Connections substantiated by evidence exist between profit, access, skin color, and socioeconomic status. Substantiated too by qualitative and quantitative data both historical and current, are the relationships between education and access, access and political voice, and political voice and social justice. For much of modern human history, the application of education as a means of empowering the Oppressed (those denied access) and as a means of managing and or silencing the Oppressed is undeniable. The American experience is unremarkable in this regard (Chomsky 1987; Anderson 1988; Kozol 2005; Kholi 2014; Roberts-Mahoney and Garrison 2015; Spann 2015; Macedo 2018; McNeil 2000; DoE 2016). One of the most important means by which to insure empowerment of the Oppressed is through a Critical Social-Justice Pedagogy, but what is a Critical Social-Justice Pedagogy, and what might that look like in a classroom? We cannot begin to answer such questions without first considering the words of Paulo Freire from his work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970):
The pedagogy of the oppressed cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors. It would be a contradiction in terms if the oppressors not only defended but actually implemented a liberating education… If the implementation of a liberating education requires political power and the oppressed have none, how then is it possible to carry out the pedagogy of the oppressed prior to the revolution? This is a question of the greatest importance… One aspect of the reply is to be found in the distinction between systematic education, which can only be changed by political power, and educational projects, which should be carried out with the Oppressed in the process of organizing them (Freire, 1970, p. 99-100).
A critical, social-justice pedagogy must not strive to speak for or create voices for the Oppressed, but rather strive to facilitate experiences that exercise and hone voices the Oppressed already possess. Concentrated efforts via policy and practice, constructed to serve only the interests of market controllers, work to silence these voices. A Critical Pedagogy “must question the status quo in the name of social justice.” For this, it must be a situated pedagogy open to diversity that provides “…a rich lexicon of practice and dialogue,” adaptable to many places, spaces, and circumstance; “student centered, constructivist (a view that admits as valid only constructive proofs and entities demonstrable by them), and critical of inequality,” as “…no pedagogy can be neutral.” K-12 teachers must question the status quo because copious amounts of research across several fields of study demonstrate that status quo systematic policy and pedagogy serves neither student nor educator, and both serve only as profitable, raw product for leverage in a market controlled by said Oppressors (Freire 1970; Chomsky 1987; Anderson 1988; Kozol 2005; Katznelson 2005; Kholi 2014; Roberts-Mahoney and Garrison 2015; Spann 2015; Macedo 2018; Allington 2002, 2012; Page 2014; Shor 2018; McNeil 2000). An educator who practices a neutral pedagogy in the classroom becomes a machination of the Oppressor. What then does a non-neutral pedagogy look like in a classroom?
A limited but common definition for literacy is limited to the ability to read and write. I believe it to be the ability to interpret the world in which one exists and construct a meaningful response. Paulo Freire believed it to be “preparation for a self-managed life…” and possible only after the achievement of three educational goals: self-realization through self-reflection, which translates to a multidimensional “understanding of the world in which they live and the construction of an awareness of the forces that have hitherto ruled their lives and shaped their consciousness,” and to “set the conditions for… a new set of arrangements in which power has been temporarily transferred…” (Freire 1970). A Critical, Social-Justice Pedagogy facilitates the transfer of power and reinstates self-management. At the quantum level, there exists an intention to learn and grow through experience (England, 2014). Literacy is critical to social justice, and experience is fundamental to literacy across the broadest spectrum of humans. Experience can best be constructed via many means, methods, and modes. Project-driven, community-focused, technology-supported field research and case studies; classic and digital performances, presentations and demonstrations for peers and community; community service hours and mentorship of younger students; critical literary analysis of a wide selection of culturally, ethnically, student-relevant literature spanning multiple reading levels, genres, styles, and time periods; open discussion and debate, and applied writing (Freire 1970; Macedo 2018; Rose 2002, 2008, Chen 2008, Allington 2002, 2012, Gardner 2006; Hult 2014; Chomsky 1987; Hartstone 2018; Peña 2012; Mazzoni et al. 1999; Meyer 2006; Oldfather 1993; Rose 2002, 2008, 2010; Wolchover 2014; Eck 2017).
Proportionate to literate students aware of the forces by which they have been subjugated and molded to purposes not their own is choice. Choice equates to engagement, which equates to motivation, which equates to connection, meaning, and assignment of value, all of which are directly linked to access and academic success. The broadest means and methods for collection, procession, application, and transmission of experience (data, energy, knowledge, understanding) ensures the broadest choice, and so the broadest opportunity for success for the broadest spectrum of the population. Choice is access. Individuals denied choice (access) are denied representation, self-realization, and self-governance are denied political voice. This is a civil-rights violation by systematic machinations of stratification, segregation, dehumanization, and objectification. If only political power (choice, voice, access) can change said machinations, and the Oppressed are denied such political power (choice and voice), then it must be educators who facilitate experiences for the exercise and honing of voices. Choice must be instituted across all studies in order to produce the broadest scope of experiences. An historical tenant of oppressors is the devaluation of educators and education because education is a powerful means by which political power can be accessed, shifted, transferred, and transformed (Freire 1970; Chomsky 1987; Anderson 1988; Kozol 2005; Katznelson 2005; Rubin 2011; Kholi 2014; Roberts-Mahoney and Garrison 2015; Spann 2015; Macedo 2018; Allington 2002, 2012; Page 2014; Shor 2018; McNeil 2000; Chen 2008).
Computers, tablets, iPads; Smart Phones; World Wide Web access for research, global news, and social media; classic art supplies and digital art and science technologies for 2D and 360 videography, editing, and viewing; sketching, painting, or architecture, etc.; AI stations, robots, early generation automatons; musical instruments and composition software; applied writing practice across genres and styles; debates and discussions; critical analysis of student-relevant, multicultural, multiethnic literature in print and digital form, spanning multiple reading levels, genres, and time periods; and social play, are often argued by the oppressors to be distractions from the “true” purpose of preparing for and taking the test, yet when applied collectively with intention and purpose afford maximum choice. The choice in and of itself is an experience, a field study. This experience of choice is crucial for physical development and maturation of the brain. It stands to reason then that a broader expanse of experiences result in a more developed, more mature brain. Standardized test prep and testing earns billions per year, directly and indirectly at the cost of one-third or more of a school year. That’s one-third or more of the school year wasted for the benefit of the oppressors and not the oppressed. These pricey tests and accompanying test prep materials counter human physiological, psychological, and emotional need and development. They do little to produce constructive critical thinkers, which is to say literate, participative, democratic citizens with political voices and do little to develop or mature the bran. They teach pseudo-knowledge (how to take the test) to a mythical average or norm, engaging one, maybe two intelligences at best. The scores mark, track, and nudge individuals to fill predicted market needs. A critical, social-justice pedagogy cannot suffer standardization at the cost of political voice (Tierney and Nelson 2009; Tucker 2017; Roberts-Mahoney and Garrison 2015; Page 2014; Spann 2015; Strunk et al. 2015; Allington 2012; Gardner 2006; Rubin 2011; SantaMaria 2009; Rose 2002, 2008, 2010; Smythe 2015).
Another characteristic of a critical, social-justice pedagogy in the classroom is the mixing of grade levels. Older students are spared the embarrassment of asking lower grade-level questions when lower grade-level students ask those questions. Lower grade-levels benefit from the absorption of more advanced knowledge in discussions, debates, and collaborations with higher grade-level learners. Bonds form across the shared experience, and older students through engagement assume mentorship rolls. Much friction of establishing an in-house mentorship between higher and lower grade individuals is removed from the equation since they are in the same class. I have implemented this and sculpted this pedagogy over the course of a decade and some 100 field application projects serving up to 120 individuals, and have witnessed on many occasions these manifestations firsthand. The mixture works best at 1st-3rd, 4th-6th, and 7th-12th and increases diversity of perspectives, ideas, and models.
Possibilities for the facilitation of literacy abound with the implementation of a Critical, Social-Justice Pedagogy, but educators struggle against the oppressors and their systematic mechanisms: privatization and standardization; the devaluing of education and educators; personalized learning programs, worksheets, tracking and nudging, and government-propagated myths such as there isn’t enough money, etc. A critical social justice pedagogy is necessary, not just to empower students but equally the educator, to facilitate their own self-realization, awareness, and self-governance, so political voice, power, and access. (Freire 1970; Chomsky 1987; Anderson 1988; Allington 2002, 2012; Gardner 2006; Rose 2002, 2008; Kozol 2005; Chen 2008; Kholi 2014; Hult 2014; Roberts-Mahoney and Garrison 2015; Spann 2015; Archer and Finger 2018; Macedo 2018; Page 2014; Shor 2018; McNeil 2000; Teirney 2009; Tucker 2017; Page 2014; Strunk et al. 2015; Rubin 2011; SantaMaria 2009; Smythe 2015).
Sources
Allington, Richard. “What I’ve Learned About Effective Reading Instruction From a Decade of Studying Exemplary Elementary Classroom Teachers”. Phi Delta Kappan, 2002. SAGE Journals. Accessed online December 2, 2016. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003172170208301007.
Allington, Richard. “Five Missing Pillars of Scientific Reading”. National Reading Conference. Presentation. 2006.Accessed December 2, 2016. https://readingrecovery.org/images/pdfs/Webcasts/Allington_Handouts.pdf.
Allington, Richard and Gabriel, Racheal E.. “Every Child, Every Day”. Educational Leadership. March 2012, Volume 69, number 6, ASCD. Accessed online December 2, 2016. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Every-Child,-Every-Day.aspx.
Anderson, James D. (1988). The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. Print. P.17- 39, 80-99, 118-134.
Archer, Dan and Finger, Katharina. “Walking in another person’s shoes: Do 360-degree video news stories generate empathy in viewers?” Tow Center for Digital Journalism. Columbia Journalism Review. March 2018. Acessed online July 31, 2018. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/virtual-reality-news-empathy.php/
Arendale, David R.. Access at the Crossroads: Learning Assistance in Higher Education. Chapter four. ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 35, Number 6. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2010. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887078.
Astin, Alexander W.. “Student Involvement, A Development Theory for Higher Education”. Journal of College Student Development. V4/5. September/October 1999. P518-529. Graduate School of Education, University of California, 1984. Accessed online August 2, 2018. https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/ace/downloads/astininv.pdf.
Author Unknown. The case study method or why experience is the best teacher. Hult International Business School. Hult Blogs. 2014. Accessed online July 31, 2018. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/virtual_reality_journalism.php/
Boucot, A. J.. Evolutionary Paleobiology of behavior and coevolution, 1990. 257-265. Accessed online April 18, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=wFPgBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=caninae+canidae+caniformia&source=bl&ots=cPPSZ_DADr&sig=IUXgL6daBpgfyO8KKXRrisqgXf0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEk5iJ4LvTAhUDNiYKHZODCDQ4ChDoAQhbMA4#v=onepage&q=caninae%20canidae%20caniformia&f=false.
Chen, Eva. The Importance of Universal Design for Learning, Eliminating barriers in the design of the learning environment to make curriculum accessible for all, Harvard Graduate School of Education. 2008. Accessed online, May 21, 2018. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/08/12/importance-universal-design-learning.
Chomsky, Noam. On Power and Ideology. 1987. 402-467. iBooks. Accessed online July 31, 2018. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/on-power-and-ideology/id829682908?mt=11.
De la Peña, Nonny. “Hunger in Las Angeles” MIT Open Documentary Lab. Docubase. 2012. Accessed online July 31, 2018. https://docubase.mit.edu/project/hunger-in-los-angeles/
Eck, Allison. “How do you say “Life” in Physics” Nautilus, 2016. Accessed online June 16, 2018. http://nautil.us/issue/50/emergence/how-do-you-say-life-in-physics-rp.
Freire Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 1970, iBook, 2018. Accessed July 31, 2018. 81-321. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/id1348889946?mt=11.
Gardner, Howard. Multiple Intelligences, New Horizons. Basic Books. 2006, iBook. 28-45, 145.
Guthrie, John T.; Perencevich, Kathleen C.; Wigfield, Allan; Taboada, Ana; Humenick, Nicole M.; and Barbosa, Pedro. “Influences of Stimulating tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension”. Journal of Educational Research. Heldref Publications, 2006. Web. Accessed December 3, 2016, pp. 232-245.
Hartstone, Abigail. “Study: VR for news prompts empathy, but only with the right mix of factors”. Columbia Journalism Review. March 2018. Accessed online July 31, 2018. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/virtual-reality-news.php.
Karger, Joanne. “UDL and Improving Education for Incarcerated Youth”. Harvard Education Publishing Blog. April 3, 2013. Accessed online July 31, 2018. http://hepg.org/blog/universal-design-for-learning-and-improving-educat.
Katznelson, Ira. When Affirmative Action Was White. eBook. 2005. P.73, 270
Kholi, Sonali. “Modern-Day Segregation in Public Schools”. The Atlantic. 2014. Accessed online April 22, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/modern-day-segregation-in-public-schools/382846/.
Kozol, Jonathan. The Shame of the Nation. New York City, New York: Broadway Paperbacks. 2005. Print. P.109-124, 215-263.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy”. American Educational Research Journal. V.32, N.3. 1995. P.465-491. Accessed online August 2, 2018. http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf.
Macedo, Donald. “Introduction to the 5th Anniversary Edition”. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Paulo Freire. 1970. iBook. 2018, p16-17, 25-27. Accessed July 31, 2018. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/id1348889946?mt=11.
Mazzoni, Anders; Gambrell, Linda B.; Korkeamaki, Riita-Liisa. “A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Early Literacy Motivation”. Reading Psychology, Taylor and Francis online, Vol. 20, Iss. 3, 1999. Web. Access December 4, 2016.
McNeil, Linda. M.. Contradictions of School Reform, Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. New York City, New York: Routledge. 2000. Print. P.xv-xvii, xxii-xxix, 3-6, 153-185.
Meyer, Debra K. and Turner, Julianne C.. “Discovering Emotion in Classroom Motivation Research”. Educational Psychologist, v37/2. June 8, 2010. 107-114. Acessed online June 28, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227029946_Re-conceptualizing_Emotion_and_Motivation_to_Learn_in_Classroom_Contexts.
Oldfather, Penny and Dahl, Karin. “Toward a Social Constructivist Reconceptualization of Intrinsic Motivation for Literacy Learning”. Journal od Reading Behavior, Volume 26, Number 2. November 1994. Accessed December 4, 2016. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10862969409547843.
Page, Kelsey. “I am more than a number: The case against SAT scores in college admissions”. The Stanford Daily. December 2, 2014. Web. Accessed December 1, 2016.
Paris, Django. Educational Researcher Michigan State University. Volume 41, Issue 3, April 2012, Pages 93-97. Accessed online August 2, 2018. https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/culturally-sustaining-pedagogy-a-needed-change-in-stance-terminol-3.
Reis, Rick. “Educational Theories and Pedagogies, Tomorrows Teaching and Learning”. Message 1249. Standford, Tomorrow’s Professor Postings. Standford University. 2014. Acessed online August 2, 2018. https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1249.
Roberts-Mahoney, Heather and Garrison, Mark. “The Role of Big Data and ‘Personalized Learning’”. Understanding Neoliberal Rule in K-12 School, Educational Fronts for Local and Global Justice, edited by Abendroth, M. & Porfolio, B. J., Information Age Publishing, Inc. Print. 2015. Print, P.23-41.
Rose, David. Universal Design for Learning. ACCESS, Colorado State University. 2008. Accessed online May 21, 2018. http://accessproject.colostate.edu/udl/.
Rose, David; Meyer, Anne; Strangman, Nicole, and Rappolt, Gabrielle. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). 2002. Chapter 4. Accessed online August 1, 2018. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/101042/chapters/What-Is-Universal-Design-for-Learning¢.aspx
Rose, David. “UDL: Principles and Practice”. National Center on Universal Design Learning. March 2010. Accessed online May 21, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGLTJw0GSxk.
Rubin, Daniel and Kazanjian, Christopher. “Just Another Brick in the Wall”: Standardization and the Devaluing of Education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5.2, November 2011. P.94-108.
SantaMaria, Lorri J.. “Culturally Responsive Differentiated Instruction: Narrowing the Gaps Between Best Pedagogical Practices Benefiting All Learners”. Columbia University, Teachers College Record, V111, Number 1, January 2009. P214-247. Accessed June 10, 2018. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ826003
Shor, Ira. “A Luta Continua: Afterward to Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 1970, iBook, 2018. P330-336. Acessed July 31, 2018. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/id1348889946?mt=11
Smythe, Melissa, K.. “Saved By the Bell, Stigma and Salvation in the Inscription of Neoliberal Subjectivities”. Understanding Neoliberal Rule in K-12 School, Educational Fronts for Local and Global Justice, edited by Abendroth, M. & Porfolio, B. J., Information Age Publishing, Inc. 2015. Print. P.3-18.
Spann, Pamela. “The Negative Effects of High-Stakes Testing”. Education, Law, and Policy, Thesis. Loyola University. May 14, 2015. P2. Accessed online August 2, 2018. https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/centers/childlaw/childed/pdfs/2015studentpapers/Spann.pdf.
Strunk, Kamden K. et al.. “Neoliberalism and Contemporary Reform Efforts in Mississippi”. Understanding Neoliberal Rule in K-12 School, Educational Fronts for Local and Global Justice, edited by Abendroth, M. & Porfolio, B. J., Information Age Publishing, Inc. 2015. Print, P.45-57.
The London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures”. Harvard Educational Review. Harvard Education Publishing Group. Harvard Graduate School of Education. April 1996, V66, N1, P.60-93. Accessed online August 2, 2018. http://www.hepgjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.
Tierney, Adrienne and Nelson, Charles A.. “Brain Development and the role of Experience in the Early Years”, 2009. U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Pub Med Central. PMC3722610, v30/2. 9-13. Accessed online 6/10/2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722610/
Tucker, Mark. “Student Tracking vs. Acedemic Pathways: Different… or the same?”. Education Week. 2017. Accessed online April 22, 2017. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2015/10/tracking_vs_pathways_differentor_the_same.html
United States Department of Education. 2016 Digest of Education Statistics 2015. Table 219.70. National Center For Education Satistics. Accessed December 1, 2016. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdf.
Vince, Gaia. “What does It mean to be human?”. Independent Press. 2017. Accessed online 6/10/2018. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/genetics-ancient-humans-evolution-gibraltar-neanderthals-dna-science-a7615986.html.
Wayman, Erin. “Are humans primates?” Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2012. Smithsonian.com. Accessed online June 17, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-are-humans-primates-97419056/.
Wolchover, Natalie. “A New Physics Theory of Life”. Quanto Magazine, Scientific America. 2014. Accessed online June 17, 2018. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/.
Wolchover, Natalie. “First support for a physics theory of life” Quanto Magazine, Scientific America. 2017. Accessed online June 17, 2018. https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/.
Trace Taylor 