From Rethinking to Reacting
A Call for a Resistance Revolution in Teacher Education-
Beginning the Fall Semester, 2007
Four Arrows, aka Don Trent Jacobs
This is a call for all teacher-educators and their teacher candidates to
revolt, beginning with the Fall school semester just ahead. No more research
articles that show how current practices are failing. No more complaining
about policies that diminish authentic teaching and learning. No more
“rethinking schools.” It is time to resist. I am sending this communiqué to as
many forums as possible so you will not be acting alone, unless we have all
lost our courage completely.
The strategy for the revolution I am calling for is triple-tiered. First,
resist all standardized measurement protocols. This includes standing firmly
against No Child Left Behind, against the National Council of Accreditation
for Teacher Education (NCATE) and against letter or numerical grading
policies. Second, emphasize social and ecological justice in all classroom
activities and assignments in spite of the arguments against so doing. This
includes, where appropriate, encouraging students to consider possibilities of
criminal wrongdoing by the U.S. government with regards to the suppression of
environmental science relative to global warming; complicity in the events of
September 11, 2001; and deceit in its actions relating to the Iraq war. Third,
do your best to implement at least one part of the vision or mission statement
adopted by your university or College of Education. Pay special attention to
the one that is probably NOT being followed.
It is important that all revolutionary resistance be supported by good
educational research. This will give confidence to your actions in the face of
opposition. I will do this in my own College of Education at Northern Arizona
University beginning with the submission of my “Methods for Teaching Social
Studies” syllabus in August. In it I will clearly state my disagreement with
Education Secretary Margaret Spelling’s recent statement that No Child Left
Behind is “nearly perfect.” I will state my intentions regarding class
inquiries about deceptions surrounding 9/11 by quoting similar material from
Professor David Smith’s book, Trying to Teach in a Season of Great Untruth:
Globalization, Empire and the Crises of Pedagogy. I will refer to a resolution
recently passed by the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National
Council for the Social Studies at its annual conference in Washington, DC,
November 30, 2006, where NCSS and the American Historical Association urged
its members “to take a public stand as citizens on behalf of the values and
goals taught in social studies and necessary to the practice of our
profession; and to do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy
conclusion.” I will restate Postman and Weingartner’s precepts for good
learning, including the need for a keen sense of relevance, open-mindedness,
and an emphasis on the importance of inquiry.
Under “grading policy” for my syllabus, I will state simply that this will be
“negotiated” the first day of class. However, in terms of our revolutionary
strategy, I will share with you my plans for this negotiation. First I will
explain that I do not believe in grading. I will refer to the abundant studies
that show that grading generally depresses creativity, gets in the way of
complex learning and undermines genuine interest in the subject. I will say
that in previous years the class and I agreed on giving everyone “Bs” if they
missed no more than three classes, agreeing that the material would be too
difficult to master in one semester. One student appealed nonetheless. Against
all logic, the consumerism mentality of the system gave in and the student was
given the “A.” Thus, this year everyone get’s the “A” grade. The very fact
that the students will be thinking critically might warrant a “superior”
rating, although the whole affair if somehwhat ridiculous. I suspect that
there will be a class consensus to support this policy, although the college
at large will be appalled in spite of the fact that grade inflation at the
College of Education is such that around 89 percent of the teacher candidates
are somehow “A” students anyway.
My stand against NCATE will be especially challenging since my college is in
the early stages of preparing for its first NCATE accreditation and most
faculty will have implementation responsibilities. However, in addition to
standing by those conclusions of educators who write about how NCATE
trivializes the truly important dimensions of teaching and learning, I will
also stand against NCATE because of its recent decision to end its support for
“social justice” in teacher education because they believe it is not more than
a political position.
In fact, the “social justice” imperative for teacher education is a
foundation for this revolt. Thus, I will devote a little space here to talk
about why NCATE removed this language from its list of dispositions and why
the many arguments against university vision statements that refer to social
justice are flimsey. If it is wrong or “political” for universities to support
social justice then the notion of an Internal Review Board for protecting
human subjects should also be criticized. IRB policies stem from the 1979
Belmont Report and the concerns for the protection of human life and values
expressed therein. If IRBs can structure justice into research ethics, teacher
education can include it in its guidelines.
In fact, all of the arguments against universities using “social justice” as
a goal are insufficient. Moral relativity no longer has a leg to stand upon.
The complaint by libertarians that social justice implementation violates its
non-aggression principle does not ultimately hold water when referring to an
educational approach, not some form of coersion or violence. The concern that
social justice may be unfeasible economically is but a reflection of a way of
thinking guided by an almost exclusive focus on quarterly profit and loss
statements. Saying that the subject only applies to the social sciences is not
accurate, for “word problems” in math and applications in science are
excellent ways to bring forth both awareness and solutions to social and
ecological problems.
Finally, the objection that no one can agree on a definition is also bogus. It
is easy to see the common theme in all of the definitions that have been
offered. “Social justice” is large enough to bring together a variety of
perspectives on ways to move toward a world in which we treat one another with
love and compassion and where we recognize one another’s value and the
interconnections we all have. If the meaning or goals of education have
nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of a healthy society, then and
only then would I be willing to call off the social justice agenda for
educators and retreat from my own call for a revolution of resistance
beginning this Fall.
The third and final tier I ask that we address in this revolt of resistance
relates to honoring or redefining, if necessary, your university or college’s
vision and mission statements. Not many visions truly support the
corporatization and militarization of education that currently exists and most
do make a commitment to the idea of “social justice” even if they have gone to
great lengths to avoid using the phrase. A brief look at such statements for
universities that are posted on the web reveals a clear mandate for the kind
of education that requires challenging the false rationales for the “tougher
standards” movement, for questioning corporate approaches to teaching and
learning, and for making an authentic commitment to social and ecological
justice in a contemporary world:
• “We support quality of life for our consituents.
• “To engage the global community.
• “To prepare educators to work in diverse communities.
• “We will address equity in students.
• “To improve the lives of individuals in complex societies.
• “ To prepare our students for community service.
• “To enhance commitment to the principles of democracy.
Even where vision statements are sorely lacking in such language, the
universities that claim them still use phrases like “collaborative
participation” or a “caring environment.” At NAU’s College of Education, our
vision is “preparing educational professionals who are committed to creating
the schools for tomorrow.” It would not take much interpretative prowess to
make a connection between the agenda for our revolt and the vision of the
organization. With virtually every life system in our world being in decline,
what kind of schools for tomorrow might be envisioned that do not emphasize
challenging the status quo? Making the connection will you to use the vision
statement to support your “civil disobedience” with regards to procedures that
are barriers to authentic authentic work toward fulfilling the vision.
If the vision statements do not adequately serve to support your actions, have
a look at the university’s strategic plan. For example, Northern Arizona
University’s new strategic plans calls for achieving “multi-cultural
understanding as a priority of educational civic life.” One of its seven goals
is to “become the nation’s leading university serving Native Americans.” The
College of Education’s vision refers to its “long standing commitment to
Native American students.” Contradictions abound here and I plan on using my
own text for my courses as a result- a recent University of Texas Press
publication entitled, Unlearning the Language of Conquest: Scholars Expose
Anti-Indianism in America to help rectify them. For but one example, the
university boasts about its “majestic San Francisco Peaks” in its faculty
recruitment ads and about skiing its slopes in recruitment efforts aimed at
students. Yet all of the twenty-three Arizona Indian tribes, who hold the
Peaks to be sacred spiritual grounds, have passionately fought against using
recyled waste water to create artificial snow on their sacred lands while NAU
has refused to take an official position on the subject in support of the
Native people.
Each of our colleges of education, perhaps each of us ourselves, are guilty of
such hypocrisy somewhere along the line. In the Fall of 2007, it is time to
put ourselves back in balance through an action that will move our “rethinking
” of schools to something more practical. The revolt just might catch on.
Follow
While I agree in principle with most of what 4 Arrows says, his call for revolution rings hollow for the field. Doesn’t he get it that teacher educators are among the most passive, the most conservative folks in higher ed? He truly is pissing into the wind on this one.
Rather, we need to put pressure on our Deans who have a direct pathway to Presidents and Chancellors. It’s this group, who are also very conservative, on which we need to assert some significant pressure. They purport to “lead” us, but all too often, they promote agendas that seldom question issues like standards or NCLB. In fact, most Deans actually support these issues, in spite of what their faculty says.
Revolution, as called for by 4 Arrows, is a tired cliche that will do nothing to change the system. In fact, his approach will further marginalize the teacher education.
pmm
Hello Perry and thanks for your frank comments. In truth, I think you are correct. This may be no more than a symbolic intervention that, like “pissing in the wind,” may serve to soil me more than help the movement we both want to serve. Yet what is my alternative? What are the alternatives for all of us? To continue “doing our job” and implementing policies that contradict good research and harm students or the world at large? Because university faculty and administration are conservative, we are to resist challenging their positions? How do we “put pressure on deans” and why is such resistance not a form of such pressure? Do you really think meetings, letters, articles, etc., will work? Have they worked? What movement in history has not relied upon resistance?
I agree that I may be wasting my time but the only way this can backfire for the movement is because more people are not willing to join in!
Four Arrows:
I read your post on Where the Blog Has No Name and wasn’t able to
successfully enter a comment.
I think what you are suggesting is necessary and important. In most
respects, faculty silence themselves. We are considered some of the
most
educated people on the planet- if WE are unwilling to step forward and
use
our skills, then what does that say for someone with less workplace
freedom, such as a worker making minimum wage (although in many cases
these workers can teach those of us in academia a thing or two about
resistance!)?
One thing I have started doing in my classes is to flat out say that it
is
not possible to both teach authentically/do best practice while using
standardized testing. It just can’t be done. Students are always
asking
me about the issue of keeping one’s ideals while still having to teach
with those tests. I think what they are REALLY asking is “can I resist
and not get fired?” I tell them that I can no longer ethically pretend
that we can “adapt” to the big tests. We have to start somewhere and
getting teachers to admit that testing is a problem and that it
interferes
with best practice is how we have to start. Most teacher education
faculty are in denial. They think they can teach progressive survival
skills to students. This will no longer work. Testing has encroached
upon the curriculum to such a degree that many “failing” schools are
already using scripted instruction! The suburbs haven’t felt the
impact,
but is there any reason to think they won’t? These are the kinds of
issues I am bringing up for the first time in my classes. Usually the
response is silence at first while they process such blunt statements,
but
students are at least starting to talk about the futility of trying to
teach creatively under the shadow of the tests.
I just wanted you to know that you aren’t alone in trying to resist the
tests. I’ve already signed the Educators Roundtable petition to
abolish
NCLB and have let students know that there IS a resistance movement
that
is growing.
–Faith Wilson
Assistant Professor of Education
Aurora University