Boyd, Fenice et al. (2006). Real teaching for real diversity: preparing english language arts teachers for 21st century classrooms. English Education, 4 329-350.
When I first read this above article title, I was struck by the authors claim that their theory about teaching diversity possessed realness or authenticity, thus implying that other diversity pedagogy may not be based in reality. I think that from this title itself these scholars are audaciously pointing out that current diversity pedagogy is not realistically addressing the needs of a diverse student body. Instead, much of English curriculum still “promotes a traditional one size fits all model” which fails to take into account the complexity of modern students (Boyd et al 329).
This monolithic approach also marginalizes these students’ valuable cultural experiences because they do not merge neatly into the canon of our society’s overarching Culture. Yet, this neglect does not simply devalue the cultures of students, but more insidiously denigrates the students themselves.
This monolithic approach also marginalizes these students’ valuable cultural experiences because they do not merge neatly into the canon of our society’s overarching Culture. Yet, this neglect does not simply devalue the cultures of students, but more insidiously denigrates the students themselves.
After this somber revelation, the authors do not leave the reader to wallow in futile guilt but encourage us to active transformation. They argue that the first step educators must take is “to acknowledge that English teachers and teacher educators are complicit in the reproduction of racial and socioeconomic inequality all across U.S. schools” (Boyd et al 331). This admission of complicity is vital because it minimalizes a counterproductive blame game that would distract scholars from the goal of genuine change.
After advocating this initial step, the authors then provide us with a doctrinal statement of sorts that lists a set of beliefs, all which include variations of the admonition for teachers to be both culturally cognizant and socially engaged. In other words, it is not enough to be aware of diversity in the classroom or even to acknowledge difference. Teachers must also actively address power structures that are problematic to their diverse student body.
After advocating this initial step, the authors then provide us with a doctrinal statement of sorts that lists a set of beliefs, all which include variations of the admonition for teachers to be both culturally cognizant and socially engaged. In other words, it is not enough to be aware of diversity in the classroom or even to acknowledge difference. Teachers must also actively address power structures that are problematic to their diverse student body.
Perhaps the most powerful declaration on the authors "outline of belief statements" is the first one: “teaching is a political act” (Boyd et al 332). I think that this statement alone subverts the traditional rhetoric that educators are objective entities through which objective knowledge flows. Instead, the authors admit that teaching transfers specific ideologies to students while framing the information as objective. However, this admission is, I think, a double edged sword that can be used for good or ill. Allowing teachers to view their craft as a political act will naturally incline them to insert their personal politics into teaching.
While that is not inherently bad, not every teacher’s politics will adhere to a diverse learning experience. Yet, diversity ideology cannot be forced on teachers because that will make it as stringent as monolcultural pedagogy. Great care therefore must be taken to buttress this political freedom with a benefit driven diversity curriculum. That is to say, teachers must understand the benefits of authentic diversity in their classroom to both themselves and their students in order to completely acquiesce to this thought structure. I would presume to say if this does not occur, many teachers will not willingly adjust their politics nor their pedagogy.
While that is not inherently bad, not every teacher’s politics will adhere to a diverse learning experience. Yet, diversity ideology cannot be forced on teachers because that will make it as stringent as monolcultural pedagogy. Great care therefore must be taken to buttress this political freedom with a benefit driven diversity curriculum. That is to say, teachers must understand the benefits of authentic diversity in their classroom to both themselves and their students in order to completely acquiesce to this thought structure. I would presume to say if this does not occur, many teachers will not willingly adjust their politics nor their pedagogy.
No comments:
Post a Comment