Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-set and Equitable Education. Principal Leadership, (January), 26-
29. Elbow, P. (2010). Good Enough Evaluation. Emeritus Faculty Author Gallery 37 (2010), 1-18. Emmanuelle, C. (2015). Teaching Young Men About Feminism and Violence. Feminist Economics, 2 (1, Fall), 1-5. Guckenheimer, D. and J. K. Schmidt (2013). Contradictions Within the Classroom: Masculinities in Feminist Studies. Women’s Studies 42 (1, Fall), 486-508. Hickey, C. and A. Mooney (2018). Challenging the pervasiveness of hypermasculinity and heteronormativity in an all-boys’ school. Australian Association for Research in Education, 45 (4, December), 237-253. hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. London, UK: Pluto Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Imms, W. (2000). Multiple Masculinities and the Schooling of Boys. Canadian Journal of Education, 25 (2), 152-165. Martino, W. et. al (2005). Interrogating Single-Sex Classes as a Strategy for Addressing Boys’ Educational and Social Needs. Oxford Review of Education, 31 (2, June), 327-254. Nakkula, M. and E. Toshalis (2015). Understanding Youth: Adolscent Development for Educators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Reed, L. (1999). Troubling Boys and Disturbing Discourses on Masculinity and Schooling: a feminist exploration of current debates and interventions concerning boys in school. Gender and Education, 11 (1), 93-110. Riley, T. (2014) Boys are Like Puppies, Girls Aim to Please: How Teachers’ Gender Stereotypes may Influence Student Placement Decisions and Classroom Teaching. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60 (1, Spring), 1-21. Salas, K.D. (2004). The Best Discipline is Good Curriculum. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Inc. Spencer, L. (2015). Engaging Undergraduates in Feminist Classrooms: An Exploration of Professors’ Practices. Equity and Excellence in Education, 48 (2), 195-211. Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The “Boy Turn” in Research on Gender and Education. Review of Educational Research, 73 (4, Winter), 471-498. Wiggins, G. (1989). A True Test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 70 (9, May), 703-713. Wiggins, G. and J. McTighe (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
0 Comments
Sarah Lloyd
Independent Schools and Public Purpose Wednesday, October 11, 2017
9th graders are students in transition. After being at the top of the hierarchy in middle school, these students have to suddenly navigate as the absolute bottom of the hierarchy in high school, all while wrestling with their identity development and striving to find a niche for themselves (Nakkula and Toshalis, 2015). For these reasons, 9th graders pose both a unique challenge for inquiry work with feminist lenses, but also a unique opportunity to expose them to different lenses and meaning-making filters early in their identity development so that they might have a broader understanding of the world around them as they grow up.
The development of new lenses and meaning-making filters seems to be dependent on fluency in each of the three codes--awareness, understanding, and frequency--presented in this paper. While not necessarily linear, there also seems to be some correlation between understanding and awareness, though some students fluctuate between different levels of awareness, depending on the kinds of inequality being discussed. Because understanding of inequality is intellectual at its core, a student can have the intellectual understanding of inequality while still being completely unaware of how the inequality actually presents itself and influences the life of the person or group experiencing it. This is exemplified by several students’ responses to questions about an informational video about femicide (the intentional murder of women by men based on gender bias) in Latin America. They were asked to watch the video and then respond to a series of questions about the video for a homework assignment. In response to the question “How do cultural norms and machismo contribute to violence against women?” three students responded in the following ways: “Machismo is the ideal dominant man who has the impression that women have no value except sex and making food in the house. It shows how men feel about women and how they treat them. The Latin American culture is way different from what we experience in America.” “Men think they are superior and can do whatever they want to women who they think are inferior.” “The idea of machismo does not value women.” These responses indicated that the students have watched the video and understood the discussion on how machismo--the ideal of a Latin American man--influence violence against women. The same three students responded to the question “Do you think about gender often? Why or why not?” in the following ways: “I do not really think about gender because I feel as if I was raised right to know how to treat women. I look at them the same way as I would most of my friends. Gender does not really matter to me, so I do not think about it often.” “I do not think about gender often because I did not grow up learning that the gender of a person will tell you what they can or cannot do.” “No, I mainly focus on academics and in my free time, games.” All three of these students could intellectually recognize the factors that led to a dangerous situation for women in some Latin American countries--machismo and a male-dominated culture--but failed to recognize gender in their own lives. Two of these students even attributed their lack of awareness of gender to the way in which they were raised. In this particular circumstance, all three of these students had an understanding of femicide--some more nuanced and deeper than others--but were unaware of how gender norms can contribute to violence in the region and across the world. Some of the understanding and awareness is coupled with comfort level, which is particularly pertinent to discuss with 9th graders, who are capable of understanding inequality without being aware of their own experience with it. “I do not like talking about marginalized groups because I feel very awkward doing it,” wrote one student in a mid-year check-in survey that asked what topics in class they did not like. “I personally think that people can be to [sic] quick to assumptions and judge men [sic] before I can explain. It is not that I hate the topic, I just do not like the atmosphere about the topic,” he continued. This sentiment is often echoed during class discussions when women’s issues or other inequalities are discussed--there is vocal pushback during class from numerous students--which indicates that there is a base level of understanding of inequality and a privilege to ignore it when they feel uncomfortable. Comments that include “I don’t know why we need to talk about this again,” and “Ms. Lloyd, can we not today?”, along with visible eye rolls when lessons on inequality come about can be disheartening, especially when I was personally invested in the lesson, but have also proved to be valuable in recognizing when understanding and awareness do not correlate with each other. A student’s awareness is independent from his understanding of inequality and often has a lot to do with whether or not he feels comfortable with how the lens is being applied. There has been significantly more pushback on lessons that have been more overtly feminist--lessons that are specifically about inequality or women’s issues--than there has been when the lessons were more covert--using women as an authority or expert on a subject. One of the first activities our class did was to watch Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie’s TED Talk on the danger of a single story. The same student who expressed a dislike for talking about marginalized groups wrote this in his response: I thought the talk was meaningful and was cool play on marginalization and a different perspective on that issue. I personally never feel marginalized but I understand how other people do. Because other people feel marginalized, which is not a good feeling, it is relevant to history class. This message can be applied to history class by going over the past issues and present issues and comparing them to see how far, or not far we have come as a society. This student, who does not like to talk about marginalization in group settings because it made him feel awkward, both understood what marginalization is and was aware enough to recognize that he rarely feels marginalized and that when others do, it is a bad thing for society. His thoughts were echoed by a classmate, who said “As a white male I feel like characters in shows and video games act and speak like me. This does not mean I have not noticed that other people are under represented in the mainstream media.” This particular student has appeared to be self-aware in that he recognizes his gender and his race have given him the privilege of not being marginalized, but he also recognizes that others who do not have identify the same way face discrimination or are underrepresented by media. One correlation that I have discovered is between awareness and frequency. When students become more aware of inequality, they tend to want to discuss it more. This looks like students recognizing inequality in class discussions, writing about it in journal reflections, and choosing to answer questions aimed at inequality on essays and tests when there is an option to answer other questions that are not inequality-related. On the first test of the year in September, only two of 31 students made the choice to answer a question on inequality and only four students of 31 chose to write their first essay on issues of inequality in Latin America. When given the choice, only a small number of boys would choose to write or discuss gender or inequality at the beginning of the year. This began to change as the year progressed and our class became more and more exposed to the feminist meaning-making lenses I am using to help teach history. On the latest test, the essay question option included a choice to write about two specific types of inequality in North Africa and the Middle East and to connect them in an essay. 24 of 31 students chose to use gender as one type of inequality included in their essay (other types of inequality included income, education, and religious inequalities). The most common combination chosen was gender and education. In five months, the percentage of students choosing to write or discuss inequality rose significantly. While this could be because of increased discussion of inequalities in class, it could also be a product of increased understanding and awareness through their newly acquired meaning-making lenses. As my students began to more frequently discuss inequality, there is a sense of increased understanding and awareness from my students. On an essay about a particular issue in Latin America in October, one student chose to write about the issue of child marriage and explained that families decided to marry their girls off because “girls are more expensive because of products and clothing.” This same student four months later wrote about gender and educational inequality on his North Africa and Middle East test essay and in explaining the issues surrounding the second-class citizenship of women in many countries of the region, particularly in the realm of political involvement, thoughtfully wrote “it is very hard to have representative politics with only half the population and in this case, only men.” Another student, who has been consistently self-aware, also wrote on political gender inequality in the region and said: There are also many restrictions on women in government, and this has made it hard for women to advocate for change. In countries such as Yemen, 0% of the government is female,and in Oman only 1% of the government is female. This has lead to laws such as the one in Bahrain that there is nothing legally wrong with marital rape or abuse and in Saudi Arabia that a woman who is raped has legally comited [sic] adultery, and can be charged accordingly. The outdated beliefs and laws in the Middle East and North Africa surrounding women's rights are dangerous,unfair, and need to be addressed immediately. The convergence of responses from two students who differ greatly in terms of their awareness trajectory indicates that increased exposure to feminist meaning-making lenses can help a student who has very little awareness for the ramifications of inequality on other people. My inquiry question was evaluated through two sections of 9th grade World Cultures at Gilman--an all-boys’ K-12 prep school in Baltimore, MD--with a total of 31 male students. A broad survey of non-Western regions of the world, the World Cultures curriculum seeks for students to understand the key concepts of regionalization and globalization through in-depth surveys of five of the world’s regions: Latin America and the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia. In each region, students study geography and climate, history, culture, economy, and geopolitical relations with the goal of having a fuller picture of the region as it relates to the rest of the world, as well as how it exist independently of other regions.
Classes meet for 70 minutes every other day on a 10-day cycle. The class is taught in a lecture hall style classroom, which poses unique challenges to class dynamic, attention, and discussions--the default teaching style feels like it should be lecturing, so more dynamic lessons such as collaboration or seminars take more creativity to create--but also offers a unique advantages that have influenced the class atmosphere, including the ability to host guest faculty members with a lot of ease because of the size of the space, as well as a good atmosphere to practice public presentations and speaking. The two sections that I teach meet on the same cycle day and are back-to-back periods. My identity as a young straight white woman has informed my teaching practice, particularly in an all-boys’ setting. My gender is something that I think about frequently, even when students do not. My roles at Gilman include Assistant Water Polo coach, Head JV Swimming coach, and faculty advisor to the Gender and Sexuality Alliance (GSA), which has allowed me to meet and develop relationships with students that I do not have in class. Three of my students are also on teams that I coach, which has added a more nuanced dynamic to our relationship. Self-Reported Identities of Students Below are tables that display the self-reported identities of my students based on an identity survey given on the first day of class this year. Self-Reported Gender Identity Male Female Other/Prefer not to say Total Number of Students 31 0 0 Self-Reported Racial Demographics of Students White East Asian Black (including Afro-Caribbean) Mixed race Latino/ Hispanic South Asian Total Number of Students 18 5 4 2 1 1 Self-Reported Languages Spoken at Home English Russian Chinese Korean Spanish Total Number of Students 30 1 3 2 1 Self-Reported Parental Marital Status Married Divorced Single Parent Total Number of Students 23 4 4 Self-Reported Number of Years at Gilman Five or Fewer Six or More Total Number of Students 18 13 Self-Reported Sexual Orientation Heterosexual LGBTQ+ Total Number of Students 31 0 These self-reported identities served to help me categorize and understand my students more fully in both the personal and the academic sense. It helped me to see how my personality and life experience would mesh or match up with my students and also informed the steps I took to create an engaging, safe, and respectful community in my classroom. Above all else, I wanted my classroom to develop a trusting relationship between myself, my students, and between classmates. While my students knew that I was conducting pedagogical research from the beginning of the school year, they did not initially know that I was looking at how feminist lenses affected their understanding of people with different perspectives. The purpose of this was twofold: to allow a trusting, safe relationship between classmates and myself to form without the imposition of expectations and to allow me to gauge each student’s baseline understanding of feminism, as well as their initial attitudes toward gender equity. I wanted to make sure that I was getting honest and truthful responses from students, not responses that they thought I wanted to hear. My teaching practice is firmly rooted in social justice and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP), which requires the kind of trust I aspired to build in my classroom. bell hooks said it best when she said “Feminism is for everybody,” (hooks, 2000) and it has informed the way that I teach. My goal throughout this inquiry project was to use one lens--one meaning-making filter--to help get my students more comfortable using different lenses to analyze history, their lives, and the world around them. By using a lens in which I am fluent and with which I am comfortable, I hoped to be able to model the practice of looking at multiple lenses for the boys in a way that felt accessible to them and that can then allow them to feel more comfortable adopting other lenses and meaning-making filters that may differ from their own personal understanding of the world. Types of Data Gathered for Inquiry Surveys Student Journals Graded Assignments/Homework Interviews Class Discussions Frequency Two per quarter Weekly Daily One interview per student Daily Purpose Gather quantitative information about demographics and Opportunity for student reflections Assess student understanding of key themes of inequality To gauge student understanding and feelings about class culture and dynamic To openly discuss areas of inequality and feminist perspectives in a group setting The data I gathered was coded into three primary categories: awareness, understanding, and frequency. Each of these categories emerged through patterns identified in my research and measure attitudes and evolution of attitudes in my students during the course of the inquiry project.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, a crisis emerged in the realm of boys’ education, particularly pertaining to the emotional health of boys in a society in which hypermasculinity is prized as the ideal male identity and a mold in which boys feel they should fit. Sparked by a new emphasis on identity in the classroom, as well as the intersectionality of identities—and the growing realization that the inequalities in greater society play out in the schools—researchers began to investigate how the gender gap affects students. While much of the research on gender inequality to date has focused on gender inequality as it pertains to girls’ performance and academic well-being, there is a growing body of research that examines the experience of boys in the classroom, specifically the perception that boys are less academically motivated than girls, but more academically adept than their female counterparts (Hickey & Mooney, 2018). Academic performance is only half the story, however—while boys can benefit from curricular and pedagogical adjustments that better serve their academic needs, socially and emotionally, schools still do not do enough to support healthy development (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). There is agreement among scholars that hypermasculinity can be combated by using feminist lenses in classrooms can have equally positive effects for boys as for girls, especially in the realm of emotional health (Reed, 1999, hooks, 2000, and Emmanuelle, 2015).
Hypermasculinity, generally, is defined an exaggeration of stereotypical masculine behavior that can lead to an underdevelopment in a male’s ability to express emotions in a healthy manner, as well as an increase in aggression to express emotions such as sadness and frustration. Hypermasculine behavior is often accompanied or defined by an exaggeration of heterosexuality to the detriment of equal treatment of women and can result in blatant objectification, devaluement, and, in extreme cases, assault. The research is generally split between the use of feminist lenses in the classroom and best educational practices for boys, with only a few instances of researchers combining the two strands into one. One such researcher is feminist theorist bell hooks, whose theory that “feminism is for everyone” is an important bridge between the realms of boys’ education and an inclusive, intersectional feminism that posits that feminist lenses actually aid in the social, emotional, and intellectual development of all students, not just girls (hooks, 2000). Many researchers, however, choose one branch or other. Some researchers have chosen to focus on the implementation of feminist lenses in mixed-gender classrooms (Riley, 2014, and Spencer, 2015), while others choose to focus on boys’ education in both single-gender and mixed-gender settings (Reed, 1999, Martino et. al., 2005, and Weaver-Hightower, 2003). When it comes to the question of how a teacher might incorporate feminist lenses in order to better expand boys’ emotional literacy and social competency, both strands are relevant and important in answering that question. Two articles that have been chosen for this literature review address this question and have looked at boys’ education through a feminist lens (Imms, 2000, Emmanuelle, 2015, and Guckenheimer and Schmidt, 2013). My research will attempt to build off of the work of Imms, Emmanuelle and Guckenheimer and Schmidt, while also emulating that of hooks and incorporating the important findings from the two fields in which my fundamental question lies. In the past 20 years, there has been a growing body of thought that suggests that boys and men are becoming more and more disadvantaged or ignored in the realm of education as the emphasis on gender equity has grown. In response to the growing body of research dedicated to the education of girls, Marcus Weaver-Hightower’s 2003 study asserts that a “boy turn” began in order to examine the ways in which boys are affected by gender in education (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). He suggests that this “turn” to the boys’ experiences can be interpreted both as a “turn away from” boys in the classroom, as well as a “turn towards” boys’ experiences and has been utilized by both feminist and anti-feminist researchers to further their research goals. Generally, he explains, there is an achievement-gap between girls and boys and the reasons for that gap are attributed either to the increased use of feminist pedagogy in the classroom or the lack of it (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). Similarly, Lynn R. Reed argues that there has been a recent turn to boys’ education, particularly within the realm of single-sex education. While often considered bastions of toxic masculinity, all-boys schools, she argues, can serve a key role in the use of feminist lenses with boys in order to broaden their horizons in spaces that they perceive as safe and “masculine” (Reed, 1999). Her research into all-boys schools in the United Kingdom again brings up the question of whether or not single-sex education is more beneficial than co-ed classrooms. While co-ed classrooms offer boys exposure to the female point of view, they can often be polarizing and force boys into more hegemonic ways of thinking. Conversely, while single-sex education allows boys a space to explore different ideas of masculinity without girls around to influence decisions, they can also be insulating from the actuality of the female perspective. Both Weaver-Hightower and Reed assert that the data cited for the perceived achievement gap between girls and boys in school are standardized test scores in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, on which girls almost universally score better at every level and age group, especially in literacy (Reed, 1999). Further, Riley engages in a discussion about the structure of schooling, emphasizing that a common myth in the educational world is that schools are more well-suited for girls to learn than for boys—static, disciplined classroom structure caters more to the stereotypical girl than to the stereotypical boy (Riley, 2014). Weaver-Hightower suggests that this “turn” to boys’ education is partially due to a fear that falling standardized test scores for boys will ruin a school’s reputation, which leads school officials to increase pedagogical reform for teaching boys (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). This position considers a shift due to competitive necessity rather than a genuine care for boys’ well-being, which might make the changes harder to implement in some classrooms. Anti-feminist researchers often argue that boys are “failing” in school because the schools have been radically feminized to cater to the needs of girls, at the expense of boys, which again allows for an argument to be made for single-sex education. Research done in an Australian independent school in 2005 suggests that while single-sex education can have benefits for the students, it is imperative that the teachers have sociological knowledge of the implications of this structure so that their students can be adequately supported (Martino et. al, 2005). The researchers found that teachers in all-boys settings were met with resistance from their students when they attempted to introduce what the students considered to be “feminine” or “feminist” topics, but had a much easier time when the material was deemed “relevant”: talking theoretically about feminism and its implications was met with a lack of sympathy and interest, but discussions surrounding women and girls in their own lives were more productive and allowed for a growth in the boys’ ability to empathize (Martino et. al, 2005). All-boys’ settings, however, can also continue to emphasize hegemonic masculinity--which can be interpreted as or turn into toxic masculinity--so teachers should be aware of the norms in a school when they attempt to engage in feminist instruction (Hickey and Mooney, 2018). The other distinct strand of research in this literature review is focused solely on feminist practices in classrooms, mainly in undergraduate classes. Because the bulk of the research on feminist classroom practices has been done at the undergraduate level, my own research will have to adapt these methods in an age-appropriate manner. Research by Leland G. Spencer in 2015 suggested that a practically feminist classroom employs a number of methods to encourage discourse among students, particularly assigned readings from a variety of perspectives, setting ground rules for discourse in the classroom, and an emphasis on exploration of viewpoints rather than their dismissal (Spencer, 2015). Spencer’s work builds on the work done by William Breeze in 2007, which emphasizes the need to acknowledge the mainstream perception of feminism in order to dismantle the misconceptions and begin to foster productive, respectful discourse and discussion among his undergraduate students. By using personal experience and real-world knowledge, Breeze’s literature classroom became a space in which his students explored the implications of feminist lenses on their own learning (Breeze, 2007). The classroom should also be explicitly social justice oriented. Tasha A. Riley’s study on fictional learners being placed in classes by real teacher demonstrates that it is rare for classrooms to be social justice oriented—when asked to place fictional learners in either advanced, regular, or supplementary classes based on grades, a majority of teachers in the study used other factors such as race, gender, and the language spoken at home, to aid placement (Riley, 2014). When confronted with boys and girls of the same race and language background, a majority of teachers placed the boys in lower classes based on a belief that girls would naturally pick up the material more quickly than their male peers (Riley, 2014). Only one teacher in the study focused solely on grades for her placements. Riley’s research is decidedly post-structural intersectional feminist in nature—she emphasizes the need to be aware of all identities and recognizes that boys benefit from feminism as much as girls. Her echo of Rands’ “gender-complex” education is important for teachers to consider when they begin to explore feminist lenses in their classrooms. It also bolsters the argument for a single-sex environment because there is ample evidence to suggest that teachers often favor girls in class over boys when it comes to behavioral issues (Riley, 2014). These two strands come together in the work of Debra Guckenheimer and Jack Schmidt, who investigated an undergraduate Women’s Gender and Feminist Studies class at a public university in the United States that had both men and women enrolled. Their findings suggest a great deal of dismissive behavior and misunderstandings between women and men, particularly women in the campus anti-rape support network and men who subscribe to hegemonic masculine norms (Guckenheimer and Schmidt, 2013). Overall, men were defense about topics such as sexual assault and consent, responding to what they perceived as a threatening stance from many women in the room (Guckenheimer and Schmidt, 2013). Both researchers expressed a need to educate the men without making them feel attacked or discounted by their female classmates. Catherine Emmanuelle suggest that teaching boys about feminism and feminist ideas is best done in all-boy settings and earlier than undergraduate studies, when many people’s worldviews have been pretty firmly set (Emmanuelle, 2015). All-male settings allow for the boys to feel safer and more welcome to participate in discussions that might confuse them, which is yet another argument for single-sex education or at least single-sex feminist education in the beginning. Defensiveness occurs when participants in a conversation feel that their lack of knowledge has been pointed out to the group or that their strongly held beliefs have been questioned by others, which is what Guckenheimer and Schmidt discovered in their case study of the undergraduate WGFS class. By eliminating the knowledge gap that often comes with co-ed classes, teachers might have more ability to reach those students who need to reached the most by their lenses. The work of Wesley Imms also considers the effect of feminism on boys’ learning, particularly in the area of performed masculinities. He suggests that feminism allows boys to break out of hegemonic or toxic masculinity boxes and express who they are more freely, regardless of whether or not they are perceived as “feminine” (Imms, 2000). He argues that because masculinity is a social construct that has evolved over time within distinct societies, gradual societal change can influence the way that hegemonic and toxic masculinities are perceived and the way they function in society (Imms, 2000). Male-dominated historical narratives can be checked, examined, and replaced or edited with more inclusive histories to influence they messages that youth get (Imms, 2000). Researchers Chris Hickey and Amanda Mooney suggest that while many people believe all-boys’ schools to reinforce certain gender stereotypes, many all-boys’ schools are actually making remarkable strides in feminist pedagogy, even if the school does not identify that pedagogy as “feminist” (Hickey and Mooney, 2018). Hickey and Mooney compliment Reeds’ findings about single-sex education, but add more recent pedagogical and sociological shifts. The position that single-sex schools are in is crucial to the education of boys through feminist lenses because they offer boys a unique opportunity to explore feminism in a safe, nurturing environment where they do not have to fear being labeled as “sexist” or “misogynistic” by their female classmates. I intend for my research on whether feminist lenses in classroom settings help boys to think more about women and girls to draw upon the techniques that Emmanuelle, Imms, and Guckenheimer and Schmidt have suggested in their research and apply them to an history class of 9th grade boys in a single-sex educational setting. Because there is little literature that covers using feminist lenses to cover history content, I plan on incorporating techniques such as common language, safe space requirements, and general respect for differing opinions to expose boys to viewpoints that they might not have considered before my class, all of which are discussed by bell hooks in Feminism is for Everyone (2000). By using hooks’ schema of feminism as a template, I hope to be able to create an intersectional space where my students can bring their whole selves into classes, as well as feel comfortable stepping out of their boxes of understanding and begin to embrace new ways of thinking and looking at history. I plan on using a number of surveys throughout the year to gauge the change in opinions longitudinally, as well as chart friendship groups against opinion surveys to look at how classmates influence each other’s thinking about topics. I also plan on using journal entries and interviews to help chart thought processes about women’s issues. Ideally, my classroom will be a safe space for exploration of different identities. Privilege in Learning
Sunday October 15, 2017 The word “privilege” is not a word that is used often at Gilman School. In its place, students and faculty often hear and use words including “fortunate” and “opportunity” despite them lacking the same weightiness that the word “privilege” bears. These words are nicer and sound more egalitarian, with little indication of class or societal rank. They hold less stigma for boys and teachers in one of the most privileged schools in the city of Baltimore, so when the word “privilege” is used at Gilman, it is often used in conjunction with the word “responsibility”—Gilman boys are given a task not unlike the warning Peter Parker receives as he realizes he is becoming a superhero. At Gilman, boys are taught to use their opportunity, fortune, or privilege to lift up others, serve their community, and develop a high moral character—a character that has long been a marker of the social elite in the United States (Khan, 2010). At the crux, Gilman’s relationship to privilege is one that attempts to diminish any signs of privilege within the student body while maintaining the privileged appearance to the outside observer through tradition, boys’ conduct and dress, and academic excellence. Tradition and the dress and conduct of the boys go hand in hand at Gilman. Much like St. Paul’s, Gilman uses a form system instead of a grade system, though the colloquial terms of “freshman,” “sophomore,” “junior,” and “senior” are used more often by the Upper School students themselves (Khan, 2011). The official use of forms by the school is, in part, to distinguish the school from the public schools within the city of Baltimore; to clearly mark the class differences that are not freely or openly talked about in American society (Howard, 2007). The boys, and especially those in the Upper School, are outwardly marked as privileged by Gilman’s dress code, which includes a tie, leather shoes, and “neatly kept” hair, though the last part is routinely broken, as is the rule about tucked in shirts. These subtle rejections of the outward markers of privilege are a privilege within itself, as some boys see it as a formality that is unneeded because of the caliber of school (Khan, 2011). What is interesting here is that if you were to ask the boys if they liked their dress code, most of them would say yes and they say they like it because the dress code is a tradition. For many boys—about ten to 15 percent of the student body—this is the exact dress code that their fathers wore when they attended Gilman—a place where legacy means something. The dress code is about tradition for these boys, inherently a privilege to walk the same halls and wear the same tie that their fathers did before them. And while the dress code distinctly marks Gilman boys as privileged to the outside world, the goal of the dress code within the student body is to maintain a homogeneity and break down the class barriers that exist, though it does this with muted results. More well-off boys usually own more than one tie and tailored pants and shirts from companies that include Vineyard Vines, Ralph Lauren, J. Crew, and Brooks Brothers. These items mark these boys as having more privilege than the boys wearing hand-me-down pants that are a bit too big, thrift store button downs, and the same tie every day. Clothes matter when presenting privilege, even in a school that has a strict dress code (Khan, 2011). Despite the class differences between some of the boys at the school, there is a great deal that all boys have in common—taste in music, sports, and mainstream culture links the wealthy, primarily white boys of this school with the poorer students from the inner city of Baltimore—usually of color—in a way that would not have occurred in decades prior (Khan, 2011). However, this ease and “omnivorous” quality, as Khan describes, has a racial element to it, as well. The white students have a much easier time floating between the country club that they belong to with their parents and Drake concerts with their friends. The students of color are not afforded such privilege as this. The students who are at Gilman on scholarship from an inner city school are often initially uncomfortable with the way that the school is run because they feel as if they “do not belong” in a setting encased in wood paneling with a Latin motto adorning the doorframes (Howard, 2007). While privilege is not talked about in terms of having a birthright to be at Gilman—though there are certain legacy students who behave that way—the language around it has shifted. Khan’s description of the shift from birthright to meritocracy explains perfectly the attitude around academic success and grades at Gilman. Students feel as if they have earned the right to a good grade, rather than deserve it based on who they are and who they know (Khan, 2011). One student even spoke to me after handing in a paper and requested that I “give him a good grade because he worked for a very long time on this essay.” While the boys do not expect good grades because of who they are—legacy or not—they expect them because they “worked” for them, which often means that the boys who can afford private tutoring earn higher grades because they “worked” on an assignment with their tutor. It is not uncommon for these boys to agonize over an 89 that “could have been” or “should have been” a 90, while less privileged boys at Gilman celebrate an 85. Throughout my first few months of teaching, there have been a few instances where I have led discussions on privilege because a comment made in class that opened that door. While privilege in learning is difficult to talk about, I have found that the students have been at least willing to consider the views of others, which is the first step to recognizing privilege and helping those who do not have it (Howard, 2007). Works Cited: Khan, S. R. (2011). Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Howard, A. (2007). Learning Privilege: Lessons in Power and Identity in Affluent Schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. Dear Aspiring Teacher,
Teaching is hard. You will be up earlier than you'd like to be and you'll leave your office later than anticipated. You will spend more time grading essays and tests than you had ever imagined was possible and you will field the same question more times than you can count, even if you've already answered it five times. You will have moments where imposter syndrome sets in and you feel totally ill-equipped to handle the crisis that has come your way. You will be emotionally exhausted but required to maintain a facade that suggests otherwise. Teaching is hard. But, Aspiring Teacher, teaching is so, so rewarding. You will experience the beautiful and innocent curiosity of children and watch as they engage and grapple with a developing identity, intellectual ability, and understanding of the world around them. You will see firsthand the "lightbulb" moment when a student finally understands a concept that has been difficult for them and develop relationships with students based on every aspect of your personality and theirs. You will watch your students grow and, in the process, recognize growth in yourself. Teaching is rewarding. Aspiring Teacher, you will walk into an institution that will seem very new to you, but it will be one that has an institutional memory with traditions, symbols, and a history that will permeate the space. Walls will whisper with the history of the school, faculty members who have been teaching longer than you have been alive will offer their expertise, and portraits of those who have come before you will be a constant reminder that the institution has come before you and will continue after your tenure. These schools are bastions of progressive learning, from John Dewey to bell hooks, and are constantly striving to create learning environments that will educate the next leaders of our world. Aspiring Teacher, you will be a part of something that will be far greater than yourself--embrace all that this program has to offer. Carol Dweck's theory about growth mindsets are not just for your students, Aspiring Teacher. Hold onto her assertion that embracing failure as an obstacle to get past rather than a barrier to success. You will learn just as much, if not more, than the students with whom you will be charged during your first year. Remind yourself that learning is about failure--without it, how would we know how far we have come? Give yourself grace in moments of weakness and celebrate times of success. Be present and in the moment, Aspiring Teacher, because it goes by quickly. Aspiring Teacher, you will meet so many students from diverse backgrounds, all of whom will give you new perspectives on the world and on teaching. You will encounter some of the wealthiest children in the United States, sons and daughters of philanthropists, judges, doctors, lawyers, congresspeople, and the blue blooded elite of America. Embrace them and what they have to offer in your classes. You will meet students who are the first in their family to attend a school such as yours, children of families whose only aspiration is for them to succeed in a world that they perceive not to be made for them. Embrace them and all that they have to offer in your classes. Embrace bell hooks' theories of multiculturalism and intersectionality in your spaces--give airtime to those who have not traditionally had airtime and listen to those who are beginning to grapple with their own privilege. Aspiring Teacher, remember that teaching is a communal endeavor. Use your mentors and colleagues, ask for their lesson plans, for their input on your plans, and for help when you need it. Share your ideas with others and explore the methods and ideas of others. Your school will have resources upon resources at your disposal, so explore them all. Above all, remember to be yourself in an institution that has long existed before you. Do not let the institution change who you are, fundamentally, but try to leave an indelible mark upon the institution by being true to yourself and your identity. Aspiring Teacher, check out these resources, in no particular order: Teaching to Transgress by bell hooks Mindset by Carol Dweck Teach Like a Champion 2.0 by Doug Lemov Privilege by Shamus Khan Democracy and Education by John Dewey Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice by Maurianne Adams "The Amazing Teacher Podcast" "Free Teacher PD" (podcast) "Cult of Pedagogy" (podcast) Aspiring Teacher, you are about to embark on one of the most exciting journeys of your life. The Penn Fellows program is going to give you all of the tools you need to be successful in the classroom, an unbelievable support network of like-minded colleagues, and resources upon resources for you to explore and play with. Your institution is set up to support you in your development as a teacher. You will learn so much about yourself and your craft in two years and you will make amazing friends while doing it. Go in with confidence and you won't fail. With warm regards, Sarah Sarah Lloyd
Educational Philosophy April 13, 2018 Getting Comfortable Being Uncomfortable: Asking and Answering Difficult Questions in an History Class On a recent student perspective survey given to my class of 9th graders at Gilman, one student said “this is a history class unlike any I’ve ever taken before.” He continued to explain that my class challenges him to think outside of the “facts” of history and look at the different perspectives that exist in any given historical event—how history can be changed based on who is telling the story and when it is being told. Another student explained that he feels “very comfortable” asking hard, perhaps controversial questions in my class because he knows it is a “safe space” to do so. Yet another student’s response explained how “history is not dead anymore” in my class because our class discusses how historical events are intertwined with current events. My classroom is designed to do each of these things—I am constantly striving to bring history back to life for students by making them uncomfortable with the process of asking and answering difficult questions while adhering to Gilman Headmaster Henry Smyth’s charge to “know and love each boy” in my classroom. Being able to ask and attempt to answer difficult questions in an history class begins with fostering an inclusive, safe, and inviting environment where all points of view and knowledge levels are welcome and accepted as valid. Each of my students must know that they are in a space where their views, questions, and concerns are valued and welcomed before we can even begin to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. Teachers play an integral role in creating an inviting and safe classroom and according to Nakkula and Toshalis’ Understanding Youth: Adolescent Development for Educators, students are more likely to take risks when they believe that they are not going to experience negative consequences afterwards.[1] The risks I encourage my students to take are ideological and intellectual instead of physical or social and I ease them into these risks, scaffolding the class so that they slowly begin to recognize what kinds of risks they should be taking in order to get the most out of our class.[2] The content which I teach necessitates that students take risks. I have made a conscious decision to teach the contentious side of history to my 9th graders, from the realities of European colonialism and invasion to the influence of religion in politics on a global scale. These are not easy topics to cover—I am asking a lot of my students, but I firmly believe that tackling the uncomfortable subjects is necessary to the development of good global citizens. And, much like bell hooks, I believe that I must be the one to model that risk-taking in order for my students to do the same. “When education is the practice of freedom, students are not the only ones who are asked to share, to confess,” she explains in Teaching to Transgress.[3] There must be a certain amount of trust between myself and my students. I cannot ask any student to do what I myself will not do and I must make it clear to my students that this is the case, so I scaffold the risk-taking by taking risks myself. I trust my students to take these same risks because I have modeled it for them. I allow myself to be vulnerable in the hopes that they might be vulnerable with me. As well as modeling responsible risk-taking in my classroom, I also strive to model excitement. I make efforts to allow my excitement for subjects that I believe are worthwhile to show through in my teaching. I have taken Kelley Dawson Salas’ theory—that excitement adds discipline to the classroom because it further engages students in the material—to heart.[4] Students, I believe, are able to tell when their teacher is truly passionate about the material, which allows them to take the risk of caring about the material as well. A teacher’s passion can profoundly influence the passion of the students and I strive to let my students see my passion for history so that they will also feel comfortable investing themselves in a subject that has great implications for their everyday lives. hooks’ theory of engaged pedagogy—the fact that education cannot and is not politically neutral—has profoundly influenced the way that I teach my class.[5] hooks emphasizes the need for well-being woven in with education. While hooks’ theory is derived from her educational experience as an African-American student and then teacher, I believe that engaged pedagogy can be applied more broadly to an history classroom in order to expand excitement and engagement in the study of history, while also ensuring that all of my students are represented fairly and sensitively. This is not to say that I believe it works equally well for all types of inequality—racial disparity in history classes is by far the most prominent forms of silencing that occurs—but I am choosing to expand the difficult questions in my classroom beyond race and ethnicity to other preconceived notions of superiority and inferiority that seep into cultures and education, including class, gender, and religion. hooks’ engaged pedagogy approach is supported by claims by Parker Palmer, who writes that the “[t]he more familiar we are with our inner terrain, the more surefooted our teaching—and living—becomes.”[6] What hooks describes as self-actualization[7] Palmer reiterates as familiarity with the self in order to authentically teach students. I am not always comfortable in my class and neither are my students. Difficult topics arise and students sometimes ask off-color, insensitive, and sometimes offensive questions, but the class culture is to lean into that discomfort. I firmly believe that we have learned to get comfortable being uncomfortable because we have established rules for engagement that allow us to dig into difficult topics while maintaining a safe, inclusive space. We tackle inclusion, equity, and injustice in order to become more responsible citizens of the world and we cannot do that without feeling uncomfortable. References hooks, bell. Teachign to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994. Nakkula, Michael J. and Eric Toshalis. Understanding Youth: Adolescent Development for Educators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2015. Palmer, Parker. The Courage To Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher Life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Watson, Marilyn and Laura Ecken, ed. Learning to Trust: Transforming Difficult Elementary Classrooms Through Developmental Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003. [1] Michael J. Nakkula and Eric Toshalis, Understanding Youth: Adolescent Development for Educators (Cambridge: Harvard Education Press, 2015): 54-55. [2] Nakkula and Toshalis, 54. [3] bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1994): 21. [4] Marilyn Watson and Laura Ecken, ed. Learning to Trust: Transforming Difficult Elementary Classrooms Through Developmental Discipline (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003): 185-188. [5] hooks, 13-22. [6] Parker Palmer, The Courage To Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007): 6. [7] hooks, 15. As I've progressed through this program, there have been a number of aspects that I have decided are required for an effective learning environment. These include:
|
All of my writings, all in one place.Here you will find all of the assignments and artifacts that I have curated on this web portfolio, all in one place. Please explore! ArchivesCategories |