does citizenship have to do with social
justice?” If we as elementary teachers are to work toward social justice, we should
consider what that means to different politicians, government leaders, administrators,
fellow teachers, and the families with whom we work.
Let’s take the issue of applying social justice in teaching children to read and
write. What would we focus on to create equity, fairness, and the best learning
situation for all students? Those who advocate civic republican citizenship would
focus on the teaching of the standard language. Each student would learn to read
long-standing traditional texts. As children learned to read, they would read texts
that emphasized a respect for symbols and encouraged patriotism. Standardized
tests would be the major form of assessment. Teachers would be monitored to make
sure they were teaching the standard curriculum. To this end, scripted programs
would be encouraged so that everyone would have the same standard procedures
believed to be necessary in order to learn to read and write.
Those who believe in liberal citizenship would define fairness, equity, and the
best learning situations for all students very differently. As children learned to read
and write, they would be encouraged to choose their own text and pursue their
own interests while selecting reading materials. Children would be encouraged to
write their own stories. Students would learn to analyze tests through discussion and
disagreement. Teachers would focus on the democratic classroom in which kids
were taught consensus building. Instructors would spend less time lecturing and
more time guiding and encouraging individuality. Real world, hands-on learning
would also be necessary for developing an equitable, fair, and democratic classroom.
Critical citizenship classrooms would emphasize feminist, cultural, or
Reconstructionist discourses. A classroom based on feminist principles would
consider how gender plays a salient role in literacy learning. As children learned to
read and write, fairness and equity would be implemented through introducing
sources that highlight the contributions of women as well as men. Teachers, in many
cases, would consider the different learning styles of girls and boys while simulta-
neously striving to avoid gender-stereotyping instruction or materials.
The cultural citizenship-focused classroom would involve learning to read and
write through the use of marginalized cultural literacy stories. The emphasis would
be on valuing cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, and other differences. The teacher
would make sure that all children would be able to see themselves (their culture,
race, ethnicity) in books and periodicals, including various economic levels.
Table 9.1 Four types of citizenship
Civic republican citizenship
Love and service to one’s political community (local, state, and national)
Highlights the need for better civic literacy
Respect for symbols
Cooperation for the common good
Identification and commitment to political goals
Works for consensus and unity
Focuses on the predominant/mainstream culture
Focuses on maintaining traditions
Emphasizes self-sacrifice, loyalty, patriotism, and respect
Liberal citizenship
Emphasizes rights of individuals to form, revise, and pursue their own definition of the good life
Focuses on a looser or thinner idea of the political community
Emphasizes values of discussion, disagreement, and consensus building
Stresses freedom from the tyranny of authority
Tries to balance the individual’s rights with the rights of the group
Stresses a hands-on approach to participation in the political process
Critical citizenship
Note: Critical citizenship is made up of divergent discourses that include feminist discourses,
cultural citizenship discourses, and Reconstructionist discourses.
Feminist discourses
Question how citizenship has been framed within gendered ways of thinking
Challenges ideas that are patriarchal in nature
Emphasizes women have been excluded and have only had the opportunity to participate recently
in citizenship discourses (and are still unable to do so in numerous countries and cultures)
Work to achieve equality for women in the public and private spheres
Work to include women in the full political decision-making process
Help to elect women public servants
Cultural citizenship discourses
Focus on how minorities have had to pay a high price for citizenship
Emphasize the right to be different
Protest marginalized cultural literacy
Believe that current ideas about citizenship have worked toward cultural homogenization
Work to establish cultural differences as an important part of citizenship
Reconstructionist discourses
Focus on the term social justice
Emphasize either the words of Dewey or Marx in promoting citizenship for democracy
Point out the growing inequality of wealth, income, and educational opportunity
Suggest current government is not responsive to the poor, working class, and non-white groups
Emphasize the messiness of participatory democracy
Focus on learning by doing
Transnationalism or transnational citizenship
Focuses on local, national, and international communities
Emphasizes equality, compassion, democracy, universalism, and humanism
Believes that the world would benefit from a legal, social, economic, and ideological intermingling
of cultures and societies
Promotes the evolution of human rights as elements of international law
Supports the United Nations as a leader in transnational citizenship
Adapted from Abowitz and Harnish (2006).
Finally, to work for fairness, equity, and social justice, teachers who embrace
transnationalism or transnational citizenship would encourage students to read and
write as a member of the international community. Instead of having pen pals
between a first and third grade class in the same school, students would use e-mail
or other current technologies to communicate with other students around the world.
Children would be encouraged to analyze how the policies of one country influence
the lives of other countries and individuals around the world.
Of course, all of these views of citizenship are not mutually exclusive. However,
in working for social justice, there are just so many hours in the day. How fairness,
equity, and democracy are encouraged eventually boils down to what the community,
school system, administrators, teachers, and particularly the guardians/parents
believe is worth teaching and learning. As a result, what constitutes social justice for
one group of citizens is vastly different from another. Teaching for fairness, equity,
democracy, and opportunity is far more complex that what we might have originally
believed.
There are numerous other considerations elementary teachers must consider
related to social justice. A major question we must ask is “What should we emphasize
in order to promote social justice?” One way to approach this question is to consider
Fraser’s model of social justice.
Fraser’s Model of Social Justice
Social justice is a term that has been used extensively with regard to education over
the past two decades. However, “the conceptual underpinnings of this catchphrase
frequently remain tacit or underexplored” (North, 2006, p. 507). When we begin to
investigate what social justice means to different people, we immediately notice
tensions and collisions among different ideologies. Fraser (1997) describes many of
these tensions, and North (2006) elaborates on Fraser’s three-sphere model of social
justice. This section explores these three of the tensions surrounding social justice
practice in the elementary school.
The first tension is about how to promote equality. Is equality achieved by work-
ing for sameness or is it accomplished by valuing difference? This becomes a very
practical question when we look at competing government policies with the same
country that emphasize one over the other. For example, in the United States, No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was created to close the gap between low-income
and middle-income schools by creating sameness. Students in special groups, such
as Bilingual or English language learners or children in special education, are to
meet the same standards as everyone else. Contrast this to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004). IDEA was created
to promote social justice or equality by emphasizing difference. Students with special
needs receive an individual education plan to meet their unique needs because they
are different. Accommodations or modifications are made based on how different a
student is from his or her peers.
Fraser’s Model of Social Justice 65
Many elementary educators would argue that it involves both. Yes, that’s true,
but most of us see a vision of social justice as learning more in one direction or
another. We have a tendency toward the belief of sameness or difference. In the
previous section on citizenship, note that civic Republican citizenship focuses on
cooperation for the common good, consensus and unity, and the mainstream culture.
Social justice would mean working for sameness for those who subscribe to this
view of equality. On the other hand, cultural citizenship discourses emphasize the
right to be different and work to establish cultural differences as an important part
of citizenship. Social justice would mean working for difference for those who
believe cultural citizenship is the way to promote equality.
The second of Fraser’s social justice tensions revolves around redistribution versus
recognition (North, 2006). In capitalist societies, such as the United States, social
justice is framed as a commodity to be distributed or redistributed. Social benefits
and burdens are entities that must be distributed for social justice. “These benefits
include material resources, such as income, but also nonmaterial social goods, such
as rights and self-respect. When employed in social justice discussions, the distributive
paradigm frequently fails to examine social structures and institutional contexts,
such as the division of labor and the organization of decision-making bodies”
(North, 2006, p. 510).
Redistribution notions of social justice fall under the contemporary liberal views
of citizenship. Rawls (2001) describes two conditions necessary for redistribution.
One is that everyone has the right to work for the good life and determine what that
means. They also should have the opportunity to change their notions or plans as
they choose as long as they work within the rules of society. The second is that those
with disabilities or disadvantages should have equal opportunity and be given
special opportunities to succeed since this initial inequity was not of their choosing
(Kymlicka, 1989). However, most of the discussions of redistribution have centered
on the political economy and class structures. There have been limited discussions
of redistribution within schools and classrooms.
Elementary teachers, though, are encouraged to consider how redistribution for
social justice would occur in their own classrooms. For example, in middle class
schools, significant amounts of money are often needed for participation in social
activities—particularly at the upper elementary level. Band, sports, cheerleading,
and other athletic and social groups require money. One parent reported that it cost
the family $2,500 a year for her daughter to participate in dance team. This eliminates
children of poverty from participating in school-sanctioned events due to economics.
What can teachers do to eliminate or mediate this inequity? How would redistribution
work in these cases, especially in communities where the focus on individualism is
so strong, children are not encouraged to share materials. For example, one teacher
was chastised by parents and the principal for having children place their individual
crayon boxes in a community container of materials. Parents complained they
bought crayons for their children and did not want them used for classroom com-
munity consumption.
You can imagine that not everyone supports the redistribution model of social
justice. Many critical theorists and pedagogists believe the recognition model of
social justice should prevail. “The politics of recognition, emphasized by various

feminist, communitarian, cultural studies, queer, (dis)ability, postcolonial, psycho-
analytical, and poststructuralist theories, take issue with the presuppositions put
forth by this redistributive vision of social justice” (North, 2006, p. 513).
Redistribution can take the form of redistributing mainstream knowledge that is
biased and favors the predominant group. To a large extent, this is what the US No
Child Left Behind (2001) law is designed to do. The notion that knowledge must be
distributed so that low income, minorities, English language learners, and special
education students succeed on standardized tests does absolutely nothing to recog-
nize marginalized populations’ unique abilities and potential contributions—not
to mention that this distribution or redistribution of knowledge is based on the
dominant, biased, and often inaccurate information.
Those who support a recognition model of social justice emphasize marginalized
cultural knowledge—knowledge that is not determined as valued by the dominant
culture. In the past, and to a great extent the present, many children in elementary
classrooms do not see themselves represented in the curriculum, in books, or any-
where in school. It is as if their stories and what is important to them and their
families do not exist or are invisible. Marginalizing, exclusion, and silencing are
used to intimidate cultural knowledge that is not sanctioned by the government
through the curriculum. Recognition “locates the core of all experiences of injustice
in the withdrawal of social recognition, in the phenomena of humiliation and
disrespect” (Honneth, 2003, p. 134).
In the elementary classroom, recognition requires valuing differences, reading
about them, discussing them, and teaching in ways that accept and promote difference.
While Fraser (1997), Honneth (2003), and North (2006) imply, either implicitly or
explicitly, recognition and redistribution are mutually exclusive, this does not have
to be the case. Aubretta Curry (2004) explains how her fourth-grade class rejected
the story of Cinderella because “we don’t talk like that.” She took their comments
to heart and had them rewrite the story in their own dialect. For us, this was recogni-
tion. She valued recognition, used it, and tied it back to Standard English. Curry
(2004) focused on “using the dialect of the students as a medium for brining about
social change” (p. 60). Further, she embraced reciprocity. Why should her students
come to her and learn Standard English if she wouldn’t go to them? She designed
assessments responsive to language differences and developed relevant learning
experiences based on the children’s interests and prior knowledge. She valued,
accepted, and respected the language and dialect of all members of the classroom.
Then, she used this to show her students how to code switch, a skill we all use
several times during a day. In our view, Curry works to balance recognition and
redistribution in the classroom. We are quite sure that many who adopt the redistri-
bution view of social justice as well as those who are hard-core recognitionists
would find fault with some of her practices. However, teachers who are committed
to social justice and work every day in the classroom do what they believe will
promote justice and eliminate inequality. Some emphasize redistribution, others
recognition, while some consider both as tools to eliminate injustice.
Fraser’s Model of Social Justice 67
A third conflict related to social justice involves a microlevel focus (face to face
interactions) versus a macrolevel emphasis (the big picture). In reality, social justice
cannot be achieved without both. Currently in the United States, government forces
and school systems mandates demand that teachers stay in their classrooms and
teach to the microsystem. This microlevel edict, however, is not encouraged for
social justice but to maintain and perpetuate the dominant structures that are already
in place. If teachers’ job security is based on the test scores of their students, then
they must attend to their own individual classroom students without time or energy
to work beyond their classrooms (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).
Teachers can work for social justice at the microlevel—in their classrooms. They
can recognize their students’ individual learning styles, cultures, interests, and use
as tools to bring about the full potential of their students. They can also work to
make sure children of poverty, those with special needs, and children with different
language, racial, or ethnic backgrounds are fully included into the classroom through
attitude, curricula, and any other means within their power (Wink, 2005).
Then, there is the macrolevel. Many teachers argue they have no time to work for
social justice at the macrolevel. This is understandable given all of the expectations
teachers have placed on them in the twenty-first century. Still, social justice cannot
be achieved through microlevel participation alone. Social action at the local, state
or province, national, and international levels is vital if justice is to be achieved and
inequalities eradicated. Each individual teacher cannot do it all. But, each teacher
can find some way to move beyond the classroom. Teachers can involve students in
community social justice projects. They can join and be actively involved in profes-
sional organizations that work for social justice at either the local or state/province
level and beyond. Again, in the practical world of elementary teachers, an emphasis
on the micro- or macrolevels of social justice are not mutually exclusive.
We point out that this tension between microlevel and macrolevel involvement
continues to be debated in the literature. For example, Gorski (2008) sees many
educators as struggling to participate in social justice at even the microlevel.
“Perhaps most of us, as educators, feel powerless to address these bigger issues. But
the question is this: Are we willing, at the very least, to tack the classism in our own
schools and classroom?” (p. 35). Rothstein (2008) suggests we should move beyond
either/or conceptions of micro- and macrosystem participation. He says, “Nobody
should be forced to choose between advocating for better schools or speaking out
for greater social and economic equality. Both are essential. Each depends on the
other. Educators cannot be effective if they make excuses for poor student perfor-
mance. But they will have little chance for success unless they also join with advo-
cates of social and economic reform to improve the conditions from which children
come to school” (p. 13).
We have taken a poem from the UNICEF “Prayers for the Child” and fleshed our
own words to emphasize both the micro- and macrolevels that we hope to balance
in our quest for social justice. As you will notice, each section begins with the
microlevel and moves to the macrolevel, both of which are vital to erase social
injustice and work for equity.
We Pray for the Child
We pray for the child who skinned her knee playing soccer with her friends.
But we also pray for the child who lost her knee in a landmine due to war.
We pray for the child who lost her favorite toy on the way home from a friend’s
house.
We also pray for the child who has no toys and never will.
We pray for the child who has hay fever and allergies and is a bit lethargic from the
medication.
We also pray for the child who has tuberculosis or AIDS or some other disease and
has no access to medical care and never will.
We pray for the student who made his first “B” on a report card and is angry and sad.
But we also pray for the student who has no access to school and never will.
We pray for ourselves because we have run out of supply money for our students,
early in the year.
But we also pray for the teacher who has no materials at all—not even a classroom,
and probably never will.
We pray for all of these because we must—it is our duty and obligation as trans-
formational teachers.
And we do this somewhat selfishly, because we hope that someone is praying for
us too.
At the beginning of this chapter we posed three questions: (1) What is social
justice? (2) What does citizenship have to do with social justice? and (3) Can the
use of Fraser’s model assist us in implementing social justice? After reading this
chapter, we suggest you consider the following “subquestions” to evaluate your role
in the social justice process.
1. With a plethora of social justice definitions, how do you define social justice?
2. What are your beliefs and practices concerning citizenship? How does these
influence the ways you construct and implement social justice?
3. Can we build consensus about social justice with others who have differing views
of what social justice and citizenship entail?
4. With regard to Fraser’s model, what are your practices regarding the three spheres?
Specifically, do you work for equality by promoting sameness, difference, or both?
Do you believe in redistribution or recognition? Which is more important in your
work for social justice? On which of the following do you spend more time
working for justice? the microlevel? the macrolevel? Does a teacher really have
time to balance the two?
5. What new questions do you have about social justice, citizenship, and the tensions
we face in working toward equity and justice?
References 69
References
Abowitz, K.K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of

Educational Research, 76(4), 653–690.
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Curry, A. (2004). “We don’t talk like that!” Transforming the language of achievement in U.S.
school. In J. Aldridge & R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving toward transformation: Teaching and
learning in inclusive classrooms. Birmingham, AL: Seacoast.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. New
York: Routledge.
Gorski, P. (2008). The myth of the “culture of poverty”. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 32–36.
Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition?: A political–philosophical exchange. New
York: Verso.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004) (2004), Public Law 108–446,
108th Congress. December 3, 2004. Available from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home (accessed
April 18, 2008).
Kymlicka, W. (1989). Liberalism, community, and culture. Oxford: Clarendon.
Nieto, S. (2004). Schools for a new majority: The role of teacher education in hard times. The New
Educator, preview issue.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107–110, 11. U. S. Department of Education.
North, C. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in
education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507–535.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Rothstein, R. (2008). Whose problem is poverty? Educational Leadership, 65(7), 8–13.
Wink, J. (2005). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Chapter 10
When all is said and done, there are basically four types of teaching. These include
(1) transmission, (2) transaction, (3) inquiry, and (4) transformation. Critical peda-
gogy is most closely related to transformation (Kirylo, 2011; Wink, 2011). This
chapter will describe each of the four kinds of teaching while focusing on transfor-
mation as the hallmark of critical education.
Teaching as Transmission
Transmission is the most common type of teaching throughout the world today
(Goldman, 2007). Transmission teaching is what most people call traditional teach-
ing. The teacher dispenses knowledge, and the students are expected to be willing
recipients. Often, transmission involves scripted lessons, and teachers’ manuals
provide the words a teacher is to say. The teacher is expected to read the words
verbatim and not stray from the script.
Transmission is not all bad because it is required for teaching social conventions.
For example, the alphabet or characters of a language must be taught through transmis-
sion. We cannot expect students to invent the conventions of language because there
are mutually agreed upon in order for people to communicate in written form. This
is true of oral language as well. A “cat” is called a “cat” in English and “gato” in Spanish.
These are social conventions, taught by transmission either directly or indirectly.
With transmission, the role of the teacher, students, and materials are fairly explicit.
Role of the Teacher
The teacher’s role in transmission is often direct instruction. Transmission is closely

aligned with the mechanistic paradigm and behavioral approaches to learning
(Thomas, 2005). Learning occurs in discreet steps and in fragments of information.

72 10 Teaching for Transformation
A scope and sequence chart is usually provided the teacher to show the range in
which skills are to be taught and in what order (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).
The instructor’s role in transmission is that of a technician. The teacher is to
follow the curriculum. This is especially true in the United States under the federal
law No Child Left Behind (2001). Fidelity of treatment, the idea that the teacher
follows the curriculum or script exactly, is desired and often required for transmission
and learning. Teachers are not expected to supplement the curriculum because that
would interfere with the fidelity of treatment (Foorman, 2007).
The Role of the Students
Way too often, students are the passive recipients of knowledge. Their job is to sit
quietly and pay attention. They are to respond appropriately to the teacher’s direct
instruction. Because transmission is often used to teach specific facts, there is often
one correct answer to a question the teacher would ask. For example, “What is the
capital of Suriname?” has a specific answer—Paramaribo.
Practice exercises that use worksheets, workbook pages, or computer-generated
instruction are used. Students are rewarded for answering each question correctly.
As students move through workbooks, worksheets, or computer instruction, teacher–
child and child–child interactions are noticeably absent. After all, the fact that
Paramaribo is the capital of Suriname is not to be disputed or debated.
The Role of Materials
Through assessment, students are placed on their appropriate level of instruction

and are expected to move through the workbooks or worksheets in a lockstep fash-
ion. The materials have supposedly been sequenced from simple to complex or in
ever increasing difficulty. Children are to move sequentially through the materials
without skipping any sections. There is no choice. Curriculum materials that are
determined to be research based are to be followed exactly to ensure fidelity of
treatment (Foorman, 2007). While the teacher is the transmitter of knowledge, the
materials are used as reinforcers of this transmitted knowledge (Thomas, 2005).
Are There Any Strengths of Transmission Teaching?
Why is transmission teaching so popular? There are several perceived strengths

of transmission teaching that make it easy for teachers and parents to embrace.
Teaching as Transmission 73
However, these are most often considered weaknesses from a critical pedagogical
perspective. These include:
1. Transmission is the easiest form of teaching for novice teachers to follow. New
teachers are expected to learn quickly and perform many duties. These include
everything from collecting lunch money to preparing students for standardized
tests. Transaction and transformation require lots of planning and creativity. As
we have seen, teachers who rely on transmission follow a script, the teacher’s
guide, or a scope and sequence chart provided by a the school system or textbook
publishers really do not need much preparation, many resources, or really hardly
any teacher education.
2. Transmission is understood by parents and families makes communication with
parents less complication. Most parents remember workbooks, worksheets, and
traditional forms of homework. Their familiarity with transmission teaching and
learning makes it less difficult for teachers to explain assignments.
3. Transmission is simple to document. Teachers who follow a scripted lesson plan
or teacher’s manual know what knowledge is taught in what order and can easily
measure whether or not students have mastered the content.
4. Transmission is easy to measure. For questions such as “What is the capital of
New York?” there is only one answer, making transmission learning easier to
measure than other curricular forms. Knowledge is factual. There are no concepts,
generalizations, or creativity for concern.
5. Transmission is efficient in teaching social and conventional knowledge. Social
and conventional knowledge is defined as information that must be learned from
others (Kamii, 1985). This includes facts, such as the fact that “Quebec is a
French Canadian province.” Children cannot be expected to invent this knowledge.
Of course, students can read about this, but that is still getting the information
from others. Students had to learn the names and sounds of the letters of a given
alphabet. The phonemes of any language are a form of social knowledge.
What Are Problems with “Transmission-Only” Instruction?
Some information has to be transmitted, but a lot of it does not. There are certain
problems with “transmission-only” teaching that include:
1. Transmission does not encourage creative thinking or invention. When students
are expected to learn one correct answer and teachers are required to follow a
script, invention and creative thinking are limited or nonexistent. Some transac-
tion or transformation is required for thinking outside of the box.
2. Transmission is overused and is the only means of instruction for many children
of poverty, students with special needs, and English and dual language learn-
ers. Oral language provides a foundation for reading and writing. English lan-
guage learners need an environment that is rich in oral language development—one
that focuses on talking and social interaction. Teachers who are predominantly
transmission oriented often discourage active discourse among students. Students

are continually expected to sit quietly, follow directions, and complete their work
in silence.
3. Transmission does not promote oral language development. One of the biggest
drawbacks transmission has to do with is oral language development. Since students
are not socially interacting with others or the teacher, discourse opportunities are
limited, as is oral language development. This is a problem because researchers
have found that oral language development is one of the most important aspects
necessary for the development of reading and writing and success in school
(Otto 2003).
4. Transmission is a one-way street. Transmission makes teacher talk through
scripts, and the teacher’s manual is the predominant mode of communication.
Teachers are expected to pour external knowledge into students’ empty heads.
Transmission-only classrooms are often noted for how quiet the students are.
5. Transmission does not encourage critical thinking. Over 50 years ago, Bloom
proposed a taxonomy of educational objectives that included knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom,
Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). As learning objectives move up the
continuum from knowledge to evaluation, transmission becomes more and more
of a problem. Transmission can “get at” knowledge, and some would argue that
it promotes comprehension and application, but we are hard-pressed to say that
transmission is effective in analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. Transaction,
inquiry, and transformation are better forms of teaching and do a better job at
promoting critical thinking.
6. Transmission does not move students toward transformation. Transmission
teaching does not encourage prosocial behavior, altruism, or caring for others.
Transmission focuses on academic learning to the exclusion of the social and
emotion. Learning to help others and develop a social conscience requires more
than transmission (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).
7. Too much transmission marginalizes teachers. In the United States, there are
“fidelity of treatment police” in many school systems. Harper, Platt, Naranjo, and
Boynston (2007) report that teachers in some parts of Florida have “unannounced
visits by administrators in their classrooms to monitor the compliance with
the pacing calendar” (p. 647). A teacher in Florida says, “We have regular
walk-throughs where they come from the district … they call them ‘fidelity checks.’
I try not to think about it” (p. 647). Another teacher states, “You were afraid to
read a story and have someone walk in … it was very Big Brotherish … Gosh
forbid you did anything fun” (p. 647). Finally, Aldridge, Kilgo, and Emfinger
(2010) found that when too much transmission is mandated in classrooms,
“teachers have lost all instructional autonomy, and the fidelity police appear from
time to time to make sure teachers are adhering to the letter of the law” (p. 46).
8. Too much transmission marginalizes students. Students who are taught primarily
by transmission miss numerous opportunities to construct their own knowledge,
investigate topics with which they are interested, and explore ways they can
make a difference in the world (Goldman, 2007). Transmission learning is never
Teaching as Transaction 75
enough. While transmission is necessary for learning social knowledge, it is not

the ultimate goal of education. If we want children to make wise choices and care
for others, transaction, inquiry, and transformation are necessary for children to
become more than passive robots of learning. The next section describes how
transaction can be used for critical education.
Teaching as Transaction
Transaction is another form of teaching. Transaction is different from transmission

because “knowledge is seen as constructed and reconstructed by those participating
in the teaching-learning act” (Jungck & Marshall, 1992, p. 94). With transaction,
teachers still follow curriculum guides but have more choices and a greater decision-
making role than in transmission. Students work in groups; they share ideas and
participate in activities that are “more open-ended and promote higher-level thinking.
Students can choose among various ways to represent what they have learned”
(Aldridge & Goldman, 2007, p. 109). The transaction curriculum has also been
referred to as the generative model (Wink, 2011) and the constructivist curriculum
(Kamii, 2000).
Role of the Teacher
While the teacher’s role is to teach the prescribed curriculum, she also has the
responsibility of promoting social interaction, selecting materials for students to
research, and encouraging students to represent what they have learned in novel
ways. She encourages or requires children to share information with the class.
Because both teachers and students acquire more autonomy with transaction
methods, both teachers and students may have more problems with it. Teachers who
are pressured to cover a large amount of material in a short amount of time find
transaction difficult to implement. Transaction takes time, and students go more in
depth with each topic rather than superficially cover the surface, as often happens in
transmission. “Students often cover less surface information but go more in depth
with other information” (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007, p. 109).
Role of Students
Students are required to work with others as they prepare for a common goal. While
the process is often considered more important than the product in transaction,
groups are still required to represent and present what they have learned. Here is an
example of the students’ role in transaction taken from Aldridge and Goldman
(2007):
Ms. Nissen’s fifth-grade students are studying Native American nations. This is part of the
prescribed curriculum. However, she divides the class into groups of four and gives each
group a native Nation in which the group is to become experts. Students in each group
research their tribe. They share power and information. One student collects books from the
library. Two in the group search the Internet for information. Another student in the group
coordinates resources that the teacher has provided. After sharing information with one
another, the group decides how best to represent the information they have learned. One
group decides to do a mural. Another group plans a fact sheet, and another group decides to
perform a kit or play (p. 109).
Role of Materials
Materials used in transaction are more authentic than those used in transmission.
What does this mean? Resources used in transaction classrooms are similar to what
we would experience outside the classroom or in everyday life. For example, we
read newspapers, magazines, and real books instead of basal readers or decodable
texts. Children’s literature, periodicals, and the Internet are all used to learn the
prescribed curriculum (Heald-Taylor, 1996).
Materials are also used for representation. Instead of a worksheet, workbook, or
standardized test, students show what they have learned through representation.
There are hundreds of ways students can choose to represent what they have learned.
They can make a web page, an overhead, a fact sheet, a mobile, a game, or a mural or
choose numerous other ways to show what they have learned (Katz & Chard, 2000).
What Are the Strengths of Transaction Teaching and Learning?
There are several strengths associated with transaction. Some of these include:
1. Students develop oral language through discussions. Social interaction is the
hallmark of transactive learning. Children have to negotiate and articulate their
roles in group learning and then work cooperatively and collaboratively to
accomplish their tasks.
2. Students are involved in research. Unlike transmission, children in transaction
classrooms explore authentic sources to find the answers to questions and master
the curriculum. As described in the example of studying Native Americans, chil-
dren must make important choices about how to learn the information and what
sources they will choose to complete their research, not to mention how they will
represent their learning.
3. Participants learn in-depth, specific content. Because children must thoroughly
research topic, their learning goes beyond surface knowledge. Extensive research
and discussions are part of transaction, usually resulting in more expert knowl-
edge than is often found in transmission settings.
Teaching as Transaction 77
4. Students are encouraged to be reflective decision makers. Unlike transmission,

transaction learners must make many decisions. These include how to present
their learning to the teacher and the other students.
5. Higher-level thinking is supported by transaction. Students are encouraged to
evaluate their learning and pose important questions about what they are learning.
Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are enhanced when transaction is used appro-
priately (Bloom et al., 1956).
What Are Problems with Transaction Teaching?
Transaction is not without problems. Some of the issues related to transaction teach-
ing include:
1. Some teachers do not have the knowledge or management abilities to effectively
implement transaction. Clearly, teaching as transaction is more difficult than
teaching as transmission. Teachers and students have to continually make decisions
with transaction. With transmission, most of the decisions are already made and
found in the scripted materials.
2. Accountability procedures used in the twenty-first century tend to favor transmis-
sion over transaction. According to Fuchs et al. (2007), “choosing scientifically
validated curricula and academic programs that address at-risk students needs
and implementing them with fidelity are necessary to ensure the validity of the
responsiveness to intervention process” (p. 58). If students are making choices
about their learning, it is difficult to document the fidelity of a curriculum or
academic program. Until accountability measures include more qualitative data,
transaction approaches will be suspect to administrators in terms of fidelity
assessment and accountability in general.
3. Covering a large amount of material in a short amount of time is not practical
with transaction. Content coverage is a big issue for administrators who expect
teachers and students to cover large amounts of material. Since students and teachers
are researching, preparing representations, and discussing learning in depth, quick
coverage of the curriculum is not desirable or possible. This creates problems when
teachers are supposed to “cover the curriculum” in a given amount of time.
4. Traditional administrators do not understand transaction. The requirement of
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the United States has created the need for
students to improve on standardized tests. Teaching to the test is accomplished
more efficiently through transmission teaching. Many administrators have elimi-
nated all curriculum content and even subjects that are not directly tested for
Adequate Yearly Progress. This means that transaction is discouraged. In some
cases, teachers are criticized, reprimanded, or even fired for continuing to use
transactive processes.
While transmission and transaction have advocates, critical pedagogists seek to
address inequities in education and work toward social justice. Because of this,
transformation is a better fit with critical pedagogy than transmission or transaction.
The next section describes transformative teaching as a vehicle for social change in
elementary education. At the beginning of this chapter, we mentioned that inquiry
was a third type of teaching. Inquiry allows students to study specific topics in which
they are interested. In essence, inquiry is similar to transformation with one exception.
Transformative teaching involves teaching to make a difference in the world. With
inquiry, students are not necessarily learning to make a difference in the world.
They are studying a topic because they are interested in that topic. For example, a
student learning through inquiry could be engaged in a study of rain forests. The topic
is studied for its own sake, without any additional goal. With transformation, a student
would study the rain forest in order to find ways to save them and improve the envi-
ronment. Making a difference is always the goal with transformation.
Teaching for transformation is the most controversial and difficult to understand as

compared to teaching as transmission or teaching as transaction (Aldridge, Manning,
Christensen, & Strevy, 2007). What is transformation and what are the roles of the
teachers, children, and materials in a transformation curriculum? Transformation is
defined as “teaching children to care and make a difference in the world while
simultaneously trying to make a difference in the world” (p. 27).
Transformation is controversial for many reasons. First, nobody “owns” trans-
formation. When we completed a Google search for “transformation,” all sorts of
definitions, religious affiliations, ideologies, and political beliefs were found.
Transformation is sometimes associated with the far right and is associated with
religious transformation. It has also been associated with new-age beliefs and
radical political ideas. However, the definition we are using attempts to transcend all
of these and focus on teaching children to make a difference in the world (Aldridge
& Goldman, 2007).
Transformation is associated with social justice. Again, social justice has multiple
meanings, but the term is not owned by the far right or extreme left nor does it
belong to any particular group. When people seek equality and access for everyone,
they are working for social justice (Edelsky, 1999).
The Role of the Teacher
The teacher’s role in transformation starts with herself. Transformation teaching is

not truly possible for teachers who have not been personally transformed. A trans-
formative teacher then works to make a profound and positive difference in her
students’ lives. The teacher consciously works to open her young students to having
caring spirits and provide concrete experiences in promoting social justice. This
takes a concerted and persistent effort on the part of the teacher, particularly during
the age of accountability and the scientifically based curriculum. A transformative
Teaching for Transformation 79
teacher does not neglect accountability or research-based programs. However, she

recognizes that there is more to teaching and learning than working to meet Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) and improved standardized test scores.
A transformational teacher carefully considers the context in which she teaches
and is sensitive to the land mines associated with some forms of transformation.
Children in rural Alabama live in communities with diverse values and beliefs
than students in metropolitan Amsterdam or London. While seeking ways to help
children transform their school, neighborhood, or community, the teacher carefully
considers these values and beliefs (Meier, 1995).
The Role of the Students
Students are expected to take an active role in developing the transformational cur-
riculum. Children are asked to suggest ways to make a difference in the school, neigh-
borhood, or community, often based on the topics promoted through the traditional
curriculum. For example, if students are studying the conservation of energy, they are
asked to think of ways to promote and implement conservation of energy in the school
and community. Transformative projects develop from the students’ suggestions.
The Role of Materials
Materials are used to explore ways to make a difference in the world. They are used
to develop projects and plans to implement change. They are used to support and
document whole class, small group, and individual transformational projects.
Authentic literature is used to consider ways others have made a difference in their
communities. And, the Internet is searched for organizations and causes that work
to promote positive change.
The traditional use of the word “materials” is too limiting for transformation.
Teachers and children seek a wide variety of resources that go beyond the use of
traditional materials in the classroom. Individuals or human resources are also used
to inspire and support transformational activities (Ostrow, 1995).
What Are the Strengths of Transformational Teaching?
If implemented appropriately, transformation has numerous benefits for everyone

involved. Some of these include:
1. Students and faculty work together for the good of the school, neighborhood,
community, and world. Projects move beyond the transmission and transactional
curricula with the intended purpose of making things better for the world.
Students negotiate the projects and how they are implemented.
2. Students develop important dispositions such as problem solving, negotiating

strategies, and a transformative attitude toward issues. Student involvement
requires a tremendous amount of critical thinking and conflict resolution and
promotes a conscious social justice attitude toward the world and others.
3. Multiple viewpoints are explored as well as potential issues and problems that
could arise in implementing transformation. Students must consider what potential
harm as well as good their efforts might produce. Critical evaluation of the topic,
process, project, and all aspects of a transformational unit are explored.
4. Transformational projects can be used with younger children as well as older
students. Specifically, Toni is a teacher in a low socio-income urban kindergarten
in the United States. She implemented several transformational projects with her
kindergarten class throughout the year. She chose four books which were used to
springboard projects with her students. After reading The Peace Book (Parr,
2004), students created peace journals to share with other classes. Toni read
Jamaica’s Find (Havill, 1986) with her class. This book was about loss, and the
students decided to establish and run a “lost and found” center for their elementary
school. Toni also read Everette Anderson’s Goodbye by Lucille Clifton (1983).
This book is about death, and students made a book about people or pets they had
lost to share with the school and their families. Finally, Toni shared Wilfred
Gordon McDonald Partridge (Fox, 1984), which was about a boy who lived next
to a nursing home. The class adopted a local nursing home and made cards and
drew pictures throughout the year with their adopted friends at the nursing home
(Taylor, 2007).
5. Participants encounter a wide variety of resources and materials, including men-
tors and others who are working to make a difference in the world. Transformative
work relies heavily on mentoring and encounters with those who are also seeking
to make a difference in ways related to the students’ own projects and interests.
6. Students learn to continually evaluate and reevaluate what transformation
actually means. Students learn early on that everything does not always work out
the way that they planned it. Some ideas and projects about transformation are
easier to develop than others. They also learn that not everyone agrees on what
transformation is, and this has to be carefully negotiated when attempting to
make a difference.
What Issues Are Related to Transformation?
There are several problems and issues related to transformation that make it excep-
tionally challenging. Four of the most salient are:
1. Whose transformation is it, anyway? Transformation can and often does take
many forms. Teachers, students, schools, and communities can have radically
different political and social beliefs and agendas. In order for transformation to
work, whole class or small group projects must be negotiated and agreed upon by
Teaching for Transformation 81
the participants. Frankly, there is plenty to do to make the world a better place.
For this reason, when transformational teaching is first implemented, the topics
and projects chosen should not be controversial or confrontational. Here is one
example.
In the rural Northwestern United States, there is a feud between the “save the
owls” group and the “loggers.” In one community, almost every parent is involved
in the logging industry. For this particular community, “save the owls” would not be
recommended, at least at the beginning of a transformational curriculum. There are
numerous other transformational projects that could be chosen that would be more
appropriate for this community and the school learning environment due to the
exceptionally contentious nature of “save the owls.”
2. What about the imposition of well-intentioned but impractical or harmful ideas?
Extensive research and investigation are important to worthwhile transformative
projects. Otherwise, well-intentioned but impractical ideas will destroy the trans-
formations we are seeking to make. Take the following example.
After the tsunami ravaged Banda Aceh in northern Sumatra (Indonesia), a teacher
education graduate class in the United States learned that most of the schools had
been destroyed in the region. The class collectively decided to participate in a trans-
formational project to help the teachers of Banda Aceh. Fortunately, the instructor
had a direct contact with a leading Indonesian educator who was directly involved
in helping rebuild education in Banda Aceh.
The instructor suggested the class to ask Dr. Megawangi, the Indonesian contact,
to find ways we could help. The class agreed but also wanted to brainstorm ways
they thought they could help. One suggestion was to send pencils, paper, and other
school supplies. Another suggestion was to send seeds so that the people could
replant the land. These were both well-intentioned suggestions. However, when
Dr. Megawangi was contacted about the school supplies and the seeds, she immediately
pointed out real problems with these two suggestions. First, the schools were washed
away. There were basically no schools to send the supplies. Further, the Banda Aceh
area is based on a fishing economy—not farming. Crops were never a major part of
the area in the first place. The students decided to research more about the tsunami
and the human geography of Banda Aceh. They further realized that working with
Dr. Megawangi and the Banda Aceh teachers would be more helpful than imple-
menting their original suggestions.
3. Who and what are transformed by the project? A transformational project should
be transformative for all of those involved in implementing the project as well as
those it is intended to serve. Consider the following example.
A fourth-grade class in a low-income urban area in the United States decided to
collect money to help the children in Kenya who were orphaned by AIDS. The
teacher actually imposed this project on the children because she had a friend from
Kenya and thought her fourth graders could participate and make a difference in the
world. As part of this class project, children were encouraged to bring in their spare
change and put in a large glass bowl to help the orphans. The problem was that most
of the children in the class were children of poverty and received free lunches at the
school. They had little or no spare change of their own. What money they had was
needed for their own food and clothing and some resented being asked to contribute
to children they knew little about—especially when they needed money and support
as well. Further, many of the children in the class lived with a grandparent or other
relative and were also missing their biological parents.
For some classes, this would have been an appropriate transformative project but
not for this one. The children had not studied Kenya in detail nor did they buy into
the project because of their own issues and context. Further, many of these students
had never been out of their community, and a project that more directly targeted
their interests and concerns should have been attempted before moving to another
continent to adopt a project. And, of course, the students should have made many, if
not most, of the suggestions for what type of transformational project or experience
they believed was most important to them (Aldridge, Christensen, & Kirkland, 2007).
4. What are unintended consequences of transformation? Sometimes, transforma-
tional experiences can result in unintentional consequences. Here is one example.
A teacher of the gifted in a middle-income suburban school took 80 children who
were identified as “gifted” in the school and helped each of these students develop
and implement an individual transformational research project. The projects were
all quite extensive, and at the end of the school year, parents’ night was imple-
mented for these 80 students to show off their work. During the program at parents’
night, the teacher introduced each of the students and told a little bit about their
transformative research. Students were then given a certificate. After that, they went
to their appointed stations and shared their individual projects and posters.
This sounds wonderful—but wait! The school has over 500 children. Over 400
of them were marginalized and excluded from this transformational experience.
Transformation is not just for those who are labeled “gifted.” Transformation is
inclusive of all children. Marginalization was an unintended consequence of this
experience (Aldridge, Christensen et al., 2007).
Despite these concerns, transformation works well in critical pedagogical
classrooms. While transmission, transaction, and even inquiry are used in many
classrooms, the critical educator moves beyond these to carefully plan for herself
and her students to make a difference in the world.
References
Aldridge, J., Christensen, L., & Kirkland, L. (2007). Issues related to transformation. In J. Aldridge
& R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving toward transformation: Teaching and learning in inclusive
classrooms (pp. 33–36). Birmingham, AL: Seacoast.
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Aldridge, J., Kilgo, J., & Emfinger, K. (2010). The marginalization of women educators: A conse-
quence of no child left behind? Childhood Education, 87(1), 41–47.
References 83
Aldridge, J., Manning, M., Christensen, L., & Strevy, D. (2007). Teaching for transformation. In
J. Aldridge & R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving toward transformation: Teaching and learning in
Bloom, B.S., Englelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Karthwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational goals: The classification of educational goals, handbook 1, cognitive domain. New
York: David McKay Company.
Clifton, L. (1983). Everett Anderson’s goodbye. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Edelsky, C. (1999). Making justice our project. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of
English.
Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 35(5), 24–30.
Fox, M. (1984). Wilfred Gordon McDonald Partridge. Brooklyn, NY: Kane/Miller Book
Publishers.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic assessment
as responsiveness to intervention: A scripted protocol to identify young at-risk readers. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39(5), 58–63.
Goldman, R. (2007). Teaching as transmission. In J. Aldridge & R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving
toward transformation: Teaching and learning in inclusive classrooms. Seacoast: Birmingham,
AL.
Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C., & Boynston, S. (2007). Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers
and no child left behind. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 642–652.
Havill, J. (1986). Jamaica’s find. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Heald-Taylor, B. G. (1996). Three paradigms for literature instruction in grades 3 to 6. Reading
Teacher, 49(6), 456–466.
Jungck, S., & Marshall, J.D. (1992). Curricular perspectives on one great debate. In S. Kessler &
B. Swadener (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue
(pp. 19–37). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kamii, C. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kamii, C. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory (2nd ed.).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Katz, L., & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach (2nd ed.). Stamford,
CT: Ablex.
Kirylo, J. D. (2011). Paulo Freire: The man from Recife. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America for a small school in Harlem.
Boston, MA: Beacon.
Ostrow, J. (1995). A room with a different view: First through third graders build community and
create curriculum. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Otto, B. (2003). Language development in early childhood (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall/Merrill.
Parr, T. (2004). The peace book. New York: Little, Brown & Company.
Taylor, T. (2007). Making a difference in a low income urban kindergarten. In J. Aldridge &
R. Goldman (Eds.), Moving toward transformation: Teaching and learning in inclusive class-
rooms (pp. 37–40). Birmingham, AL: Seacoast.
Thomas, R.M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thompson.
Chapter 11
Looking Back and Moving Forward
Critical pedagogues are committed to transformation and social action. Maxine

Greene (1995) says it adeptly, “I am convinced that through reflective and impas-
sioned teaching we can do far more to excite and stimulate many sorts of young
persons to reach beyond themselves, to create meanings, to look through wider and
more informed perspectives at the actualities of their lives” (p. 172). Because there
have always been newcomers to our nation, multiple perspectives bring diversity to
conversation. This is why teachers in elementary schools have as an imperative to
engage young children in discussion about decisions such as curriculum, problems,
and ideas in order to surpass the minimalist what is and move forward toward
what can be. This chapter is designed to review the basic concepts described in
this text through a review of practical suggestions for critical elementary teachers
to consider.
1. Move beyond the criticisms of critical pedagogy to take positive action.
In Chap. 3, we described three major criticisms of critical pedagogy. These included
the following: (a) Critical pedagogy is designed to eliminate inequity, but the lan-
guage used by critical theorists is esoteric, elitist, and exclusive; (b) critical peda-
gogy was designed to include the voices of individuals and groups with cultural,
ethnic, gender, and economic differences, but the loudest voices of critical peda-
gogy are still white Western men; and (c) critical theorists are long on criticism but
short on solutions. Elementary teachers can avoid these criticisms at the elementary
level by making sure every child’s language is respected and that all children have
access to the language of instruction found in the classroom. Educators of young
children can also incorporate many voices in the curriculum, including diverse top-
ics and background information with regard to culture, ethnicity, gender, and eco-
nomic conditions. Finally, elementary teachers can work with young children to
solve practical problems that face the students and society today.

86 11 Looking Back and Moving Forward
2. Examine the assumptions made by traditional policy makers and educators

and move beyond these.
In Chap. 4, we discussed three major assumptions that critical pedagogues chal-
lenge. These were the following: (a) Particular forms of knowledge are valued over
others, (b) school knowledge belongs to the “privileged” group, and (c) those in
power positions exercise their position to maintain a dominant position in society.
Critical educators must move beyond No Child Left Behind’s preference for reading,
science, and math and value the social sciences, the humanities, and the arts.
Different children have different talents. No matter what form of knowledge they
pursue, it should be valued and encouraged. We must also make sure that school
knowledge is not just for the privileged. All children deserve access to the same
high-quality education. Finally, educators must work together to question those in
power and challenge their use of knowledge to keep their dominant positions in
society.
3. Assist every child in developing identify formation by serving as a role model
and seeking out the individuality and unique contribution potentials of every
student regardless of their abilities, gender, ethnicity, or economic status.
Advocacy is a necessary part of critical pedagogy. Advocating for every child
through active participation at the classroom, school, community, and national level
is necessary to promote and value identities of all children.
4. Engage in praxis.
Praxis is the intentional process of reflecting on theory, practice, and action. We
must ask the questions, “What am I teaching?” “Why am I teaching this way?”
“How does this impact my students?” “Who is marginalized by my teaching
practices?” and “What assumptions have I made that could be discriminatory?”
Thoughtful praxis is the beginning of critical pedagogy for teachers of young
children.
5. Look for all forms of discrimination, both subtle and explicit.
Discriminatory practices occur at every level of educational practice—in the class-
room, the school as a whole, the community, and the government. Work toward the
elimination of discrimination at all of these levels.
6. Work toward gender equity in the classroom and beyond.
In Chap. 8, we described how gender is still a major issue. Eliminate same gender
groupings and classrooms, and provide role models in history and in the commu-
nity of women who have overcome gender inequity and made a difference in the
world.
7. Engage elementary students in the practice of social justice.
Chapter 9 was concerned with social justice, citizenship, and Fraser’s model of
social justice. To consistently be involved in the world of social justice, a person
must be a good citizen. Move beyond the traditional educational subjects taught in
elementary classrooms, and include civics, social responsibility, and citizenship as
part of the curriculum.
Reference 87
8. Teach for transformation.

In Chap. 10, we learned that transmission, transaction, and inquiry have limited
places in elementary classrooms. To be a critical educator, transformation is the
goal. We can work to make a difference in the world by first starting with ourselves
and then engaging our classrooms in transformational projects.
Collectively, we, the authors, have taught for almost 75 years. We are still learning
to be critical pedagogues. Like every teacher, we are still on the journey. We are the
journey.
Reference
Index
A Bronfenbrenner, U., 6
AAUP, 54 Brown, C.H., 46
Abowitzm, K.K., 61–63 Brown v. Board of Education, 42, 48
ACEI. See Association for Childhood
for Education International
(ACEI) C
Action research, 10, 51 Cannella, G.S., 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 32, 42, 78, 82
Alba, R., 26 Catron, C., 31
Aldridge, J., 4, 12–14, 17–19, 21, 27–29, 67, Christensen, L.M., 4, 5, 12–14, 32, 42, 78, 82
72, 74–76, 78, 82 Citizenship, 4, 7, 21, 28, 30, 43, 61–65, 68, 86
Allen, J., 31 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 54
This American Life, 19, 35 Clark, K.B., 27
Anderson, J.D., 31, 59 Codification, 8, 12
Antonacopoulou, E., 11 Columbia’s Teacher’s College, 55
Apple, M., 12, 20, 29 Conscientization, 7–8, 12
Association for Childhood for Education Conservative, 8, 13, 22
International (ACEI), 32 Cooper, A.J., 13, 56, 59
Assumptions, 5, 7, 9, 14, 17–23, 35, Copple, C., 31
37, 50, 86 Cowles, M., 12
Cremin, L., 12
Critical examination, 18
B Critical pedagogy, 1–9, 11–14, 17, 19, 29, 32,
Baldwin, S.C., 5, 42 35–40, 56–58, 61, 71, 77, 85, 86
Baltodano, M.P., 6, 7, 9, 11, 35 Critical race theory, 3
Banks, J.A., 8, 22, 23, 38, 42, 48 Critical reflection, 14
Barrio, 27, 37 Critical theory, 5, 7, 11–14, 17, 48, 55, 65, 85
Bartolome, L., 17 Crow, Jim, 41, 42, 44
Barton, K.C., 5, 38 Cultural capital, 8, 12, 22, 36–38
Baumrind, D., 56 Culturally appropriate practice, 18
Berger, J.G., 14 Cultural values, 18, 22
The Berlin Conference, 41
Berliner, 41
Berry, K.S., 19, 21 D
Birth of a Nation, 42 Dahlberg, G., 26, 27, 39
Bourdieu, P., 8, 37 Darder, A., 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 35, 36
Bredekamp, S., 31 Deconstruct, 17, 22

Childhood and Elementary Educators, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5395-2,
90 Index
Delpit, L., 6, 11, 18, 26, 27 Gramsci, 9

Democracy, 1, 3, 7, 26, 28–30, 32, 39, 49, 58, Great City Schools, 21
59, 61, 63, 64 Greene, M., 6, 7, 9, 11, 19, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32,
Dershowitz, A.M., 22 36, 38, 41, 85
Developmentally appropriate practice, Grey, C., 11
2, 31, 32 Grooming, 29
Dewey, J., 31, 63 Gutierrez, H., 5
Dialectic, 8, 12
Dialogue, 13, 35
Diaz Soto, L., 7, 8, 12 H
Discourse, 13, 21, 26, 54, 62, 63, 65, 74 Haas, M.E., 20, 29
Discrimination, 9, 14, 21, 22, 27, 29, 35, Habits of mind, 30
41–50, 54–56, 86 Harnish, J., 61–63
Diversity, 6–8, 21, 29, 41, 49, 57, 85 Head start, 20, 48
Dominant and dominance, 21 Hegemony, 8–9, 12
Douay Bible, 42 Hicks, M.A., 14
Hidden curriculum, 9, 39
Hinitz, B.F., 55
E Holocaust, 22, 48
Edmund Pettus Bridge, 46 Honneth, A., 66
Elitist, 11, 12, 85 Hooks, B., 8, 11, 12, 19, 20
Emancipatory, 11, 14 Hybrid families, 28
English language learners, 64, 66, 73
Epstein, A.S., 26
Ethnicity, 3, 5, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, 32, 50, I
53–59, 62, 85, 86 Identity
Exclusion, 19, 22, 66, 74 formation, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30
Exosystem, 6 self, 26, 32
Ideological assumptions, 17
Ideology, 2, 3, 13, 17, 64, 78
F Inclusion, 3, 7, 9, 22, 82
Fee, E., 13 Individual, 2, 12–14, 20, 22, 26, 30, 53, 63–65,
Feminism, 10, 15, 16 67, 79, 82, 85
Fendler, L., 11, 12 Indonesia, 6, 81
Flor Ada, A, 22 Inequality, 13, 44, 63, 66, 67
Franzen, J., 11, 12 Inequity, 11, 12, 20, 54, 65, 85, 86
Fraser, N., 61, 64–68, 86
Freire, P., 3, 12, 14, 17, 18, 37, 48
Forms of knowledge, 7, 13, 17–19, 21, J
55, 86 Jung, C.G., 8, 14
Justice, 3, 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, 26, 30, 32, 43,
46, 48, 49, 55–59, 61–68, 77,
G 78, 80, 86
Gay, 12, 27, 48, 50, 53, 54
Gay, G., 6, 27, 45
Gender, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 26, 27, 29, K
53–59, 62, 85, 86 Kamii, C., 73, 75
Generett, G., 14 Katz, L., 76
Gilligan, C., 55, 56 Kessler, S., 17
Giroux, H.A., 3–5, 17, 25 Kilgo, J., 12, 74
Goldman, R., 12, 17–19, 21, 27–29, 67, 71, Kincheloe, J.L., 4–6, 17–20, 25, 28–30, 32,
72, 74–76, 78 35, 37, 42, 53, 55
Goodlad, J., 18 Kirkland, L., 14, 38, 39, 82
Goodman, K., 12 Kirylo, J.D., 2, 3, 71
Index 91
Knowledge Nationality, 5, 19, 22, 27, 32, 53, 59

construction, 26 Nationalized, 29
forms, 7, 13, 17–19, 21, 55, 73, 86 Nieto, S., 61
school, 5, 17, 19–22, 26, 29, 37, 49, 66, 86 No Child Left Behind Act, 20, 64
types, 18, 42 North, C., 14, 64–66
valued, 17–19, 21, 55, 66, 86
Kohler, M., 12, 13
Kohl, H., 12 O
Kohn, A., 6, 12, 20, 39, 48 Ostrow, J., 79
Kozol, J., 20, 29, 48
Krashen, S., 12
Kymlicka, W., 65 P
Patriarchy, 9
Pedagogue, 5, 11, 12, 20, 25, 26, 32, 37, 38,
L 85–87
Language, 3, 5, 8, 11–13, 18, 21, 22, 25–27, Pence, A., 27, 39
29–31, 49, 56, 62, 64, 66, 67, 71, Piscitelli, B., 31
73, 74, 76, 85 Podcast, 19, 35
Lascarides, V.C., 55 Policymakers, 29
Lather, P., 27 Politics, 17, 66
Lee, C.D., 50 Popkewitz, T., 11, 12
Levstik, L.S., 5, 38 Postmodern, 33, 40
Liberal, 8, 62, 63, 65 Poverty, 8, 19, 20, 29, 48, 50, 65,
Liberation, 3 67, 73, 82
Lilly Ledbetter’s Fair Pay Act of 2009, 54 Power, 3, 5–9, 17, 20–22, 29, 35, 38,
Lipman, P., 18 39, 67, 76, 86
Loewen, J.W., 41, 42 Praxis, 9, 12, 14, 35–40, 86
Privileged, 13, 17, 19–21, 29, 37, 86
Problem posing, 14
M
Macedo, D., 4
Macrosystem, 6, 67 R
Malaguzzi, L., 26 Ramsey, P.G., 27
Marginalization, 2, 3, 20, 57, 82 Reading the world, 4
Marginalize, 21, 74 Reconstructionist, 62, 63
McArdle, F.A., 31 Reggio Emilia, 26
McLaren, P., 6, 12, 17–19, 37, 55 Reproduction, 8
Merleau-Ponty, M., 6 Rorty, R., 9
Mitchell, L.S., 13, 26, 27, 32, 56
Moore, T., 31
Moll, L. See Forms of knowledge S
Moss, P., 27, 39 Sadker, D., 56
Multiculturalism, 42, See also Banks, J.A.; Sadker, M., 56
Brown v. Board of Education; Scarr, S., 39
Christensen, L.M. Schooling, 17
Sexism, 29
Sexual orientation, 5, 53, 59
N Simon, R., 7
NAEYC. See National Association Slattery, P., 37
of Education of Young Social action, 6, 28, 30, 38, 39, 47, 57, 58,
Children (NAEYC) 67, 85
National Association of Education of Young Social justice, 8, 14, 17, 26, 32, 48, 55–59,
Children (NAEYC), 31, 39 61–68, 77, 78, 80, 86
92 Index
Socio-economic class, 29, 50 U

Spielrein, Sabina, 56 UNICEF, 67
Steinberg, S.R., 37 Urban, 3, 7, 20, 48, 49, 80, 81
Stone, L., 11
Stringer, 5, 7, 42
Sunal, C.S., 20, 21, 29 V
Swadener. B., 17 Voice(s), 5, 7, 9, 11–13, 19, 28, 38, 39, 49, 85
T W
Title IX, 54–56 Watts, I.E., 27, 28
Torres, R.D., 5–7, 9, 11, 35 Women, 9, 12, 13, 21, 29, 32, 41, 43–45, 47,
Transaction, 14, 71, 73–78, 87 53–59, 62, 63
Transformation, 3, 14, 25, 35, 39, 71–82, Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC), 53
85, 87 Women’s Rights, 53, 57
Transmission, 14, 71–79, 82, 87
Transnational, 63, 64
Transnationalism, 62–64 Y
Tutwiler, S.W., 27, 28 Young, E.F., 56

Critical Pedagogy For Educator

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Pedagogy For Educator

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Pedagogy for Early Childhood

and Elementary Educators

Critical Pedagogy for Early

ISBN 978-94-007-5394-5 ISBN 978-94-007-5395-2 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012948710

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

The Testing Paradox

Elementary Student-Centered Teaching Practice

reflective primary and elementary teachers in democratic settings. Humanistic

Elementary Students as a Part of a Global Citizenry

Organization of the Text

What Is Critical Pedagogy?

Being Critical of Critical Pedagogy

Assumptions: Where Are We?

Students begin rudimentary reflection about experiences of citizenship in action

Praxis of Critical Pedagogy

Gender, Ethnicity, and Disability

The Dilemma of Social Justice

Teaching for Transformation

Looking Back and Moving Forward

1 Introduction: Critical Pedagogy in an Age

9 The Dilemma of Social Justice ................................................................ 61

L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 1

Whether push-back responses are coming from a teacher in Connecticut or Diane

The Marketization of Education

This systematic assault is particularly being hurled by neoliberal forces, which

The Hope of Critical Pedagogy

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum.

Critical pedagogy is a composite term that theoretically encompasses and extends

L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 5

Moreover, critical pedagogy assists us in understanding what happens when we fail

Specific Criticisms of Critical Pedagogy

L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 11

Critical pedagogy is designed to eliminate inequity, but the language used by

Transforming Criticisms into Solutions

Making Accessible the Language of Critical Pedagogy

Incorporating Other Voices Beyond Those of White Men

Becoming Part of the Solutions and Not Just the Problems

L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 17

Particular Forms of Knowledge Are Valued Over Others

School Knowledge Belongs to the Privileged

Those in Power Positions Try to Maintain a Dominant

What Can We Do to Make a Difference?

Get all Students Involved in Planning the Curriculum

Learn as Much as Possible About Diverse Populations

Examine Stereotypes and Assumptions

Integrity simply means not violating one’s own identity.

L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 25

Who Am I? Why Am I Here?

Ethnicity awareness begins in toddlerhood, and young children are aware of

• Asian American families

What Are Obstacles to Identify Formation?

How Do We Overcome Obstacles to Identity Formation?

How Do We Get There?

Remembering children’s contexts is the beginning of identity, as already docu-

Who Will Advocate for the Children?

Similarly, in 2002, the Association for Childhood for Education International

L.M. Christensen and J. Aldridge, Critical Pedagogy for Early 35

Educators’ Making Meaning

Examining the Unexamined

Furthermore, Greene (1988, 1998) envisions mistakes in praxis as failing to act.