Resisting Erasure: Cultivating Opportunities for a Humanizing Curriculum
Saved in:
| Title: | Resisting Erasure: Cultivating Opportunities for a Humanizing Curriculum |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Burke, Christopher, Adler, Martha A., Linker, Maureen |
| Source: | Multicultural Perspectives. Apr 2008 10(2):65-72. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 8 |
| Publication Date: | 2008 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Elementary Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Change, Teacher Student Relationship, Student Centered Curriculum, African American Students, Cooperation, Poverty, Federal Legislation, Academic Achievement, School Districts, Academic Standards, Standardized Tests, Middle Class, Middle Class Culture, Teacher Administrator Relationship, Educational Improvement, Partnerships in Education |
| Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: | Milliken v Bradley, No Child Left Behind Act 2001 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15210960801997924 |
| ISSN: | 1521-0960 |
| Abstract: | Our research reflects a long-term professional dialogue and inquiry with teachers to develop and refine curriculum to address the needs of students in a high poverty, predominantly African-American school. Through our collaboration, we identify both institutional and personal barriers to changing and implementing a more student-centered curriculum. We also identify teachers' relationships with their students as a resource for effectively reforming the curriculum and propose steps for supporting such change in practice. (Contains 1 footnote.) |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 38 |
| Entry Date: | 2008 |
| Accession Number: | EJ810929 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGdSej3cwZv0Z4WMs_cxhnCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPiPhYYKZWZbDFugOwIBEICBmipyQPcLLNdsqRq8ye3ds6C6WVSys02Dkp9wbWswfRZRzFnZXRQkpiOtqxHExhNcvQyov0sk4rYp6zNEyeqZed5q1rx4yIMT0foKd3CoCktyEVeZqLbOayICKVOvaGogUZdpOwMSqV2-8tYKbZg-u3ur1aQrTDGM98ZIQZAwUkHIK0sURsnd2Wc_68XrzBxbfZMbyGbvd2iPlxE= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0032069704;7mr01apr.08;2019Feb13.12:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0032069704-1">Resisting Erasure: Cultivating Opportunities for a Humanizing Curriculum. </title> <sbt id="AN0032069704-2">The Dehumanizing Discourse of School Failure: The National Context</sbt> <p>Our research reflects a long-term professional dialogue and inquiry with teachers to develop and refine curriculum to address the needs of students in a high poverty, predominantly African-American school. Through our collaboration, we identify both institutional and personal barriers to changing and implementing a more student-centered curriculum. We also identify teachers' relationships with their students as a resource for effectively reforming the curriculum and propose steps for supporting such change in practice.</p> <p>Since the publication of <emph>A Nation at Risk</emph> (U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, the need for standardized curriculum across the U.S. has driven educational discourse and grown increasingly punitive under the <emph>No Child Left Behind</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>] policy. The demand for standardization across schools can have particularly harsh consequences for high-poverty school districts as they struggle to address the cultural, social, and economic disparities between their students and the middle-class mainstream society in which the standards for academic success are forged. Framing these difficulties, the media, government, and educational researchers report a "disturbing," "unacceptable," and "problematic" correlation between high-poverty communities and low student achievement on standardized tests. A public narrative of the demise of the nation's schools has grown since the Coleman Report ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]). Moreover, the introduction of <emph>No Child Left Behind</emph> has only increased the rhetoric of anxiety ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]). The public discourse that continues to link "fear" and "failure" to schools, particularly to poor urban schools, has had grave implications for the ways that the work of teachers get framed within school reform initiatives ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>].</p> <p>Most significantly, teacher quality and student achievement are devalued and, in many cases, dehumanized, further separating teachers' decision making from the prescribed school curriculum and the students themselves living in poor urban communities ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]). Teachers' abilities to rely on their knowledge of individual students and the pace of the curriculum have been compromised by external demands to focus more narrowly on teaching a prescribed standardized curriculum through instructional strategies that do not allow for a more personalized framework ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]). Helping teachers reclaim their authority requires cultivating their ability to bridge their personal knowledge of students' complex experiences and the social, political, and economic demands on the curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-3">Silencing versus Erasure: The Differing Costs of Standardized Expectations</hd> <p>Teachers and school administrators recognize that learning happens most effectively when the curriculum connects with student experience and depends on teachers being able to identify the knowledge, skills, and meaningful experiences students bring to the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]). However, personal and institutional barriers and insecurity about the purpose of education cause teachers to often identify information about out-of-school experiences, frequently obtained directly from students during non-instructional moments, as being irrelevant to scaffolding instruction because these anecdotal reports and detailed personal experiences can sometimes derail curriculum and devolve into a reporting free-for-all. By avoiding incorporating these experiences into the curriculum, schools default to a prescriptive curriculum that re-inscribes existing and often inequitable social structures ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). If teachers see the purpose of school as transformative, they must develop the expertise needed to facilitate the inclusion of personal and culturally relevant experiences in the classroom and seek out those that provide opportunities to scaffold and support instruction ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]). When life experiences are ignored, dismissed, or devalued, students infer that their personal perspectives and world views are nonessential to their learning experiences. This "silencing" effect can be increased when teachers conspicuously shift to a high-stakes, standardized curriculum while following an externally dictated timeline.</p> <p>When the students are more socially and economically privileged, materials, messages, and resources, both within and outside of the classroom, reaffirm their experiences, which are often well aligned with normed expectations for what students should know and be able to do at any given grade level. For example, when textbooks, classroom instruction, films, trade books, television programming, and political figures resemble those within a student's community, the student's personal experience and the school's curriculum appear to be well connected and cogent for the student's learning process. Unfortunately, students of color in impoverished urban districts face a silencing effect when there is very little social or cultural recognition and acceptance of their experiences within classroom routines, materials, and the operationalized curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, the experiences of the mainly white, middle-class teachers in urban poor districts sets them further apart from their students in ways that are unrecognizable. This separation leads teachers and school administrators to view their students through a lens of "deficiency," consistent with the public narrative. Even for well-intended teachers who profess high expectations for their urban poor students of color, a personal and culturally relevant curriculum can seem less significant if the teachers lack insights into the students' communities. This disconnect is particularly evident in districts where student performance is low and basic skills are viewed as inherent deficiencies of the student and not the fault of the school ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>We adopt [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>] position that students in high-poverty districts should be viewed not as starting from a position of deficiency, but rather of complexity stemming from the dynamics of poverty, stress, and ingenuity. Based on evidence gathered from our work in the Tanglewood School District,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>] we see an effective school curriculum as one that is humanized by incorporating the complex personal and cultural experiences of students into the curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-4">Tanglewood Community Schools</hd> <p>Tanglewood Community Schools, an urban district, serves 2,357 students in grades K through 12. The district was created from three separate municipalities as a result of court desegregation mandates (<emph>Milliken v. Bradley</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]. The result was a district that had no core constituency and little community ownership. Decades later, Tanglewood continues to struggle with the issues of de facto segregation and increasing poverty.</p> <p>The district is comprised of three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. Tanglewood teachers and administration are predominantly white. Seventy-three percent of the student population is African American, 24% Caucasian, 1.4% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and less than 1% American Indian. Approximately 88% of the student population is eligible for free and reduced lunch. All three elementary schools are classified as Title I, and the district has struggled with low standardized test scores in the critical areas of math, science, reading, and writing. The most recent state assessment program results revealed that, while improvements have been made over previous years, the students are still not achieving with on-grade level expectations in math, social studies, science, reading, and writing. Furthermore, Tanglewood's current student achievement data indicate that, for the end of the first grading period, at least 20% of the 9th and 11th grade high school classes are failing.</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-5">The Project</hd> <p>A collaborative partnership has developed over the past four years as an outgrowth of interactions between Tanglewood teachers and several university faculty members working individually on issues of curriculum reform, classroom practice, community partnerships, and social standards of knowledge. Common to all of these interactions were conversations about the practice and context of teaching in high-poverty schools and how to best teach the students in Tanglewood. This question of best instructional practice shapes our current action research ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]). In this work, we aim to understand issues of curriculum and practice in Tanglewood in order to transform instruction in ways that empower both students and teachers.</p> <p>While the participants in this project brought different issues to the table, all shared a commitment to improving instruction for Tanglewood students. In response, the university members of the collaborative advocated for a culturally responsive curriculum reform ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref26">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]), building interconnections between student experience and expected academic outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]), and focusing on inquiry-driven practice ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]). Because we believe that it is essential that we remain aware of the constraints placed on teachers by state and district policies, the university faculty have worked to support and value the teachers' knowledge about their students and instructional practices as part of this research in order to create higher standards for everyone in the learning community through a humanizing pedagogy that emphasizes a humanizing curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref38">34</reflink>]). This shared commitment provided a focus for the collaboration that emerged from our previous disparate interactions.</p> <p>The first stage of this project involved data collection on notions of school and its importance for the future goals of students. During the 2004–2005 school year, data were obtained from district-wide semi-structured interviews with 28 teachers and four administrators, classroom observations, and focus group interviews with approximately 80 students in eight classrooms. Upon analysis of these data, teachers and administrators were invited to participate in a voluntary two-day workshop summer 2005. Thirteen teachers participated. The focus was on the local community and students' out-of-school experiences in order to develop more meaningful lessons. From this group, five fifth grade teachers volunteered to continue collaboration with the university faculty during the 2005–2006 school year to work on developing lesson plans that would align with curriculum and integrate content whenever feasible so as to deepen students' learning.</p> <p>Efforts to plan lessons were guided by two questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>) Can students facing social and economic disparities achieve academically with a localized, more culturally relevant curriculum? and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>) How can such a curriculum be developed and still meet standards for achievement by all students? Throughout this process, we were repeatedly reminded that teachers possess a deep wellspring of knowledge about their students. Finding ways to utilize these insights became essential to valuing teachers whose insights are fundamentally linked to their professional identities, moments of empowerment, and instances of success when working with their students ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]). This knowledge can serve as the basis for a localized curriculum with the power to effect positive changes in instructional materials so that classroom interactions and curriculum content validate students' interests and experiences. However, when first encountering and later understanding teachers' insights, we became privy to those institutional and personal barriers that negatively impact their confidence when relying on their professional knowledge and expertise to transform their practice.</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-6">Institutional Barriers to Transforming Practice and Reclaiming a Humanizing Curriculum</hd> <p>A common concern among Tanglewood educators was the pressing need for change in the curriculum, classroom practice, and school climate. The recent change of the state assessment program from February to October to facilitate teachers using the students' test results to inform their practice created many problems. This shift exemplifies how well-intended changes have unintended detrimental consequences. In its attempt to assist the teachers, the district purchased a scripted 15-day review that had been developed by a district recognized for its significant progress on state tests through its implementation of "best practice" and alignment with the state standards. The requirement to implement a review at the beginning of the school year allotted teachers little time to get to know their students, establish routines, and create a contextually relevant learning environment. In addition, the content, cultural norms, and shared experiences evident in the review materials reflected the middle-class, predominantly white district where it was developed. For example, for language arts, students were to write letters in response to prompts that dealt with attending summer camp, home ownership, and community resources, which are not present or experienced in Tanglewood. In order to implement the review, teachers had to explicate the content that further emphasized the distancing of the curriculum from the students' experiences.</p> <p>In an effort to resolve this problem, we adapted the language arts review materials. For example, for the cross-text writing sample, we changed passages to better reflect the local context, discourse, and community culture. By using the relevant text, teachers would be better able to guide students in their review of the required writing genre. However, the administration invoked the "best practice" language of <emph>No Child Left Behind</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]), i.e., insufficient evidence of scientifically based research, and rejected the plan.</p> <p>The review was further complicated by the fact that the district curriculum had not yet been adjusted to meet the new state assessment administration timeline. For example, electricity and magnetism content was not taught until the end of the second quarter in fifth grade; yet, the purchased district review included test items on both. Similar issues arose for math and social studies content. Teachers agonized whether they should "review" material not yet taught, as required by school administration, or try to teach the new material. One teacher asked, "How am I supposed to review when I know many of them do not know the material?" Another teacher wondered how to help her students answer questions about the metric system based on the use of weights and balances when they had never seen either of these scientific instruments. Ultimately, the teachers complied with administration's demands and implemented the review materials. This adoption and mandated implementation of this scripted review undermined the teachers' impulses to teach for understanding and sent the message that they would be ineffective if they fell behind schedule. A scripted curriculum did not allow time to teach new or unlearned material. And those teachers who took the time to teach content not yet mastered by their students did fall behind and were reprimanded by the administration.</p> <p>As the school year progressed, other issues served to dramatize the frustration for teachers in their efforts to better serve their students. Because of previous low scores on state standardized literacy assessment, the administration pushed for standardized, intensive, daily lessons of state-mandated literacy skills in a two-hour time block, with 30 lessons a week. Teachers were required to carry out reading and writing activities using two basal stories per week. The fact that the fifth grade basal was not accessible for many children reading below grade level, and that the writing prompts were derived from state assessment samples caused students to struggle with the assignments. Among the fifth grade faculty across the district, some teachers blamed the students by ascribing their difficulties to a lack of skills, general background knowledge, and/or lack of interest in the stories. Others recognized the fact that they were unable to differentiate for instruction because of the aggressive schedule being mandated. To further complicate the situation, the curriculum was revised at the end of the first semester to include more writing and literature genres and was changed to a two-week schedule based on input from three teachers who attended a workshop organized by the state on new requirements and evaluation procedures for the literacy portion of the state test.</p> <p>Needless to say, anxiety about student performance drives policies in Tanglewood. Reactionary curriculum decisions are endemic of administration's efforts to identify "best practices" and mandate their implementation without consideration for their student population. Such practice leads to policies that dislocate and devalue teachers' efforts to center pedagogical decision-making on students' strengths.</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-7">Personal Barriers to Transforming Practice</hd> <p>The focus on standardized practices and the increased accountability rhetoric that comprise institutional barriers comprise the focus of teachers' reasons for not being able to implement a culturally responsive or transformative curriculum. The differences among the social experiences of teachers and their students who are predominantly African American and poor or working class create noticeable but "undiscussable" obstacles that provoke emotional and complex barriers to address. The faculty are mostly white, female, and from working or middle-class families. While the teachers are academically qualified and well intentioned, their insights often lack an appropriate cultural framework and serve to act as barriers to effectively make use of their knowledge to localize and humanize the curriculum.</p> <p>For example, Tanglewood teachers know their students personally—e.g., who need winter coats, live with grandparents, have PlayStation©, and who exaggerate their situations. Teachers share poignant stories of abuse, hunger, and neglect gleaned through private conversations or student journals. Yet, they know very little about the community in which these children live. When asked during the summer workshop to visit student hangouts, teachers responded with hesitation: "When do you want us to do this?" "Are you expecting us to go to evening events?" Their hesitations had nothing to do with contractual obligations. On the contrary, they were simply fearful due to genuine concerns about safety in the community. One teacher confessed, "It's not that I think someone would intentionally hurt us, but they [the parents] seem so angry when I see them after school. I just don't understand the level of anger." Stories of shootings, fights, gangs, prostitution, and drugs are part of the daily stories told by the children and community members. Even the truant officers from the community warn that it is not safe in the neighborhood after dark.</p> <p>However, based on our visits to the neighborhood and a closer examination of the crime statistics, it is clear that the perception of danger, even by people who live in the area, is greater than the reality. Wider societal perceptions about poor, urban, African-American communities validate their fear. For teachers, engagement with the community is not worth the perceived risks. As a result, while the teachers pay a lot of attention to their students and know a lot about their histories and families, they interpret these experiences and interaction from a distance. Consequently, Tanglewood teachers are hesitant to contextualize the curriculum and, when they do, they inadvertently trade on stereotyped notions of African-American communities and poverty. They often interpret students' emotions, stories about their families, and experiences through a white, suburban, middle-class lens. This practice, while endemic to the larger society as well, becomes poignantly problematic when teachers stop talking about individual students and start thinking about groups and the students' community as deficient and "other" to themselves.</p> <p>The lack of experience with the community and the distance it creates between the teachers' and the children make adapting the curriculum in culturally relevant ways problematic for addressing the disconnect within learning experiences for students of color in urban school districts like Tanglewood. Teachers expressed concerns that by incorporating what they perceived as culturally relevant topics like hip-hop, rap, BBQs, or video games into the curriculum they, as white middle-class people, were reaffirming stereotypes about African-American culture. They also worried about appearing disingenuous with the students if they tried to use them in examples and exercises in class. This lack of context and understanding also contributed to their difficulty in identifying student experiences as conceptual links to the curriculum.</p> <p>In our interviews, teachers were dismissive of the activities students engaged in outside of school. Often the brunt of this disapproval fell to the parents who were seen as not valuing education and not offering their children more edifying options. Students were described by teachers as being "dragged out too late at night," "attending movies that were not appropriate," "shifted around from place to place with no consistent location for doing their homework," and "encouraged in sports but not in school." Parents were described as making bad "choices," with little sense that families living at or below the poverty level did not have the same options as middle-class families. In an attempt to help the teachers find connections between home and school, in order to make math skills relevant, we focused on the large number of students who were responsible for grocery shopping and preparing food for themselves and their younger siblings. However, instead of using the example to think about math, the teachers repeatedly commented on poor parenting skills and bad nutritional choices. There was no acknowledgement that there were no grocery stores selling fresh fruit or vegetables within the district. There was little empathy for parents who work multiple jobs during the day making it difficult to manage a house, shop, and take care of several children.</p> <p>In discussions about localizing the curriculum, teachers struggled between their insecurity about the content of students' culturally relevant experiences, while at the same time expressing concerns that such experiences were inconsistent with their values regarding education. In the context of accountability and high stakes tests, the Tanglewood teachers were reluctant to publicly share their insecurities and change their practice in ways that were understanding of parents and students. Publicly rethinking their practice in ways that question the cultural bias in curriculum and instruction and admitting a lack of understanding of the community meant accepting full responsibility for not better preparing or nurturing their students. Teachers are ultimately held singly responsible for students' low scores and poor performance. When parents and teachers see each other in adversarial ways, such as they do in Tanglewood, it is clear that much greater attention needs to be given to building stronger, supportive bridges between the school, family, and school community ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-8">Constructing a Humanizing Curriculum: The Insights of Tanglewood Teachers</hd> <p>Our efforts to construct a humanizing curriculum are grounded in our analysis of conversations with and observations of teachers over the last several years and our newly acquired appreciation for where Tanglewood teachers are in their understanding of their own students, their blind spots when thinking about how to better connect to their lives, and our desire to work in supportive, collaborative ways. Through our involvement with Tanglewood teachers, we do not identify any one cause for the dehumanizing practice often seen in schools. Rather, we see this dehumanization as a combination of misdirected policy and a lack of contextualizing experiences for teachers.</p> <p>Teachers are on the frontline; they have the most direct and personal connections to the children they teach. However, their professional and personal experiences do not provide them with the expertise to identify and understand how to best meet the needs of their students from a culturally relevant stance. In the context of this pressure, they do not feel safe taking the personal risks necessary to cultivate the experiences and develop the skills necessary to humanize their own practice.</p> <p>Through our collaboration, the fifth grade teachers have shared their commitments to construct culturally relevant and student-validating learning experiences. They have identified themselves as integral to the change process for their school improvement initiatives and have actively worked to rebuild their own feelings of self-efficacy. Teachers also recognize the importance of assessment and the ability to flexibly implement the curriculum to ensure that the students understand core concepts. They have worked to explain why individual students failed on assessments, looking for deeper meanings, causes for conceptual gaps, and explanations for students' errors. For example, one teacher voiced her anger that many of her students had missed a question about animal adaptations on the state test because they did not know the word "offspring." Based on our work in the classroom, we had evidence that many students had actually developed a strong conceptual understanding of animal adaptations but had not yet learned the term "offspring." When students have deep conceptual understandings of content but not the specific language or context used on test items, the results falsely indicate students' failure to learn and, by implication, the teachers' failure to teach.</p> <p>Teachers have also spent considerable time discussing the importance of creating spaces for students to share experiences and emotions. For many Tanglewood students, school is the only safe outlet for them to deal with the personal crises of a lack of contact with one or both parents, police and family court visits, hunger and violence in their neighborhoods, high rates of unemployment, and sexual abuse and racism. As one teacher put it, "It is like they are being asked to live in two different worlds." Yet, teachers were at a loss as to whether emotional responses should be given space in the curriculum and, if so, how.</p> <p>The teachers understand and are committed to helping their students achieve academic success. In the context of high stakes standards and testing, test preparation is seen as a necessary part of helping students clear gatekeepers. Yet, the teachers expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of "teaching to the test" as a means of achieving genuine academic success. For many, implementing the mandated curriculum and meeting standards has resulted in teachers' feeling the need to ignore their insights into students. Consequently, teachers have no incentive or framework to confidently develop their insights and struggled with whether or not to ignore students' emotional states.</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-9">How Do We Cultivate a Humanizing Curriculum?</hd> <p>Through our work with Tanglewood teachers, we recognize that teachers share a genuine commitment to humanizing their practice and their curriculum, but need support to overcome institutional and personal barriers in order to draw on their insights about their students' experiences and lives, in order to transform their practice. Based on our work, we recommend seven guidelines for achieving a connected, humanized curriculum that works toward serving both teachers and the children they teach. These recommendations focus on addressing the institutional barriers in ways that create the support and space necessary to allow teachers to begin to meaningfully reflect on their own personal barriers.</p> <p> <emph>Policy must reflect local context</emph>. Policies need to be examined and revised so they (a) validate teachers as professionals who are knowledgeable about content and their students; (b) recognize the classroom as the place where interactions can privilege the individual; (c) provide adequate time for teachers to respond to the emergent needs of their students; and (d) avoid prescriptive and scripted curriculum.</p> <p> <emph>Decision-making and accountability must be shared</emph>. Teachers need to be both supported in their current practice and pressured to attempt change. In order to be successful, all stakeholders must have a voice. As we revise, rethink, and implement the standards-based curriculum, we cannot expect teachers to fully embrace change unless we assure that they are integral to the curriculum development process and that their content knowledge and insights about students are essential to the process.</p> <p> <emph>Professional development must reflect local needs.</emph> If a humanized curriculum is to be achieved, on-going professional development, which helps teachers develop the skills and knowledge to contextualize curriculum and instruction in meaningful ways, is essential and must allow opportunities for (a) analysis and interpretation of standards and expectations for student achievement at grade level and within and across content areas; (b) dialogue among peers; (c) an understanding of content as complex, situated, and process oriented rather than propositional; and (d) deeper understandings of the value of teaching from a cultural framework perspective.</p> <p> <emph>Curriculum and assessment must be academically demanding</emph>. Students will benefit from a curriculum that connects to their world experiences while, at the same time, holds them academically accountable. Thus, curriculum and assessment need to be flexible and creatively structured so as to include content-rich lessons that reflect the complex prior knowledge and experience students bring to school. Assessment needs to be both formative and summative.</p> <p> <emph>Curriculum development must shift to the local level</emph>. In order to develop a curriculum that reflects the lives of the students and their community, a shift needs to occur from the district level and/or state level to the classroom level. At the classroom level, teachers can make meaningful connections to the local community as the catalyst to move students toward a standardized curriculum. In this process, the culturally relevant curriculum is ultimately dependent upon building teacher confidence in dealing with cultural reference points outside of their comfort zones.</p> <p> <emph>School-community-home collaborations must be forged and sustained.</emph> Positive opportunities for interaction among teachers and community members breaks down stereotyped constructions of individuals and leads to inclusion rather than erasure. These collaborations should (a) allow for participation in events structured by the local community, (b) provide opportunities for teachers to contextualize their knowledge of their students, (c) provide shared experiences that help move beyond stereotypical and limited knowledge of students, (d) open new spaces to discuss the diverse and complex range of responses community members can bring to bear on eradicating the achievement gap for their children, and (e) focus school-to-home contacts on the positive rather than the negative reporting of student behavior and learning.</p> <p> <emph>Curriculum must validate and value the lived experiences of students</emph>. We acknowledge that students need to acquire understandings of core concepts in science, history, mathematics, and literature, and we argue against a simple definition of core and single means of defining achievement. A culturally relevant curriculum requires that teachers (a) develop understandings of the ways in which the dominant white culture has been deeply engrained into the standardized curriculum, (b) become more sophisticated in the ways that their students are located and dislocated in relationship to this knowledge, and (c) have supportive experiences that bridge the insights gained from shared complex cultural experiences with a broader multicultural perspective of the content.</p> <hd id="AN0032069704-10">Conclusion</hd> <p>A clear consequence of the increased pressure for accountability and depersonalization of work in districts like Tanglewood is that the individuals in the system are dislocated and less likely to actively take ownership and responsibility for their work. When school does not validate students' complex cultures and experiences, they are essentially silenced. In order to remedy the effects of this erasure of students, we need to engage in practices that will lead to a thoughtful identification of both institutional and personal barriers. We need to implement a more student-centered curriculum. Teachers need support to stand up for the practices they know promote meaningful student learning and achievement with their students while, at the same time, they need encouragement to take responsibility for their practice by actively connecting with the community to improve their impact on students and the communities in which they live. This stance requires school and university collaboration.</p> <p>Because curriculum and instruction continue to align with mainstream, middle-class images, expectations, and standards, the erasure for students of color attending schools in high-poverty urban settings can become pronounced and lead to academic apathy, post-secondary enrollment declines, and higher dropout rates. The recommendations we outline in this document are made with a sense of urgency in the deficiency model, which continues to be used in conjunction with the ratcheting up of standardized expectations. Students in poor urban districts face an "erasure" of their experiences in the classroom and ultimately a "silencing" of their voices not only in school but in society.</p> <p>Graph</p> <ref id="AN0032069704-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrams, L.M., Pedulla, J.J. and Madaus, G.F.2003. Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice., 42: 18–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Apple, M.W.2004. Ideology and curriculum, , 3rd ed., New York: Routledge Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref35" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bartolome, L.I.1994. Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review., 64: 173–194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref29" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beane, J.A., ed. 1995. Toward a coherent curriculum, Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brimijoin, K.2005. Differentiation and high-stakes testing: An oxymoron?. Theory into Practice, 44: 254–261.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brophy, J.E.2002. Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints, Amsterdam/Boston: JAI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chrispeels, J.A., Daly, A.J. and Millhollen, B.Creating resilient educational systems through a strengths-based approach to change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco. April 6–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Condron, D.J. and Roscigno, V.J.2003. Disparities within: Unequal spending and achievement in an urban school district. Sociology of Education, 76: 18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Craig, C.2004. The dragon in school backyards: The influence of mandated testing on school contexts and educators' narrative knowing. Teacher's College Record., 106: 1229–1257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J.1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education, New York: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J.1938. Experience and education, New York: Collier Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epstein, J.L.2001. School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erickson, H.L.2002. Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond facts, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P.2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed, , 30th anniversary edition, New York: Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gay, G.2000. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice, New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gay, G.2002. Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education., 53: 106–116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giroux, H.A.1992. Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education, New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giroux, H.A.2001. Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition, Westport, CT: Bergin &amp; Garvey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooks, B.1994. Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom, New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis, R. and McTaggart, R.2000. "Principals of participatory action research". In Handbook of qualitative research, Edited by: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G.1999. "Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective". In Review of research in education, vol. 24, Edited by: Iran-Nejad, A. and Pearson, D.211–248. Washington, DC: AERA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson-Billings, G.2003. "New directions in multicultural education: Complexities, boundaries, and critical race theory". In Handbook of research on multicultural education, , 2nd ed., Edited by: Banks, J.A. and Banks, C.A. M.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamdin, D.J.1996. Evidence of student attendance as an independent variable in education production function. Journal of Educational Research., 89: 155–162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKernan, J.1996. Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner, , 2nd ed., London: Routledge Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milliken v. Bradley, 418 717 (Unites States Supreme Court, 1974)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montgomery, W.2000. Literature discussion in the elementary school classroom: Developing cultural understanding. Multicultural Education., 8: 33–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieto, S.1994. Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review., 64: 392–426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieto, S.1996. Affirming diversity, , 2nd ed., New York: Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noffke, S.E. and Stevenson, R.B.1995. Educational action research: Becoming practically critical, New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orfield, G. and Kornhaber, M., eds. 2001. Raising Standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (vol. 269), New York: Century Foundation Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schön, D.A.1995. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Aldershot, UK: Arena.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Congress 107th. 2001. No child left behind act of 2001, Washington: United States Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education, U.S. Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Manen, M.1990. Researching lived experience, London: The State University of New York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villegas, A.M. and Lucas, T.2002. Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education., 53: 20–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Glaserfeld, E.1989. Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese., 80: 121–140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L.S.1986. Thought and language, Edited by: Kozulin, A.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells, G.2001. Action, talk and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry, New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0032069704-12"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> <sups>1</sups>Tanglewood is a pseudonym that we have used to maintain anonymity for those who continue to participate with us in this project. Keeping the district anonymous also allows the reader to consider Tanglewood as representative of other similar school districts across the nation.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Christopher Burke; MarthaA. Adler and Maureen Linker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref43"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ810929 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Resisting Erasure: Cultivating Opportunities for a Humanizing Curriculum – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+Christopher%22">Burke, Christopher</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adler%2C+Martha+A%2E%22">Adler, Martha A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Linker%2C+Maureen%22">Linker, Maureen</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Multicultural+Perspectives%22"><i>Multicultural Perspectives</i></searchLink>. Apr 2008 10(2):65-72. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 8 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2008 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Centered+Curriculum%22">Student Centered Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22African+American+Students%22">African American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Poverty%22">Poverty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Standards%22">Academic Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+Class%22">Middle Class</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+Class+Culture%22">Middle Class Culture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Administrator+Relationship%22">Teacher Administrator Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Improvement%22">Educational Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink> – Name: SubjectThesaurus Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Milliken+v+Bradley%22">Milliken v Bradley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22No+Child+Left+Behind+Act+2001%22">No Child Left Behind Act 2001</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/15210960801997924 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1521-0960 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Our research reflects a long-term professional dialogue and inquiry with teachers to develop and refine curriculum to address the needs of students in a high poverty, predominantly African-American school. Through our collaboration, we identify both institutional and personal barriers to changing and implementing a more student-centered curriculum. We also identify teachers' relationships with their students as a resource for effectively reforming the curriculum and propose steps for supporting such change in practice. (Contains 1 footnote.) – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 38 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2008 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ810929 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ810929 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/15210960801997924 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 8 StartPage: 65 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Educational Change Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Centered Curriculum Type: general – SubjectFull: African American Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Cooperation Type: general – SubjectFull: Poverty Type: general – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement Type: general – SubjectFull: School Districts Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Standards Type: general – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests Type: general – SubjectFull: Middle Class Type: general – SubjectFull: Middle Class Culture Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Administrator Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Improvement Type: general – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Milliken v Bradley Type: general – SubjectFull: No Child Left Behind Act 2001 Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Resisting Erasure: Cultivating Opportunities for a Humanizing Curriculum Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burke, Christopher – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Adler, Martha A. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Linker, Maureen IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2008 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1521-0960 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 10 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Multicultural Perspectives Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
