Amidst intense public discourses of health disparities, racism, discrimination, and equity (Forbes Nonprofit Council, 2021; Tensely, 2021), educators in 2021 wrestled with teaching during a pandemic. Addressing such issues of equity through critical educational pedagogies is a theme which resonates in Dr. Pooja Dharamshi’s publication in the January 2019 edition of Teacher and Teacher Education. In her U.S. study of literacy teacher educators’ (LTEs) early experiences and their conceptualizations of teacher education, she suggests that the development of effective teachers in diverse classrooms requires LTEs who embody broad concepts of literacy and critical perspectives. However, Dr. Dharamshi points out that critical literacy education is challenged by LTEs who are reticent to engage meaningfully with topics of diversity, multiculturalism, and equity.
Dr. Dharamshi argues that although diversity and multiculturalism are of vital importance in teacher education courses, many LTEs adopt an “add-on” approach to this curricular area in part due to challenges connecting with diverse populations. As such, she reasons that culturally responsive teacher educators negotiate a “critical stance” in their pedagogies and practices. She adopts Lewison, Leland and Harste’s (2014) definition of “critical stance” as having the necessary attitudes and dispositions to challenge inequities perpetuated by educational status quo. Dr. Dharamshi’s research questions ask: 1) What are the defining early life experiences of literacy teacher educations with a critical stance? and 2) How do literacy teacher educators draw on their early experiences to inform their views, practices, and pedagogies?
In her data analysis, Dr. Dharamshi maintains that early life experiences and cultural perspectives of LTEs impact the enactment of critical teaching pedagogies. The three faculty educators in this qualitative study were purposefully chosen for their work in social justice, culturally relevant pedagogy, and personal experiences with labelling and tracking in their school lives. Their narratives highlight how language and power within schools use narrow conceptualizations of literacy to maintain deficit positionings of students. For example, Maya, who immigrated from South America to the U.S. as a child, was labelled an English language learner and placed in low tracked schools despite her strong literacy skills in Spanish. Paul, labelled an “at risk” student with several learning disabilities, was told by teachers he would never read and write. Yet, he developed a love of reading and writing outside of the classroom by focusing on different forms of literacy. Misa, a Black teacher educator, grew up in a working-class household in an inner city where she learned second-hand from her “family of educators” about student inequities. She developed her literacy skills from community sources such as libraries. The inclusion of social and community practices in conceptualizations of literacy both de-centers English as dominant discourse and redefines what counts as knowledge.
It is imperative that advocacy for student equity begins with literacy teacher educators who view critical literacy as a transformative practice focused on disrupting existing social, political, and economic structures (Rogers, 2013; Vasquez et al., 2013; Wetzel Mosley et al., 2020). I contend that disrupting sociopolitical structures in education is fundamental to the implementation of programs which transforms the concept of diversity to practice. For instance, the “valuing diversity” program in the BC curriculum states that teachers are encouraged to choose topics, activities, and resources which support “inclusion, equity, and accessibility for all students” in “school cultures that value diversity and respond to the diverse social and academic needs of individual students” (Province of British Columbia, 2021). Yet, social justice is not a mandated core subject area, offered only as a Grade 12 course. Subjects such as “discrimination, equity, and equality” are embedded in the content section of the social studies curriculum as “sample topics” but are unsupported by resource links or pedagogies which guide educators in the implementation of BC’s diversity program.
In my view, transformative pedagogies which support equity education call upon LTEs to embody critical stance (Lewison et al., 2014) as a) being consciously engaging b) entertaining alternate ways of being c) taking responsibility to inquire and d) being reflexive. LTEs with critical perspectives would subsequently empower educators to teach students about their roles, rights, and responsibilities as citizens who impact issues of inequalities in local and global communities. In other words, teaching students how to engage critically with social issues such as poverty, homelessness, and hunger would create deeper understandings of equity than participating in “quick fix” charitable acts such as annual food and clothing drives.
F T