I love this essay. It's the definition of deeply engaged: informed by extensive personal experience, intent on steelmanning but also thoroughly critiquing the policy and ideology it disagrees with. It taught me a lot about issues I hadn't fully thought through. Should be shared widely!
Exceptional insights. Students may want to identify with a group but their concern focuses more on fitting in with peers. Race issues dissolve when deep learning activities engage genuine interest. This process derails from outside influences such as gang pressure, limited consequences for disruptions, and artificial educational templates. Students immediately recognize the sham. The only truly effective social justice effort would promote removing shackles that prevent authentic education. Unrealistic to expect a student-generated revolution in that direction, which explains why government foisting of such shallow, one-size-fits all programs prevail. Freedom Writers and scores of similar efforts around the country prove what works for each individual—and why.
Great piece. Glad to see that someone as articulate, reasonable, and wise as Ms. Stangel-Plowe is FAIR's Director of Educational Programs! One small thing I appreciated: Despite her own positive experiences with student-centered learning, she notes that a more traditional approach -- so often caricatured as rote memorization and haughty lectures -- can also be successful in encouraging engagement and curiosity.
To pre-emptively confront the inevitable accusations of privileged, disingenuous, and harmful "colorblindness" that will be levied against FAIR's "pro-human" approach, it would be good to acknowledge that there are times when racial/ethnic/sexual identity -- among students as well as in a book or subject being studied -- will come up and when it will be necessary and appropriate to address. Perhaps the author or others can come up with examples of constructive engagement with those questions, at age-appropriate levels, similar to her excellent example of the Korean-American student and the Nigerian book.
Dana, I remember you from the video that was released subsequent to your resignation and I commend you for your courage and integrity.
As a mother of public school students in NY, I am familiar with the culturally inclusive model and Ladson-Billing’s work. I was also already familiar with some of ideas coming from Freire, and the significant ideological overlap that exists between CRT and critical pedagogy. Were you aware that Ladson-Bulling lists CRT as one of her main research interest?
When my children entered nursery school I also did a bit of reading on student-centered educational approaches such as Regio Emilia. I’ve always liked such models, but share many of your concerns. When reading through the Culturally Reaponsive Sustaining Education (CR-SE) framework presented by NY state, I wondered how students were going to be taught to think independently while also applying a critical lens (“through which they challenge inequitable systems of access, power, and privilege,”). I understand that in literary analysis a critical lens can take many forms, but according to the CR-SE’s own pamphlet, this critical lens is very clearly political/ideological and very much resembles Freire’s critical consciousness.
It is very confusing to me how the framework defines “sociopolitically conscious” as both “inclusive minded” while simultaneously asserting that it involves students who “critically examine both historical and contemporary power structures.” Does such inclusivity also apply to students/teachers/parents whose views regarding power structures do not align with the framework’s own?
I think part of my confusion derives from the fact that the constructs “critical thinking” and “critical consciousness” can have very distinct meanings. Whereas critical thinking correlates more with analytical techniques and the scientific method (both which place great value on objectivity and the inclusion of diverse perspectives), critical consciousness deals with a type of radical criticism specifically directed toward the analytic approaches associated with critical thinking. My concern is whether these two very different constructs are at all compatible. I wish there more educational resources available for parents expounding on the difference between two so they are not conflated. My inkling is that many parents must assume (by virtue of habit) that when the framework uses terms such as “to critically examine,” this refers to the analytical techniques that are part of critical thinking. Is that really the case, however?
Thank you for this excellent piece, especially for your telling example of the Korean-American boy moved by a story about a Nigerian girl--and for your urgent plea for pro-human, rather than group-identity-driven, education! I will cite it to the many “woke” art teachers I encounter. As evidenced by the 2022 convention of the National Art Education Association, just concluded, far too many art educators have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Marxist-inspired identity politics and critical pedagogy you so ably deconstruct. See “Confronting Woke Groupthink in Art Education,” tinyurl.com/bdhtvj45 .
Race essentialism denies the possibility of universal truths, which is why race essentialists seek to review and revise everything from the Constitution to comic books using a racial identity lens. But as far as I am concerned, the principles expressed in the Constitution are universal in application, even if it was written by white men; and as a kid of color, I had no problem identifying with Superman or Green Lantern or whatever, because those stories (unlike modern woke comics) likewise generally had universal appeal.
It all comes back to values, many of which are under assault because they do not fit the emerging narratives It would be interesting for CRE proponents to articulate and defend their values and explain why so many of our traditional values should be discarded. Let's start with the notion of personal responsibility.
"CRE is an educational theory that calls for recreating K-12 curriculum so that it “centers” student cultures—by which it generally means skin color, ancestry, ethnicity, or gender. Founded upon the work of Gloria Ladson-Billings, CRE argues for linking student culture to the classroom for African-American and other underserved students."
The core of {"the notorious"} GLB's "centering" of culture is *not* skin color, ancestry, ethnicity, or gender so much as the shared *racialized history* of "Black Americans" — as a "people" — whose {collective} psychology has been forged under the oppression of white supremacy in the USA. She is channeling (late) du Bois, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael {+SNCC}, LeRoi Jones, and others who rejected the integrationist {"Liberal"} perspective of MLK in favor of a quasi Black Nationalism. That comes to acute realization in Critical Race Theory {Bell, Crenshaw et al.}, of course, which is one of the approaches she leans on to develop CRE.
As I've noted elsewhere, I think FAIR-minded folks should read CRT proponent Gary Peller on this to appreciate the nuance — otherwise our framing of the issue is bound to get in the way of effective dialogue toward establishing a common culture of ... *understanding* ...
I think this article sucks. All the citations are to other self-eating conservative reactionary hogwash, the board of directors listed at the bottom are the same- conservative fear-mongering and pining for damaged neo-liberal norms hinted at throughout. No thanks.
And there is the essence of it all: trust. Never use people as a means to an end but always treat people as ends in themselves. If my students do not trust me not to use them for my own ends, they will never trust me and my teaching success will fizzle out within only a few semesters. I will be the agitator or the manipulator or the propagandist but certainly not their trusted teacher. My classes will be circus performances some will become my dancing bears and others just observers of the political performances.
Thank you for a very thoughtful, insightful and engaging essay. I hope you will have the opportunity to express your opinions to a wider audience and to continue to participate in the increasing and ongoing debate about the purposes, practices and status of education in this country. I am hopeful that the debate will begin to include a comparison of the prevailing educational systems in the United States with those of other countries which focus more of the school day and educational resources available on providing a more complete fund of information, the tools necessary to engage in deep critical thinking, and a mastery of conventional core academic subjects unencumbered by idiosyncratic and ultimately regressive notions of race.
I love this essay. It encapsulates exactly what we SHOULD be focusing on to create the world we desire. Beautifully written. Perfectly stated. Thank you!
I love this essay. It's the definition of deeply engaged: informed by extensive personal experience, intent on steelmanning but also thoroughly critiquing the policy and ideology it disagrees with. It taught me a lot about issues I hadn't fully thought through. Should be shared widely!
Exceptional insights. Students may want to identify with a group but their concern focuses more on fitting in with peers. Race issues dissolve when deep learning activities engage genuine interest. This process derails from outside influences such as gang pressure, limited consequences for disruptions, and artificial educational templates. Students immediately recognize the sham. The only truly effective social justice effort would promote removing shackles that prevent authentic education. Unrealistic to expect a student-generated revolution in that direction, which explains why government foisting of such shallow, one-size-fits all programs prevail. Freedom Writers and scores of similar efforts around the country prove what works for each individual—and why.
Great piece. Glad to see that someone as articulate, reasonable, and wise as Ms. Stangel-Plowe is FAIR's Director of Educational Programs! One small thing I appreciated: Despite her own positive experiences with student-centered learning, she notes that a more traditional approach -- so often caricatured as rote memorization and haughty lectures -- can also be successful in encouraging engagement and curiosity.
To pre-emptively confront the inevitable accusations of privileged, disingenuous, and harmful "colorblindness" that will be levied against FAIR's "pro-human" approach, it would be good to acknowledge that there are times when racial/ethnic/sexual identity -- among students as well as in a book or subject being studied -- will come up and when it will be necessary and appropriate to address. Perhaps the author or others can come up with examples of constructive engagement with those questions, at age-appropriate levels, similar to her excellent example of the Korean-American student and the Nigerian book.
Thank you for this--a wonderful expression of what teaching means (and what it doesn't). I agree completely!
Dana, I remember you from the video that was released subsequent to your resignation and I commend you for your courage and integrity.
As a mother of public school students in NY, I am familiar with the culturally inclusive model and Ladson-Billing’s work. I was also already familiar with some of ideas coming from Freire, and the significant ideological overlap that exists between CRT and critical pedagogy. Were you aware that Ladson-Bulling lists CRT as one of her main research interest?
When my children entered nursery school I also did a bit of reading on student-centered educational approaches such as Regio Emilia. I’ve always liked such models, but share many of your concerns. When reading through the Culturally Reaponsive Sustaining Education (CR-SE) framework presented by NY state, I wondered how students were going to be taught to think independently while also applying a critical lens (“through which they challenge inequitable systems of access, power, and privilege,”). I understand that in literary analysis a critical lens can take many forms, but according to the CR-SE’s own pamphlet, this critical lens is very clearly political/ideological and very much resembles Freire’s critical consciousness.
It is very confusing to me how the framework defines “sociopolitically conscious” as both “inclusive minded” while simultaneously asserting that it involves students who “critically examine both historical and contemporary power structures.” Does such inclusivity also apply to students/teachers/parents whose views regarding power structures do not align with the framework’s own?
I think part of my confusion derives from the fact that the constructs “critical thinking” and “critical consciousness” can have very distinct meanings. Whereas critical thinking correlates more with analytical techniques and the scientific method (both which place great value on objectivity and the inclusion of diverse perspectives), critical consciousness deals with a type of radical criticism specifically directed toward the analytic approaches associated with critical thinking. My concern is whether these two very different constructs are at all compatible. I wish there more educational resources available for parents expounding on the difference between two so they are not conflated. My inkling is that many parents must assume (by virtue of habit) that when the framework uses terms such as “to critically examine,” this refers to the analytical techniques that are part of critical thinking. Is that really the case, however?
Thank you for this excellent piece, especially for your telling example of the Korean-American boy moved by a story about a Nigerian girl--and for your urgent plea for pro-human, rather than group-identity-driven, education! I will cite it to the many “woke” art teachers I encounter. As evidenced by the 2022 convention of the National Art Education Association, just concluded, far too many art educators have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Marxist-inspired identity politics and critical pedagogy you so ably deconstruct. See “Confronting Woke Groupthink in Art Education,” tinyurl.com/bdhtvj45 .
Race essentialism denies the possibility of universal truths, which is why race essentialists seek to review and revise everything from the Constitution to comic books using a racial identity lens. But as far as I am concerned, the principles expressed in the Constitution are universal in application, even if it was written by white men; and as a kid of color, I had no problem identifying with Superman or Green Lantern or whatever, because those stories (unlike modern woke comics) likewise generally had universal appeal.
Wonderful, Dana, thank you!
It all comes back to values, many of which are under assault because they do not fit the emerging narratives It would be interesting for CRE proponents to articulate and defend their values and explain why so many of our traditional values should be discarded. Let's start with the notion of personal responsibility.
Great work as always Dana — one note:
"CRE is an educational theory that calls for recreating K-12 curriculum so that it “centers” student cultures—by which it generally means skin color, ancestry, ethnicity, or gender. Founded upon the work of Gloria Ladson-Billings, CRE argues for linking student culture to the classroom for African-American and other underserved students."
The core of {"the notorious"} GLB's "centering" of culture is *not* skin color, ancestry, ethnicity, or gender so much as the shared *racialized history* of "Black Americans" — as a "people" — whose {collective} psychology has been forged under the oppression of white supremacy in the USA. She is channeling (late) du Bois, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael {+SNCC}, LeRoi Jones, and others who rejected the integrationist {"Liberal"} perspective of MLK in favor of a quasi Black Nationalism. That comes to acute realization in Critical Race Theory {Bell, Crenshaw et al.}, of course, which is one of the approaches she leans on to develop CRE.
As I've noted elsewhere, I think FAIR-minded folks should read CRT proponent Gary Peller on this to appreciate the nuance — otherwise our framing of the issue is bound to get in the way of effective dialogue toward establishing a common culture of ... *understanding* ...
Great work — inspiring with solid advice. :-)
I think this article sucks. All the citations are to other self-eating conservative reactionary hogwash, the board of directors listed at the bottom are the same- conservative fear-mongering and pining for damaged neo-liberal norms hinted at throughout. No thanks.
And there is the essence of it all: trust. Never use people as a means to an end but always treat people as ends in themselves. If my students do not trust me not to use them for my own ends, they will never trust me and my teaching success will fizzle out within only a few semesters. I will be the agitator or the manipulator or the propagandist but certainly not their trusted teacher. My classes will be circus performances some will become my dancing bears and others just observers of the political performances.
Culturally Responsive Education looks like the cover and companion-plot to Critical Race Theory.
Thank you for a very thoughtful, insightful and engaging essay. I hope you will have the opportunity to express your opinions to a wider audience and to continue to participate in the increasing and ongoing debate about the purposes, practices and status of education in this country. I am hopeful that the debate will begin to include a comparison of the prevailing educational systems in the United States with those of other countries which focus more of the school day and educational resources available on providing a more complete fund of information, the tools necessary to engage in deep critical thinking, and a mastery of conventional core academic subjects unencumbered by idiosyncratic and ultimately regressive notions of race.
Yet more race essentialism. Can't wait for this crap to pass.
I love this essay. It encapsulates exactly what we SHOULD be focusing on to create the world we desire. Beautifully written. Perfectly stated. Thank you!