u .9»...

1 3.4.

33K...

. é I 5!...
.3 «(iv .3.

17
E 3...).

.3 .v .
1 .a 31
3 x. . .
3 ,\.\..7

 

1:11 4 .3

. .1. 9
I... u- 3.}

.34

 

3:

fink

 

 

. x
f
. . . . . . . .1. .rafirir
« .. . . , _ . . V . , $3
$33.37»? . , . . . _ . ..
: . . . H . . , . “3mm

_
,... 3

3.. .
uh . .
. 33...: 3. .3?

.0245. ns#nrmu n
52;. 3%. tan...
if . .33..“

3..

 

 

4t .9.
{Hawaii
.

 

7. 3. av. :14
u. 2I0.I~:vt.

. x927:
.72..V~. . I.

 

3.33.35"... , ., .. . g 3.3.333

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

l -

LIBRARIES
L MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
I EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

(VI: L19
c3lefiort

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CRITICAL LITERACY: A VIEW FROM A CLASSROOM

presented by
RACHEL LANDER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Teacher Education

 

 

9.33:. ll

Major Profes’sot’s Signature
5/9 H [I a oo 5

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:ElRC/DateDm.indd-p.15

 

 

. ..__—

CRITICAL LITERACY: A VIEW FROM A CLASSROOM
By

Rachel Lander

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education

2005

ABSTRACT
CRITICAL LITERACY: A VIEW FROM A CLASSROOM
By

Rachel Lander

The purpose of this study is to illuminate what happens when a Language
Arts teacher tries to “teach by keeping one foot inside the system and one foot
outside.” This stance requires delicate balance. For, as Freire (1985) stated:

I have been trying to think and teach by keeping one foot inside the
system and the other foot outside. Of course, I cannot be totally outside
the system if the system continues to exist. I have to be in it. Naturally,
this generates a certain ambiguity and this ambiguity is often risky. That’s
why many people keep both their feet squarely inside the system. I know
people who sometimes slowly try to place their right foot outside, but they
are immediately overcome by fear. They see other people who have
stepped outside the system and are punished (p. 178).

In order to study critical literacy on a daily basis I researched a teacher
who maintained this fragile dance. My dissertation research focused on
Elizabeth Darcy during the 2001-2002 school year. Ms. Darcy taught Language
Arts to middle school students at a large, urban school district on the East Coast.
In particular, I focused on Ms. Darcy’s second and third period Classes, a two-
hour Language Arts block. During this Language Arts block Ms. Darcy taught 20
students from a wide variety of backgrounds.

This dissertation demonstrates how MS. Darcy blended together traditional

conceptions of Language Arts with critical literacy practices, as she kept one foot

inside and one foot [almost] outside of the system. She worked to prepare

students for success within the current configurations of schooling and society
and also guided them to question assumptions and injustices in their
surroundings. Ms. Darcy taught grammar and standard English; her students
also wrote protest poems and debated society’s definition of family. It is this
unique blend of literacy education, and its purposes and consequences that I
sought to capture and examine.

Analyses of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice illustrated that there were times
when she critically engaged the system, finding Space for critical content and
pedagogy. There were times too though that she was inside the system, without
critically engaging it. This study led me to re—envision critical literacy in shades of
gray, rather than an all-or-nothing endeavor. Specifically, this teaching practice
existed in the spaces between critical and more traditional approaches to literacy.
This dissertation’s intent is not to critique what Elizabeth Darcy could have done
better to reach the goals of critical literacy nor was its purpose to reveal how MS.
Darcy’s intentions or articulations differed from her practice. Instead, my main
focus has been to show that critical literacy in classrooms is messier than it is

often conceptualized and described.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES vi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND LITERATURE 1
The Purpose of the Study ..3
Research Questions .5
Chapter Overview 5
Purposes and Definitions of Critical Literacy .6
Significance of the Study 16
The Study Revisited 22
Adding Shades of Gray 29
Overview of the Dissertation . 35

CHAPTER TWO

METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ..37
Chapter Overview .42
Introduction to Critical Ethnography 43
The Research Story 46

CHAPTER THREE

SETTING THE STAGE: LANGUAGE ARTS IN ROOM 0132 .76
The Context 77
Language Arts in North Central High 94
Language Arts in Critical Literacy 105
Conclusion 1 12

CHAPTER FOUR

POETRY AS POLITICAL ACTION .114
The Poems 115
Critical Literacy Components 119
Critical Literacy within Traditional Boundaries 130
Conclusion 138

CHAPTER FIVE

MATTERS OF AUTHORITY AND FREEDOM .141
Chapter Overview ..144
Examining Authority in Context ..145
Teacher as Authority 149

Teacher as Author

 

Teacher as Authoritarian

 

Conclusion

 

CHAPTER SIX
GRAMMAR LESSONS AND PROTEST POEMS

 

Grammar Lessons

 

Writing Convention Mini-Lessons

 

Protest Poems

 

Dual Notions of Conformity and Transformation

 

The l-Search Paper

 

Conclusion

 

CHAPTER SEVEN
LOOKING ACROSS THE DATA

 

Chapter Overview

 

Challenges to Critical Literacy Teaching
Currents of Critical Literacy Teaching
Conclusion

 

CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONVERSATIONS

 

 

Chapter Overview

 

Implications for Teacher Education
Beyond Pre-Service Education

.153
.169

175

177
179

..179

191

.. 203
.205

210

212

.214
.215
..234

245

.247
. 248
. 249

263

 

Ending with Shades of Gray

 

Final Words

 

APPENDICES

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

266

.280
.284
.. 288

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 1: Summary of Data Collected
Table 2: Components of Ms. Darcy’s Teaching Practice

Table 3: Chronology of Ms. Darcy's Teaching Practice

 

 

 

Table 4: Sample Student Schedule

Table 5: Ms. Darcy’s schedule

 

Table 6: Student Information

 

Table 7: Focus Student Information

 

vi

.58
.. 69
. 72
..79
.82
..90

91

Chapter One
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND LITERATURE

In 1995, Cissy Lacks, a veteran high school English teacher in St. Louis,
Missouri, attempted to reach her predominantly African American students by
reading a provocative play by August Wilson, a Black playwright. The play,
"Fences," focuses on an African American family and emphasizes the challenges
and confusion they faced in America during the 19605. After studying the text,
Ms. Lacks asked her students to write scenes about things real and important to
them. The often apathetic students wrote passionately and willingly. They wrote
about topics relevant in their lives, including gangs, drugs, and teenage
pregnancy. Like the playwright, many students used emotive language, including
profanity, in their writings. In addition to the written texts, Ms. Lacks videotaped
plays students spun from their work.

Ms. Lacks’ style differed from conventional teaching methods. One former
student wrote that “by the time I met Ms. Lacks, I was a square peg, most of my
other teachers spent their time trying to cram me and everyone else into the rigid
holes they’d carved for us. Lacks didn’t turn her back on students like me”
(T erhune, 1995, p. 10). Ms. Lacks expanded the traditional notion of literacy in
school and engaged in activities associated with critical literacy. In order to reach
her students she drew on their worlds outside of school. She asked students to

bring in their life experiences, not to glorify the challenges in their lives or to

Shock a larger audience with their trials and tribulations, but instead to help them
read their own texts more critically and ultimately to help them be different in the
process. The practice of critically reading one’s own world can lead to
transformation. By illuminating their positions in local and global contexts,
examining the origins of societal structures, and investigating their own lives as
raced, classed, and gendered (Greene, 1988), readers can gain insights into who
they are, how they got to be this way, and what consequences are created by
their identities and actions. This type of reading can inspire students to take
“control over the direction of [their] lives,” (Fehring & Green, 2001, p. 10), to make
decisions about who they want to be and who they no longer want to be, and
ultimately to recreate both themselves and the contexts around them (Giroux,
1988).

Yet, Ms. Lacks’ attempts to infuse her “square pegs” with literacy, rather
than “cramming them into rigid holes” had disastrous results. Cissy Lacks was
fired. After viewing the videotaped plays which included scenes where gang
members cursed and Shot at each other, where a girl was in prison and her Sister
was hooked on crack, and where a group of young men smoked pot and talked
about sex, the district fired Lacks for failing to “establish reasonable standards of
decorum and reasonable standards of appropriate behavior" (Little, 1995, pg. 1).
Ms. Lacks was fired for teaching literacy in the way She believed, in a way that
ran against what the institution deemed appropriate or accepted.

Ms. Lacks’ teaching fits in with the philosophy of critical literacy where the
curriculum is drawn from student’s lives and the students investigate their social

realities; these subject matters are not always welcomed in the institution of

schools. Freire (1985) speaks about the complexity of teaching critical literacy
within the institution of schools:
I have been trying to think and teach by keeping one foot inside the
system and the other foot outside. Of course, I cannot be totally outside
the system if the system continues to exist. I have to be in it. Naturally,
this generates a certain ambiguity and this ambiguity is often risky. That’s
why many people keep both their feet squarely inside the system. I know
people who sometimes slowly try to place their right foot outside, but they
are immediately overcome by fear. They see other people who have
stepped outside the system and are punished (p. 178).
The case of Cissy Lacks illustrates the struggle Freire speaks about regarding
teaching within the system. Critical literacy teachers, especially those in K-12
public schools, exist within a system that can be antithetical to their goals and
daily practices. They can not move entirely “outside the system” and must
therefore navigate their way, “keeping one foot inside the system and the other

foot outside.” As Freire noted, this position is risky. Ms. Lacks ultimately

“stepped outside the system and [was] punished.”

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to illuminate what happens when a Language
Arts teacher tries to “teach by keeping one foot inside the system and one foot
outside.“ This stance requires delicate balance. For, as Freire (1985) stated,
public school teachers inescapably exist within the bounds of the institutions in
which they work while critical literacy ideals often fall outside of these boundaries,
as we see above in the case of Ms. Lacks.

In order to study critical literacy on a daily basis I researched a teacher

who, like Cissy Lacks, tried to maintain this fragile dance. My dissertation

research focused on Elizabeth Darcy during the 2001-2002 school year. Ms.
Darcy taught Language Arts to middle school students at North Central Public
School District‘, a large, urban school district on the East Coast. In particular, I
focused on Ms. Darcy’s second and third period classes, a two-hour Language
Arts block. During this Language Arts block Ms. Darcy taught 20 students from a
wide variety of backgrounds. This dissertation demonstrates how MS. Darcy
blended together traditional conceptions of Language Arts with critical literacy
practices, and she kept one foot inside and one foot [almost] outside of the
system. She worked to prepare students for success within the current
configurations of schooling and society and also guided them to question
assumptions and injustices in their surroundings. Ms. Darcy taught grammar and
standard English; her students also wrote protest poems and debated society’s
definition of family. It is this unique blend of literacy education, and its purposes
and consequences that I sought to capture and examine.

In concrete ways, Elizabeth Darcy was reminded of the risks of straying
outside the lines, even just a little. For example, she Was warned by a colleague
about her decision to include books in her Classroom library that were not on the
approved district book list (interview, 4/23/02). Even Ms. Darcy’s students
recognized that the topics raised in critical literacy classrooms can be dangerous
in schools. In an interview about Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice, Tonya stated:
“Some people don’t want to start something at the school. And parents might

complain. And the teacher might get in trouble” (interview, 5/16/02).

 

' All names, including the teacher, students, school, and district are pseudonyms.

4

Critical literacy teachers, like Ms. Darcy, include issues such as race, class
and power and rely on students bringing in their home lives. These topics can
end up “starting something at the school.” Topics that are seen as necessary in
critical literacy are often avoided in most school districts, including North Central
Public School District, in which Ms. Darcy worked. Elizabeth Darcy’s goals for
her students’ literacy education were not always consistent with the goals of the
institution in which she works. As Ms. Darcy planned for, taught, and reflected
upon her daily teaching, she blended the expectations of the institution in which
she worked with critical literacy ideals. In this study, I set out to investigate what
critical literacy looked like on a daily basis within the context of one Classroom

and what this blending of expectations made possible for students.

Research Questions
In order to meet the aims of this study, I began with the following research
quesfions:

o What happens in this critical literacy classroom?

a What possibilities are created within this context, curriculum and
instruction?

0 How do moments of practice in this particular setting connect to the
broader theories underlying critical literacy?

o What are students’ attitudes toward literacy in this classroom?

0 How do different types of texts and assignments influence ways students
respond to texts?

o How does the teacher make decisions and what does the teacher learn?

Chapter Overview

In Chapter One, I introduce the literature, theories, and goals underlying
this dissertation. In the first section, I establish the foundation of the study and
state what I set out to do. By articulating the definitions and purposes of critical
literacy, I make a case for the significance of this study as it was conceived. I
conclude this section with a discussion about the term “Discourse,” a concept that
plays an important role throughout the dissertation. In the second section, I delve
into what I came to understand as I stepped into the research Site. My
experiences led me to revisit what I set out to do and to rethink components of
critical literacy. Through this process, I am able to present a more complex look
at the aims, questions, and significance of my research. At the end of the

section, I provide an overview of the dissertation.

Purposes and Definitions of Critical Literacy

“First, there is empowering education, which leads to powerful literacy, the

kind of literacy that leads to positions of power and authority. Second,

there is domesticating education, which leads to functional literacy, literacy
that makes a person productive and dependable, but not troublesome.”

(Finn, 1999, p. ix)

Too often urban schools provide the majority of students with the
opportunity to become functionally, not powerfully, literate (Anyon, 1981; Rose,
1989). Powerful literacy is defined as being able to interpret, critically analyze,
and create texts2 in a variety of contexts (Luke, 1991), to make connections

between the word and the world (Freire 8 Macedo, 1987) and specifically one’s

own world. The lack of opportunity to become powerfully literate is one reason

 

2 Texts include multiple forms of representation: traditional written texts (books, magazines, poems,
standardized tests) as well as other forms (pictures, paintings, songs, film, hypermedia).

6

that urban students are less likely to access positions of economic and political
power in our society (MacLeod, 1995). Further, many students, because of
disconnects between home and school Discourses (Gee, 1992) or because of

active resistance (Kohl, 1994), don’t achieve functional literacy either.

Literacy education in the United States is at a critical juncture. Literacy
instruction, especially for urban students, is a central concern for policymakers,
educational researchers, teacher educators and teachers. In order for urban
students to benefit from this national attention in ways that will help them become
powerfully, not just functionally, literate, and in order for literacy education to help
urban students access positions of economic and political power, the
conversation about literacy instruction must include more than concerns about
decoding words and answering comprehension questions. The discussion must
also focus on ways literacy can help students analyze their surroundings, create
solutions to pressing problems, and see themselves as change agents. Critical
literacy offers such opportunities.

Advocates of critical literacy argue for issues of power and justice to play a
more pivotal role in discussions about, and in the teaching of, literacy. Critical
literacy is based on the interconnected relationship between reading the word
and the world (Freire & Macedo, 1987). It involves exploring the political nature
of texts and of literacy itself. Through literacy instruction, students and teachers
question the taken-for-granted aspects of their lives and society, see themselves
as creative actors, and take action against injustices (Lankshear, 1997; Luke et.
al., 2001). Critical literacy engages power as both restrictive (power over) and

enabling (power to). It addresses the need to explore how texts and the

meanings they make possible are produced, circulated, legitimated (or not) and
consumed. In the process, the focus IS on how symbolic systems make the world
both possible and intelligible, how they maintain and help reformulate social
relations. Critical literacy, with its insistent focus on issues of power and justice,
offers great possibilities for creating powerful literacy instruction (Dudley-Marling
8 Fine, 1997; Edelsky, 1996, 1999; Purcell— Gates 8 Waterman, 2000; Willinsky,
1990). While critical literacy has potential for all students, it offers particular
promise in urban schools, where students are often alienated from traditional
literacy education leading to negative consequences (Barrera, 1992; Rose,
1989).

Critical literacy advocates define reading as understanding the words on
the page and examining political and cultural assumptions underlying texts
(MCLaren, 1999). A reader is not defined as someone who can decode and
make sense of printed words, but as someone who is aware of underlying
assumptions in the text, ways in which texts are constructed, and how such
constructions position readers (Lankshear, 1997). In critical literacy, the goal of
literacy is to “critique issues which surround us as we live, learn, and work - to
help understand, comment on and ultimately control the direction of our lives”
(Fehring 8 Green, 2001, p. 10).

Lankshear (1997) makes a helpful distinction between narrow and wide
components of critical literacy Classrooms, both which are part of critical literacy
classrooms. A narrow sense of critical reading includes responding to particular
texts while a wider sense involves interrogating reading itself. Within a narrow

sense, teachers and Students might read and interpret multiple interpretations of

the story of Cinderella. In a wider sense, a teacher might work with students to
analyze the story and question the relationship between literacy and socio-
economic status in the world.

Luke (1995) built a four-tiered model of the elements of reading to
operationalize critical literacy in K-12 classrooms. The first two tiers, coding
competence (how do I crack the code?) and semantic competence (what does
this mean?) comprise much of what happens in typical Language Arts
classrooms. Luke argues that pragmatic competence (what do I do with this,
here and now?) and critical competence (what is the text trying to do to me? in
whose interest?) are also “essential components of everyday life in social
institutions” (95) and should be included in students’ literacy education. He
includes two crucial qualifications in his design: “each element is necessary but
not sufficient for critical literacy [and] this is not a developmental sequence or
cycle or taxonomy" (110).

Luke’s (1995) description of “critical competence” is useful because it
offers an in-depth look at how critical literacy might take place in a classroom.
Luke advocates for “the development of a meta-language for talking about how
texts code cultural ideologies, and how they position readers in subtle and often
quite exploitative ways” (109). He aims for teachers to help students recognize
that texts are not neutral, dead entities but instead “actively construct and
represent the world” (107). All texts, some more obviously and overtly than
others, position readers to think in certain ways about themselves, the past, or
the present world around them. Critical literacy asks teachers to make explicit

and open for discussion or dispute the “techniques by which texts and discourses

construct and position human subjects and social reality” (107). Another way
to learn about teaching practice is to look closely at a few critical teachers’
practices. Freire outlines phases he used to teach illiterate adults in Brazil to
read (Freire, 1996). He begins with preparatory phases. First, the teacher
researches the students’ vocabulary and lives. Then, he or she selects
generative words from their vocabulary containing phonemic richness and the
potential for fervent discussions and prepares artifacts for generative themes.
During class time the teacher and the students work with the generative words
and themes, de-coding them and engaging in dialogue interdependently.

In recent years, a number of Australian educators have written extensively
about critical literacy in the classroom. For example, Fehring and Green’s (2001)
specific classroom goals include: analyzing multiple readings, challenging taken-
for granted or dominant readings, examining the construction of texts, exposing
gaps and silences of reading, and constructing social critical readings of the texts
and culture. They also detail how they reach these goals as follows: comparing
multiple texts to one another, adding or deleting parts of the text to Challenge the
apparent unity, constructing different endings/beginnings, asking questions to the
author, and asking students to compare what they are thinking and feeling during
reading.

Critical teachers make it a priority to include a wide variety of voices in the
classroom which influences the texts chosen for reading. Texts are drawn from
multiple Discourses. In addition, especially in recent years, a wide variety of
texts, not just written ones, are read (Fehring 8 Green, 2001). For example,

students may “read” advertisements, neighborhoods, photographs, or city maps.

10

These texts are often drawn from popular culture (Wilson, 2001). These texts are
looked at through a critical lens, and issues of race, class, culture, and justice are
consistently considered. In addition, teachers work to increase students’
commitment to social justice and to strengthen their belief that things can change
and individuals (such as themselves) can make a difference (Shannon, 1992).
Willinsky (2001) adds an important contribution to critical literacy.
Willinsky describes the project of critical literacy as “helping students analyze
how certain institutional uses of language fail them, as it excludes and diminishes
the lives of some [and also] aimed at enabling students to use this critical
awareness of how language works to seek redress and remedy" (7). In other
words, Willinsky’s view propels fonIvard the work of critical literacy. He
continues, “we need to find ways of beginning with the young the very rereading
and rewriting of the world that falls to each generation. This is our privilege and

responsibility as teachers who are, after all, working directly on the future” (9).

Teachers and Students: Subjects and Objects

In order to facilitate this “rereading and rewriting” critical literacy has
implications for the roles of teachers and students in the Classroom. Proponents
of this view want teachers to be transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1997),
people who recognize inequality in society and in schooling and hold as their
primary goal to work for social change and help their students become critical
activists (Firm, 1999). Teachers are listeners who learn about their students’
lives and who enter into dialogue with their students in order to learn with and

from them.

11

Students in such Classrooms are not passive recipients who learn what
their teacher transmits. Instead, students assume the role of knowing Subjects
alongside an educator who is also a knowing Subject (Freire 8 Macedo, 1987).
The relationship between the teacher and the student becomes dialogic in nature.
Students participating in the classrooms as Subjects rather than as objects are a
key aspect of critical literacy. Subjects act, create, and make decisions; objects
are acted upon, are known, and have decisions made for them. This conception
of students as Subjects is rare in many Classrooms where teachers do the
majority of the talking, make many of the decisions, and control most of the

learning opportunities.

Curriculum: Critical/y Reading Texts

Critical literacy is ultimately aimed at engaging students in the process of
Ieaming. It focuses on explicitly articulating and expressing voice and creating
opportunities for students to author their experience and surroundings. Critical
literacy advocates think this authoring must happen in relation to the multiplicity
and politics involved in identity, voice and meaning (Comber, 1999; Giroux, 1987;
Lensmire, 1994; Luke, 1995, 2000). A critical literacy classroom engages
students in a process of reading and writing, of “talking back” (Christensen, 2000)
and establishing an environment where the cultural and social aspects of texts
are consistently considered.
In this critical context, individuals’ comprehensions of texts are constantly
compared with others’ interpretations (Gee, 2000). Freire (1985) suggests that if

one could not (and did not) juxtapose one’s specific reading with other readings,

12

then one, in reality, had no significant reading. Meaning in a text comes not just
from the text itself but also from the reader and the context in which it is read
(Kincheloe 8 Steinberg, 1998). When several people read the same text they
each comprehend it in a slightly different way. In other words, reading is a
negotiation between the reader and the text. It is based not only on what the
author is trying to say but also on the positions (the eXperiences, history, gender
etc.) of the readers and the lenses that they bring with them to that particular
reading, including the time and place of the reading. Education in a critical
literacy class does not merely focus on finding the meaning in the text but also
helps students consider who they are as readers and why they read a text in a
particular way. Rather than being an add-on to the regular curriculum or an
“‘ideology critique’ divorced from everyday life” (Luke, 1995) critical reading is an
essential part of education. “Judgments about what to buy, what to comply with,
when to argue back, whether to get angry or hold your peace, how to argue back
in speech and writing, are key moves and moments in the politics of everyday
life” and these are precisely the types of thinking critical literacy teachers include
in their teaching practices (Luke, 1995, p. 112).

A critical literacy curriculum is based on students’ experiences and lived
realities (Giroux, 1987). Critical literacy proponents encourage teachers to build
curriculum from students’ languages, neighborhoods, beliefs and interests. This
does not mean catering to students’ desires but rather critically engaging them.
Students and teachers use a critical lens to look at the issues and topics raised.

Critical literacy teachers encourage students to bring their lives and interests into

13

the classroom - and to look at these lives and interests as raced, classed, and

gendered.

Discourse and discourse

The concept of Discourse plays a central role in this dissertation and its
conception of critical literacy. James Gee uses the term Discourse with a capital
D to describe and discuss social practices. According to Gee (1992), each socio-
culturally defined group of people (for example, African-American, upper Class,
Doctor, dancer, woman) has its own Discourse. The term Discourse
encompasses a wide variety of thoughts and actions, “involving ways of talking,
acting, interacting, valuing, and believing.” More specifically, a Discourse
includes “words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, social identities, as well as
gestures, glances, body positions, and Clothes” ( 107).

Gee (2001) differentiates between Discourse and discourse. While
Discourse (with a capital D) is the broad combination of “saying-(writing)-doing-
being-valuing-believing,” discourse (with a lower case (I) is the smaller
“connected stretches of language that make sense” (526). Discourse
encompasses discourse, where Discourse means ways of participating in
communities; discourse describes the pieces of communication, of language, that
people use. The term discourse describes the building blocks - the “speech acts”
- that make up a Discourse.

Each person’s identity simultaneously includes membership and
identification with a variety of associations or groups, such as a teacher, parent,

American, educational researcher. Each association has a unique Discourse

14

associated with that group, including values, beliefs, knowledge, and ways of
talking and acting. Therefore, each person has a wide variety of Discourses.
When students enter school, they already have a set of home Discourses, what
Gee terms primary Discourses. Students’ primary Discourses are tied to their
culture - class, race, religion, language, and so on. No student’s primary
Discourse is exactly congruent to the Discourse used in school. Discourse is a
fluid term; therefore it alters flexibly from school to school, depending on the
specific contexts the school is located in and the people inhabiting it. However,
as schools themselves have certain consistencies (Cuban, 1984) so too does the
Discourse in schools. While there might be differences between Discourses in
schools, there is often a shared Discourse of schooling which permeates and
often dominates the various Discourses in schools. No student’s home
Discourse is exactly congruent to the Discourse used in school. I, as others
have, (Christensen, 2000; Gee, 1992), argue in Chapter Three that some
students’ primary Discourses are more closely connected to the standard
Discourse valued most in school.

If we think of Discourse as an identity kit (Gee, 1992), a school Discourse
or kit includes the ways students communicate and express themselves orally
and in writing, the ways they read, write, speak and listen in school. Specifically,
the Iiteracy-practiceS-identity-kit includes ways of taking turns, telling stories,
responding to books, organizing writing, etc. Throughout this dissertation, I
investigate ways Ms. Darcy and her school district expected students to

participate in literacy practices.

15

While Discourses do not have inherent value, they carry different amounts
of power and weight in society and in classrooms. For example, the Discourse
associated with school includes a wide variety of specific social practices,
including raising hands, sitting in a chair, and speaking and writing in standard
English. As Delpit (1992) reminds us, learning the standard Discourse enables
students to learn the “culture of power,” which leads to academic success and
provides entry into important institutions in society. This dissertation focuses on
the standard Discourse taught in schools and its connections to issues of culture,
power and society. It raises questions about the possibilities and constraints

embedded in teaching the school Discourse.

Significance of the Study

In significant ways, the issues embedded in critical literacy are part of the
educational landscape. Theoretical discussions about critical literacy appear
regularly in the literature, many schools of education require prospective teachers
to take a course about issues of equity and multiculturalism, and organizations for
teachers committed to social justice exist nationwide. However, detailed
accounts of critical literacy practices are scarce (Damico, 2003; Feiman-Nemser
8 Remillard, 1996; Gore, 1998; Michell, 1999). McLaren (1999) acknowledges
that “few accounts are provided as to how teachers are to move from critical
thought to critical practice” (52). Michell (1999) wrote that “much of the
expanding body of literature on critical literacy and critical pedagogies is densely
theoretical or only deals with teaching in the abstract rich portrayals are

necessary to “flesh out’ the theory - to make concrete what the theoretical

16

literature has been attempting to promote in the abstract” (55). Further, accounts
about new teachers committed to critical literacy practices are even rarer
(Damico, 2003). In the next few paragraphs, I map out bodies of work about
critical literacy in order to Show what is included in the literature, what is missing,
and what this study hopes to add.

Literature exists to persuade educators about the need for critical literacy
by describing how current schooling practices are oppressive and reproductive of
society’s inequities (Apple, 1990; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Edelsky, 1999;
Halsley et al., 1997). Other texts outline what critical literacy is and provide
nuanced discussions about the definitions and complexities of the theories
underlying a critical education (Fehring 8 Green, 2001; Giroux, 1987; Luke et. al,
2001; McLaren, 1998, 1999). Of course, these pieces play an important role and
are valuable for educators to read and understand. However, in addition
teachers and researchers also need multiple pictures of what does and does not
happen when these ideas are put into practice, specifically considering how
critical literacy might work and might not work as it engages with the realities of
schooling. This study intends to add such a picture of critical literacy within the
realities of one classroom.

There are some published accounts of critical literacy practice in the
educational literature. These come in several forms. First, there are edited
collections that detail teachers implementing critical literacy in the Classroom
(Allen, 1999; Edelsky, 1999). However, these essays usually focus on one unit
or even one lesson. They rarely dig into what it takes to engage in critical literacy

on a day to day basis over several months. In addition, these pieces often focus

17

on what eventually worked rather than describing lasting failures or enduring
compromises that were made. These accounts tend to show the finished product
without including in-depth discussion or description of the ongoing, underlying
work that took place along the way. It is this daily work that we must investigate
in order to learn more about the complexities and intricacies of critical literacy.

In addition to these descriptive accounts of critical literacy, there are also
more extensive pieces about specific teachers. Linda Christensen has emerged
as a powerful example of a critical literacy teacher. She regularly publishes
articles in teacher journals and has written several books. She is an inspirational
educator and writer; however, similar to the accounts above, her work rarely
addresses ongoing failures or compromises. She doesn’t extensively question or
Challenge the theory. In addition, She is a veteran teacher who doesn’t give us
much insight into the experiences of new teachers who are trying to implement
critical literacy for the first time and who have to simultaneously struggle with an
array of beginner issues, such as how to put a unit together, whether or not to
allow students bathroom passes, or how to assess students.

There are also recent popularized stories of dynamic literacy teachers.
These teachers might not use the term critical literacy, but they connect with their
students in powerful ways around literacy. Although these few texts are not
research-based in the traditional definition, they are important to mention
because their romanticized accounts have reached a wide audience and are
influential in portraying an image of teaching, even for teachers. Two examples
of these teachers’ accounts are Erin Gruwell’s ( 1999) The Freedom Writers Diary

and LouAnne Johnson’s (1995) Dangerous Minds- turned into a movie starring

18

Michelle Pfeifer. While these stories are motivating and entertaining, they are
highly individualized and very celebrated accounts of teaching. These pieces
focus specifically on the particular personalities and circumstances of an
individual teacher and do not offer much in terms of a larger context. It will
require a great deal of Change for substantially more educators to implement
critical literacy in their Classrooms, and these accounts, while inspirational, are
not the most systematic ways to inform such a movement. Further, these stories
follow a common story plot; the main character experiences extreme Challenges
but then eventually finds success. Again, this approach does not delve into the
ongoing challenges embedded in the work of critical teachers. Even Freire, to a
certain extent, although with consistent nuanced and brilliant arguments, focused
much of his writing on what works to successfully reach students. Ellsworth
(1989) and Shor (1996) provide in depth examinations into what happened when
they implemented critical pedagogies into their Classroom, including the
challenges they faced. However, these texts each describe college contexts
which differ substantially from K-12 classrooms.

As I have stated, we do not need to produce more distilled bullet points of
what critical literacy must look like or celebratory descriptions of how critical
literacy works best. I am instead arguing that we need multiple, ongoing and in
depth pictures of what critical literacy teaching practices look like. Further, these
pictures must include examinations of connections and disconnections between
these practices and critical literacy theories. We must speak back to the theory
by investigating and troubling practice, and relating it to theory. In this study, I

provide pictures of critical literacy in action in order to re-examine existing

19

theories in critical literacy and raise questions about critical literacy in
classrooms. Such accounts are necessary both for the theory and the practice.
For in order to move theories further, theories underpinning critical literacy must
be informed by what is learned in specific teaching practices. And in order to
truly be able to develop what it takes to make this work in real contexts, we need
to see more of how and why it does and doesn’t work. In order for critical literacy
to enable a productive and generative body of literature and scholarship, it must
also include pieces written about knowledge produced in particular classrooms.

In this dissertation I provide a study over a longer period of time of a
practice, including the daily realities of teaching, the compromises and
challenges of working in our educational system. In this way, I complexity the
theory and practice of critical literacy and what might be Ieamed from them. AS a
teacher educator and avid critical literacy believer, I want teacher education to be
informed by critical literacy. It is not enough though to grasp the theories behind
critical literacy or to consider the need for it in our current system. We must also
be informed by the complicated realities of what teachers face as they work to
implement and work through the implementation of these ideas. Obviously, the
ideal situation for implementing critical literacy is not present in our current
schools. Those factors create a reality that Elizabeth Darcy, and other teachers,
must work within as they teach. In particular, as prospective teachers are
learning about these ideas in teacher preparation programs, we must learn from
the ways new teachers implement critical literacy as they begin their teaching

practices. What will they experience when they step into their classroom? What

20

will constrain them? What compromises and challenges will they face? What
rewards will they reap? Who will benefit and at what cost?

In this dissertation, Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching practice provides a
complex picture of what happened when a new teacher implemented critical
literacy in her classroom. In her second year of teaching during this study,
Elizabeth was beginning to develop her teaching persona. Her own views and
beliefs about the purposes of education and the role of critical literacy play a
pivotal role in her teaching practice and in this study. I provide a brief
introduction to MS. Darcy and her teaching philosophies here; a more detailed
description follows in Chapter Three. Ms. Darcy’s commitment to critical literacy
grew out of her own upbringing and her experiences during and after college,
including her time in the Peace Corps. She entered teaching in her late 20’s and
had a fairly rocky first year as she worked to put together her curriculum and as
she struggled with discipline. After reviewing her teacher preparation materials,
reading new educational books, and thinking hard about her teaching practice
over the summer, Ms. Darcy was on much firmer ground in her second year. She
described the difficulties she faced and the ways She worked through them below
(interview 7/8/03):

The biggest difficulty was wading through. There are so many ways to

teach, and there are so many things they throw at a new teacher and

they say, do this and do that - the district, the principal, the language arts
dept. head, the professional development, and other teachers. And
they’re all well-meaning and you’re trying so hard to soak it all up. The
best thing was for me was to sit down after my 1St year and really come
up with the backbone and of course I keep meddling with that. I had to
learn to really listen to myself and think about what I wanted to see my
classroom look like. It is a combination of who I am as a person and what

I learned [in my teacher preparation program] and North Central public
school district.

21

“The backbone” Ms. Darcy came up with and the way it played out with the
students drove her classroom. Throughout this dissertation, l detail “the
backbone” of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice, narrate an account of how her ideals
took shape and form in room CI32, and ultimately describe an intricate picture of
teaching and learning, and learning resulting from it.

This story includes a variety of scenes: an orderly classroom with a strict
teacher; students protesting against racial profiling and discrimination; 8th graders
sitting at their desk silently copying from the overhead projector; youth actively
discussing and debating society’s deeply held assumptions and injustices; Ms.
Darcy firmly disciplining students; and a teacher who one student wrote “makes
me get thinking.” Detailed pictures, like the ones presented in this study, will help
teacher educators and prospective and practicing teachers think about the
possibilities involved in critical literacy, what will constrain them, and how one
teacher navigates these possibilities and constraints. Ms. Darcy kept one foot

inside the system as the other foot moved outside.

The Study Revisited
Although I set out to investigate the daily life of a teacher in a public school
Classroom, it wasn’t until I was actually out there in the field, that I realized what
this would mean and that I wasn’t really ready for that. It was messier than I was
prepared for; even though I knew the classroom would not be a pristine island, in
many ways I still approached it that way. As I look back, I realize that I expected

to see a nice, neat picture of critical literacy with all of its components in order. In

22

at
St

de

the

W.

ans

fir:
v‘l

A,”
914::
t"

(‘3
1

addition, I was also filled with romantic images of critical literacy in action. I was
subconsciously looking for: students making protest posters and preparing a
demonstration on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial; the class singing “We Shall
Overcome” sitting in a circle; chants and tears, speeches and songs; young
teenagers marching into the classroom, talking excitedly about how they were in
the process of changing the world.

Instead, when I walked into Elizabeth Darcy’s 8‘" grade classroom at Elk
Middle School, I saw desks and chairs pushed together in rows. Students read
novels and answered comprehension questions. They wrote stories, completed
grammar exercises, and learned about parts of speech. Ms. Darcy asked
questions about vocabulary in poems and students raised their hands and
answered. In other words, it looked like school, and I found myself wondering
where the critical literacy was. However, as I watched the students and teacher
working throughout the school year, as I listened to their poetry and looked
Closely at the assignments, I realized that in the midst of what looked like
“regular” reading and writing practices, critical work was brewing in the cracks.
There were spaces and places for students to draw on their own lives, to question
assumptions in society, to voice the need for Change, and to imagine alternatives
in their local and national communities. In fact, the classroom was full of such
work. This work was incorporated into or hidden behind “real school.”

This disconnect between my own vision and the classroom’s reality was
surprising and confusing and sent me back to revisit several components of my

study. In particular, I reflected on where my own vision of critical literacy had

23

come from and reviewed the critical literacy literature and my dissertation

proposal.

Reflecting on my Own Beliefs about Critical Literacy

As I reflect on my own vision of critical literacy I realize that for me,
teaching has always been about “social Change,” although the meaning of that
term continues to develop. The roots of critical literacy connect to ideals I have
believed all of my life - that injustice permeates our society and that it is each
person’s responsibility to actively work to make the world a better place. Further,
before I knew the term critical literacy, I held many of its beliefs about teaching:
that schools often reproduce society’s inequities, that education is inevitably
political, and that teachers have the potential to be among society’s greatest
change agents. When I was introduced to the work of Paolo Freire and the field
of critical literacy in a master’s class during my third year of teaching in an urban
middle school in Arizona, it was love at first sight. From my first reading of
Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970), I wholeheartedly believed that when
teachers and students genuinely engaged in critical dialogue about the world
around them, when each student’s knowledge was valued, and when reading and
writing took on real meaning for the participants, the Ieaming in that context was
revolutionary. At that time in my career, I left my position as a middle school
teacher and entered doctoral study full time. Looking back, I realize that as I left
the classroom and studied critical literacy in a traditional academic setting, my
understanding of the theories of critical literacy developed outside of an actual

context of practice. I fervently studied about critical literacy but I did not

24

consistently engage in critical literacy as a teacher or student. I see now that I
had developed a removed, romantic, academic sense of critical literacy that did

not speak to what I was seeing in Ms. Darcy’s Classroom.

Reflecting on Critical Literacy Literature and My Dissertation Proposal

In my dissertation proposal, l thoughtfully and thoroughly outlined
principles of critical literacy. In the proposal (and in my mind), the principles fit
into nice, orderly sections that would form a powerful and organized classroom
practice. Not surprisingly, as I moved from my quiet, orderly cubicle at Michigan
State University to the messy, complicated world of middle school classroom life,
my neatly outlined conception proved to be unsophisticated. Though I logically
knew better, in many ways I envisioned the classroom as a blank slate where
radical ideas would be manifested beautifully and uncomplicatedly. Instead, as
my dissertation work proves, classrooms are cacophonies of multiple, often
conflicting, historical, cultural, individual and institutional influences.

Though I spent countless hours myself in classrooms, as a student,
teacher, field instructor and educational consultant, I found myself perplexed by
the strength and number of forces muddling critical teaching. I scrambled back to
the plethora of articles I had poured through to write my dissertation proposal and
found that in addition to my own reasoning, a number of others contributed to my
overly orderly picture. While many of the articles, specifically about critical
literacy, used complex language, complicated theoretical ideas, and in depth
discussions, very few of them left me, as a reader, with feelings about how

relentlessly critical literacy is contested on a daily basis, how exhaustive the

25

process is, and how difficult its practices are at every turn. For example, in the
first half of his book, Life in Schools, McLaren (1998) writes about his teaching
experience; the reader is left exhausted, depleted and at times hopeless. The
diary-like writing style builds visual images that evoke emotions. In particular, we
can see Buddy, “one of the more colorful characters” who is allowed to “float”
around the school and even more importantly we can feel the teacher as he is
“unnerve[ed] to see Buddy pause at [his] doonIvay” (43). However, in the second
half of the book, when McLaren describes critical pedagogy, the style and feel is
very different. Rather than the diary style, the section is organized into main
ideas and key terms. Though McLaren complexly describes critical pedagogy in
dynamic terms, as a reader I was left with a neat, categorized picture of
possibility.

This multifaceted, yet relatively orderly trend permeates much of the
literature I read. Earlier in this chapter, I noted the lack of in depth articles
focused on specific critical practices but the dearth hit me in a new way as I came
home from days in my research site to reread articles and books. I found the
importance of context repeatedly mentioned but the actual effects of contexts
noticeably absent; though many authors assert that educational practices are
context-dependent, not many studies examine how Specific contexts influence
critical enactments. At the same time, I had collected everything I could find with
actual classroom descriptions of critical classrooms. Rereading these pieces, I
found mostly neatly packaged pieces with conflicts resolved, successes attained
and nicely reached (and Closed) conclusions. Upon asking about this tendency in

a particular critical teaching journal, one of the editors, Linda Christensen, told

26

me that it was not true that everything had to be solved, “Some authors write
about what they would have done differently” (2003). But I realized this response
was not enough. The kind of reflection I am arguing for does not entail merely
realizing that particular decisions or actions were right or wrong, but instead
involves examining the myriad of decisions and actions that aren’t so clear-cut,
the unsolvable dilemmas and inevitable compromises.

Limitations in the medium of writing, especially in standard and traditional
formats, offer part of the explanation for the rarity of fluidity and disorderliness.
Clearly illustrated points, linear logic, neatly organized sections and scientifically
proven conclusions close off feelings of, and spaces for, messiness. Even
complications are usually analyzed neatly and written about in an organized
fashion. That is the (traditional) purpose, in many ways, of systematically
researching a site, to make sense of the messiness. Although I will work to
represent the inevitable messiness in the context I studied, there are many
reasons that this dissertation will simplify and neaten the complications more
than I would like. This traditional, linear format is what I think is expected of this
work and what I myself expect it to look like in the end. The models of research,
including dissertations, that l have read follow this format and it has thus become
for me what a dissertation is, and more broadly mirrors how I (have been taught
to) think about, classify, and organize information.

Further, the dissertation takes shape as a result of the caution I have of
taking too many risks. This fear stems partly from past experiences when l was
criticized for altering the expected format of research studies and it also comes

from imagined fear of what the consequences of taking risks might be. My

27

conformity results from a variety of negative reactions to more alternative work,
responses that have come from others as well as from me. I remember a
professor and Classmates’ laughter and jokes about the inclusion of a new
category of research involving dance at the annual AERA conference. When
Denzin (1997) suggests alternative formats such as performance texts to present
research findings, I am influenced by my own discomfort at moving too far out of
the lines. A traditionally organized dissertation comes from my desire to be
scholarly and years in schools that have shaped what I consider scholarly. It is
the result of wanting to fit into a profession I respect and also arises out of
concern that because the profession itself is not considered the most academic, it
is even more important to keep things looking traditionally academic. I take
comfort in hiding in what is expected and I worry that creating something different
would necessitate making the work exponentially better - and I wonder if I have
the energy, ability and creativity to pull it off. Overall, on a negative note, this
traditional format prevails from a lack of imagination; on a positive note, it exists

because it is a good way to organize a long, in-depth research study.

Revisiting the Research Questions

My experiences in the research site led me to review the research study as I
had laid it out in my dissertation proposal. In particular, the research questions
took on new meaning for me as I researched. I still set out to study a critical
literacy classroom in action but I spread my lens wider to include the influence of
outside forces, such as school culture, students’ expectations, and societal norms

on the teaching practice. Of course, I initially acknowledged that these factors

28

were a consideration but I truly recognized their significance as the study ensued.

As I show using italics below, my research questions expanded to:

o What happens in this critical literacy classroom that is positioned in the
midst of more traditional expectations ?

o What possibilities are created within this context, curriculum and
instruction and what constraints and compromises complicate these
possibilities ?

o How do moments of practice in this particular setting connect to the
broader theories underlying critical literacy and where are there
disconnects between what I see and the theory?

a What are students’ attitudes toward literacy in this classroom and how do
their attitudes relate to critical and more traditional literacy practices .7

o How do different types of texts and assignments influence ways students
respond to texts and how do these different ways influence critical
possibilities .7

o How does the teacher make decisions and what does the teacher learn
and how are these decisions influenced by the culture of her school, her
students ’ expectations and her own multi-faceted expectations ?

Adding Shades of Gray

As the research study progressed, my observations and examination
altered my own lenses as a researcher and as an educator. The study itself
actually changed my view of critical literacy. Therefore, as I describe and
analyze critical literacy in this context, I am writing from a perspective that is
evolving from the one I started with in my original dissertation proposal.
Ultimately, this dissertation is the story of Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching practice
during the 2001-2002 school year. It is simultaneously my own story of my
growing and developing theories about critical literacy. Drawing on feminist
methodologies, I recognize that while rigorous and professional, research is an

inherently personal endeavor that is influenced by who we are (Hollingsworth,

29

1994). At the same time, research also influences who we are becoming (Behar
8 Gordon, 1995). As a researcher, I recognize the “importance of self and
collective interpretations, but [also] deeply understand that these interpretations
are always in a state of becoming” (Carson 8 Sumara, 1997, p. xviii). Throughout
the dissertation - as is typical to research studies - I attempt to add productively to
the educational field by analyzing data and drawing conclusions. In addition
though, I also attempt to further the conversation about critical literacy by
illuminating the ways my own thoughts and actions were altered and furthered,
particularly returning to this internal conversation in Chapter Eight. AS I detail in
this section, I Ieamed to theorize critical literacy in shades of gray, rather than
extremes of black and white. And as I further describe in Chapter Eight, what this
new outlook did not change was my commitment to and belief in critical literacy

as a powerful and important philosophy of literacy education.

As I looked at what happened in this classroom I realized the potency of
Freire’s (1985) words: “I cannot be totally outside the system if the system
continues to exist. I have to be in it.” The system often pushes against the aims
and practices of critical literacy. Concrete manifestations of the current system
reach into every classroom of a school, the way smoke from a fire seeps through
cracks and Spaces, no matter how tightly you Close the door. If a teacher
necessarily exists within this system, then some systematic realities - such as
standardized testing, administrative hierarchies, district curricular expectations,
typical school accommodations like student and teacher desks - operate as part

of any critical practice a teacher aims to provide.

30

Conceptualizations of critical literacy in the literature do not position it
outside of the system, but instead consider it as an approach to critically engage
the system (Giroux, 1987; McLaren, 1999). As I demonstrate throughout this
dissertation, in my research of Elizabeth Darcy’s classroom there were times
when she critically engaged the system, finding space for critical content and
pedagogy. There were times too though that she was inside the system, without
critically engaging it. This study led me to re-envision critical literacy in shades of
gray, rather than an all-or-nothing endeavor. Although there are breakdowns of
various components of critical literacy, as l detailed earlier in the chapter (Luke,
1995), conceptions of classrooms as somewhere between traditional teaching
and critical literacy are not prevalent in critical literacy literature. Therefore, I
looked to the field of multicultural education to further inform my research. In
addition to including heuristics that detail such stages or phases, multicultural
education is particularly useful because it is closely connected to critical literacy.
Multicultural education is essentially about providing a quality education for all
students and helping students become critical and productive members of a
democratic society (Nieto, 2000). It disputes the notion that decisions about
education are politically neutral and directly challenges racism, Classism, and
other forms of discrimination. Critical literacy can be viewed as part of
multicultural education. They share the same ultimate goals for students and
society: to create positive social change by giving all students the tools they will
need to succeed within and transform their immediate and broader contexts

(Sleeter 8 Grant, 1994).

31

Several prominent figures in multicultural education delineate the gray
areas between a traditional approach to education and a more liberatory, just or
inclusive approach. For example, Sleeter and Grant (1994) “ask how schooling
could work differently to favor diverse groups more equally” and share “five
different approaches to what multicultural education could mean” (vi). While the
authors advocate the final approach, education that is multicultural and social
reconstructionist, they detail several other possibilities. This extensive discussion
of teaching practices that, while not perfect, do work toward a more equitable
education speaks to Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice. Further, Sharing five different
approaches complexifies the way multicultural education might look. By
evaluating and describing a variety of multicultural approaches, the authors
accept and at the same time explain the consequences of each approach. They
consider how the realities of Classroom life shape multicultural education as they
offer in-depth analysis of what various practices do and don’t make possible in
terms of equity and social Change.

It is particularly helpful to look at two of the approaches Sleeter and Grant
describe. The first, “Teaching the Exceptional and the Culturally Different,” aims
to “help fit people into the existing social structures and culture” (42). Delpit
(2001) argues that students “need access to dominant discourses to have access
to economic power” (552) and critiques well-intentioned teachers who Choose not
to include the seemingly superficial components of language (such as grammar)
in their teaching practices. As I demonstrate throughout this dissertation, Ms.
Darcy took seriously her responsibility to help her students succeed in school and

society and this led her to include components that looked rather traditional.

32

Ms. Darcy’s commitment to her students also led her to “make relevant
students’ experiential background, fill in gaps in basic skills and knowledge, teach
content in language students can understand [and] build on students’ Ieaming
styles” (Sleeter 8 Grant, 1994, p. 211). While these beliefs and practices do not
fully adhere to the education the authors see as the ideal, they do have a place
within multicultural and equitable education. Ms. Darcy’s practice also fits with
the authors’ ideal approach, “Multicultural Education and Social
Reconstructionist.” This dissertation will Show multiple examples of Ms. Darcy
“organizing content around social issues, analy[zing] alternative viewpoints
[and] teaching social action skills” (211).

Nieto (2002) provides another helpful model as she too thinks about
different levels of multicultural education. For Nieto, characteristics of
multicultural education include tolerance, acceptance, respect and ultimately
affirmation, solidarity and critique. Again, although Nieto aims toward this
ultimate education, she details a variety of stages. Her description helps the
reader analyze the benefits and costs of decisions teachers and schools make.
Like the above model, Ms. Darcy’s practice contains pieces of different phases.
Acting at the tolerance level, Ms. Darcy’s students “begin to question the status
quo.” Like the acceptance stage, “lifestyles and values of groups other than the
dominant ones are acknowledged in some content.” Finally, in accordance with
the respect level, “students take part in community activities that reflect their
social concerns” (342-343).

Critical literacy educators can learn from the ways multicultural education

is conceptualized and described. Traditional aspects of Language Arts are part

33

of critical literacy classrooms in our current school system. While we can and
should critique problematic components of critical literacy practices we also need
to learn from the possibilities created. This dissertation explores how traditional
and critical approaches relate and coexist in one critical literacy classroom. What
is described and analyzed here is critical literacy in this context. This
dissertation’s intent is not to critique what Elizabeth Darcy could have done better
to reach the goals of critical literacy, although there were times when this was at
the forefront of my mind as an observer/researcher which may implicitly or
explicitly influence this document. There also may be times when the reader may
bring this stance to bear on the text. This is also note study revealing how Ms.
Darcy’s intentions or articulations differed from her practice, as I discuss in depth
when I describe Elizabeth in Chapter Three. Instead, the main focus of this study
is that critical literacy is messier (not more complex) than it is often described in
the literature and was conceptualized by me at the beginning of the study.

In this dissertation, I research how and why critical literacy took the form
that it did in this particular classroom, analyzing both the origins of the ideals and
practices as well as how teaching and Ieaming were shaped in action. I also
investigate the ways and reasons this manifestation of critical literacy worked in
this context. In the end, I discuss both why it was powerful and also limited. By
concentrating on how critical literacy is mediated by one teacher in a Classroom
on a daily basis, this study adds to the field by analyzing the gray areas between
traditional and critical ideals. Throughout the dissertation, I show the different
shades of gray that made up this practice. In the final chapter, I return to this

construct in order to ultimately consider how this study can inform thinking about

34

critical literacy in other classrooms and schools, including classrooms in colleges

of education.

Overview of the Dissertation

In the pages that follow, I take the reader inside Elizabeth Darcy’s
classroom. Chapter Two details my research methodology, examining the theory
underlying the study itself, and describing the methods of data collection and
analysis. Chapters Three through Six analyze specific aspects of Ms. Darcy’s
teaching practice, each providing scenes from this Classroom during the 2001-
2002 school year. In each of those three chapters, l evoke the traditional and
critical forces at work to show how the two philosophies consistently coexisted
and what and who was produced as a result. Specifically, Chapter Three
introduces the research context and participants and focuses on the district
curriculum, Chapter Four analyzes poetry lessons, Chapter Five describes a unit
about the novel The Outsiders (Hinton, 1997), and Chapter Six investigates
grammar lessons and protest poems. In Chapter Seven I take a broader look at
the data and examine the different forces that influenced the lessons and units.
Finally, Chapter Eight discusses what this study can offer to the educational
landscape.

Taken together, these chapters tell the story of two philosophies, one
critical and one more traditional, working together in one Classroom, each playing
a significant role in teaching and learning. Ultimately, is this a traditional
Classroom with critical tendencies or a critical classroom with traditional

constraints? I intend to Show that it is both. As I interpret what happened in this

35

 

 

 

classroom and reflect on the possibilities and consequences of this enactment, I
aim to add to the literature rich, inspirational, problematic vignettes of practice,
and to pose important questions about critical literacy in our current educational
system. I intend to Show ways critical literacy is possible, powerful, challenging,
difficult and productive. I focus on how critical literacy and institutional norms
relate in complicated ways, constraining, limiting, compromising, and
complimenting each other. By exploring how one teacher works within the
system to do this kind of work, I illuminate dilemmas and potentials in enacting
powerful literacy education.

Critical literacy teachers embark on a highly challenging project; critical
teaching practices often conflict with district curriculum, norms and histories of
schooling, students’ expectations, and the culture of the school building. Still, Ms.
Elizabeth Darcy takes on this project. Unlike romanticized accounts that position
teachers as superheroes or martyrs, Elizabeth does her job without much
grandeur or flash. Unlike glorified images of teachers in popular culture Ms.
Darcy does not spend thousands of her own dollars on her classroom, she does
not arrange meetings with Steven Spielberg or bring her students on the Oprah
Winfrey Show. She does not train for marathons with her students, and she does
not come to class in army gear or take students to expensive dinners.3 Instead,
she walks in every day to do her job that she views as a “privilege and
responsibility [to work] directly on the future” (Willinsky, 2001, p. 9). This is why,

in my mind, She is a hero and the kind of hero from whom we need to learn.

 

3 These are feats accomplished respectively by Erin Gruwell, Teach for America corps member
Kimberly Lasher, and LouAnne Johnson.

36

Chapter Two
METHODOLOGY AND METHODS

How one studies can not be separated from what one studies, ultimately
from the story told. Consequently, there is another story brewing under the
surface of this dissertation. In addition to studying Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice
and investigating ways my own views of critical literacy changed, this is also a
story of a novice researcher trying to research in critical ways. Like Ms. Darcy, I
am also trying to keep “one foot inside the system and another foot outside.”
Writing this dissertation is entrenched in traditional academic structures. At the
same time it attempts to infuse a critical research methodology that is at least
somewhat outside of the mainstream. Throughout this Chapter and the rest of the
dissertation, I make an effort to highlight my attempt to do critical research, the
possibilities and constraints embedded in this methodology, and the particular
experiences I go through as a novice researcher.

The foreground of my attempt to do critical research involves the creation
and acknowledgement of links between the what, how and why of my study.
These links are not focused on in standard research study organization.
Research studies generally begin with a description of the study and a discussion
of its significance. The next section usually includes an explanation of the
research methods employed. In this typical organization, the whatand the whyof

the study are separated from the how. In actuality, though, these characteristics

37

are tightly connected. What the researcher is studying, why she is studying it,
and how she studies it are (and should be) inextricably intenIvoven, at least if one
wishes to move beyond methods and into the realm of methodology. The what,
why, and how, inevitably impact one another and ultimately relate as they
influence the study’s interpretations and conclusions.

Though I attempt to bring together the what, why and how of this study, I
too discuss what I am studying and the significance of my study in Chapter One,
followed by a description of the methodology in Chapter Two. Why don’t I
organize the dissertation differently? What does it accomplish to make this point
without changing the structure? This structure is ingrained, not only in the other
research studies I have read, but in how I conceive of a research study. It is a
helpful divide that breaks down the massive and laborious task of writing a
dissertation. I could simply combine these sections in Chapter One but it would
not change anything if I stilled discussed them separately. Too, there is
something very satisfying about beginning a brand new Chapter, typing out the
new title. Therefore, though I do organizationally separate the what, why and
how, I attempt to create connections here in this chapter and throughout my work.

The what and why of this study stem from critical ideas about literacy,
education, and social change. The critical definitions of literacy, text, and
meaning that shape the focus of this research also guide the way I study literacy,
read and write texts, and define meaning as I collect and analyze data and
textualize the dissertation. This study is guided by ethnographic theories and
techniques; this methodology is well suited to match critical notions and purposes

(Street, 2001; Szwed, 2001).

38

In this Chapter, I investigate how critical definitions of text and authorship
Shape the text I am creating and my authoring of it. AS such, this methodology
chapter goes beyond detailing my data collection and data analysis methods.
“Any study is always more than the sum of its methods. What gives it meaning
and direction is not its methods but its methodology - the theories and
pedagogies it assumed and utilizes for (and during) the process of conducting
that research,” (Segall, 2002, p. 28). In this chapter, I describe the methods and
methodologies and detail the relationship between them; I also discuss how they
influenced how my data was collected, analyzed and textualized.

Methodology is sometimes viewed as the most straight forward and least
personal portion of the dissertation. In my writing group, when I reported that l
was working on my methodology chapter, another member commented that this
would be an easier task because it didn’t take the same type of investment the
data Chapters take. She explained, “You are just reporting other ideas there
rather than creating your own ideas” (Dixon, 2004). I disagree, however, with my
writing group colleague. Reporting how I went about conducting this study, or
telling this story, is indeed like crafting a story itself. Barbara Kingsolver
describes the methods She used for writing her novel, Poisonwood Bible (1998),
about a missionary family in the Congo. She read a number of research books
about the history of the place and took “several research trips into Western and
Central Africa and kept detailed journals on sounds, smells, textures, tastes.”
She also drew from her own childhood experience living “in a small village in
central Congo [and the] strong sensory memories of playing with village children

and exploring the jungle.” She concludes the explanation by declaring, “This is

39

what it means to be a novelist. You have to be madly in love with the details.”
[www.kingsolver.com]

To write a good research study, a researcher similarly needs to be
extremely enmeshed in, if not “madly in love with,” the details of the context.
Kingsolver gathered facts about her story’s context, and then ultimately created
her characters and invented the plot. Ms. Elizabeth Darcy and her students all
exist, albeit by pseudonym, but research studies too are crafted from a variety of
sources. With that in mind, this dissertation is a story. While it may not be fiction,
its fictive-like nature results from it being made, even if it is not made up (White,
1973). l vigilantly collected and analyzed data to learn about the context I was
studying. I did not invent the Characters or the happenings solely from my
imagination. However, my background, interpretations and vieWpoint no doubt
influenced (in ways that I do and do not - indeed, cannot — know) every note I
took, every audio-tape l transcribed, and every word I ultimately write. What I am
suggesting then is that this Chapter is the story of the methodology I used to
construct this particular version (one of many) of what happened during the
spring semester of the 2001-2002 school year in room C132 at Elks Middle
School.

I propose a question, then, to guide this text. What do you see as you
read? A very visual reader myself, I often automatically picture what I am
reading. If you try to imagine what you read over the next pages, what will the
main characters look like? What do you see when I describe Ms. Darcy, when I
write about Andre’s work or report from Marquita’s interview? These pictures in

your mind, and the meaning you draw from this work, come from the events that

40

happened, the telling of the events, as well as (and as much as) from the
interpretation you bring to your reading. It is the relationship between what
happened, howl describe what happened, and how you read what happened that
creates meaning. My words are shaped by what caught my (already conditioned)
eye in the classroom, how I interpreted the teacher’s and students’ words and
actions, and the decisions I made in organizing and writing this work.
Researchers often disappear from the context when they write up their study; in
this story of my methodology, I hope to make myself more present in the picture.
In addition, I aim to keep myself in the picture throughout the dissertation by
making my own subjectivities visible in the authoring of this story. (Clifford, 1988;
Tyler, 1986)

I detail an influential moment for me as a researcher to concretize the
conception of three authors creating meaning of text. In a graduate school
course, we discussed Annette La reau’s (1989) Home Advantage: Social Class
and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education and l was struck by La reau’s
initial description of two central subjects in her study. Lareau wrote that Mrs.
Morris “was dressed in jeans and a velour top, with heavy blue eye shadow and
bright red spots of blusher on her cheeks. Her nervous smile revealed crooked
teeth” (40). She described Mrs. Simpson as “dressed impeccably in a red and
white silk blouse with a bow and dark slacks” and her house as “immaculate and
spacious” (65). Questions I raised in class about these descriptions in class
were met with two main replies; “she is just reporting what she saw” and “her
observations aren’t that essential to the main points she makes.” While I

recognize the reasoning behind those responses, I ultimately see it differently.

41

That is the way Lareau saw those women, but she made conscious and
unconscious choices about her descriptions. There were a multitude of different
ways she could have described the women. Yet her own lenses noticed and
focused on particular aspects. Certain things cannot be said precisely because
of what is said (Britzman, 1997). lmportantly, too, my background influenced how
I read and wrote about the two women in her study. This meaning, then, was
created by the women themselves, how Lareau interpreted those women and
how I read it. While Lareau’s overall point was not what these women looked
like, these descriptions influenced me as a reader/author and shaped what her

study meant (to me).

Chapter Overview

In this chapter, I intend to Show how our access to what happened is
inevitably subjective and created in the telling and reading of the story
(Kincheloe, 1997). I connect how the theories that guided my research led to the
methods I used. I begin by giving an overview of critical ethnography, the
methodology that guides this research. In the next section, I narrate the story of
the research study. I organize the account chronologically, beginning when I
found the site and gained consent, continuing as I collected data, and ending with
the period of time I analyzed the data and ultimately wrote the dissertation.
These divides are misleading, though, because I was writing my dissertation from
the moment I walked into the Classroom (and even before this as my previous
experiences influenced my observations and interpretations) and l was analyzing

my data each day as I decided (both consciously and unconsciously) what to

42

write down, how to record what I was seeing, what to focus on, what to ask and

what to ignore.

Introduction to Critical Ethnography

Ethnography historically conjures up images of anthropologists embarking
on long journeys to foreign lands and creating extensive accounts of other
cultures’ ways of life. In those terms, this study is not an ethnography. I did not
live in the context I was studying (although it did feel like that at times), and while
I was there for a relatively substantial period of time compared to some other
qualitative studies, I did not study this context for several years. However,
ethnographic theories and techniques underlie this study and this dissertation
can best be described as an ethnography. In particular, it is a critical
ethnography, which draws on postmodern, feminist, and poststructural theories.

Like most ethnographies, the design of the study was open and flexible
because I was looking for what was happening rather than testing a
predetermined hypothesis (McMillan-Schumacher, 1984). My own role in the
study was that of participant-observer, as I related to and interacted with the
participants in the study as I collected data (ibid). The data I collected was
unstructured so that I could follow emerging patterns and actions (Atkinson and
Hammersley, 1994). Ethnography is especially well suited to explore the nature
of a particular social context (Spindler 8 Spindler, 1987). l was essentially
interested in the meaning that the participants in the classroom gave to their

positions and surroundings (Geertz, 1973).

43

I wanted to draw on a research methodology that would help me create an
iterative relationship between the literature and theories l was reading and the
realities and practices I was seeing in the classroom. In ethnographic studies,
the researcher “looks at the people [in the context], then looks back at the books,
and then looks again at the people” (Malinowsky, 1948, p. 10). This type of study
calls for researchers to gain in depth and various types of data while in the site
and to intensely examine this data multiple times in order to write an account
about it (Lareau 8 Shultz, 1996). This study was driven by ethnographic
research methods in order to explore the nature and context of the Classroom and
examine not only what was occurring but also how and why actions were taking
place.

In particular, I drew on critical views of ethnography, which is particularly
well suited for studies about literacy. Szwed (2001) contends that critical
ethnography is best suited for studies that question what literacy is and how it
plays out in particular contexts. Street (2001) also advocates for ethnographic
studies of literacy, clarifying that “when ethnographic method is applied to
contemporary anthropological theory, emphasizing ideological and power
processes and dynamic rather than static models, it can be sensitive to social
context” (442). Critical ethnography moves away from the assumption “that
qualified, competent observers [can] with objectivity, clarity, and precision report
on their own observations of the social world” (Denzin 8 Lincoln, 1994, p. 12).
The crisis of representation and legitimation and emerging postmodern ideas
about knowledge and reality question many aspects of traditional ethnography.

Critical ethnographers take issue with traditional researchers’ proclaimed ability

44

to be disinterested observers, to Claim authority, and to produce a valid text.
Instead, they implicate and situate themselves in their own research.

Throughout this dissertation, I attempt to disturb the text itself, to Show
how my participation in the classroom affected what happened there and to
reveal how the research site is represented through my own lenses and
interpretations. Specially, I comment on places where I might have influenced
the classroom practice. I also make visible ways my own particular identities
Shaped both how I was perceived and what I perceived, calling attention to the
fact that my interpretations are only of many possibilities. In addition, I asked Ms.
Darcy to read and comment on the text, to express her ideas, questions and
thoughts about the events themselves and/or my writing about them. I Shared
this option with Ms. Darcy at the beginning of the study and we revisited the idea
as I started writing (on paper) the account. Ms. Darcy was interested in taking
part in the presentation of the research in this way; at the same time, she has a
full life and is limited in the amount of time and energy she had to put into this
project. Taking into account Ms. Darcy’s very busy schedule, we decided I would
share with her the entire document but she would carefully read and comment on
the main data chapters. Ms. Darcy was most curious about the data chapters
because she wanted to see her Classroom through my IenS(eS) and l was
particularly interested in including her perspective on these events and on my
description and analysis of them. After completing Chapters Four through Six, I
gave them to Ms. Darcy and asked her to add comments. I have included these
comments in italics throughout the chapters. I do not add my own commentary

because the purpose is to share her voice with the audience, without my

45

meddling. A final way I attempt to disturb the text is by showing my own
transformation throughout this research study, demonstrating how I participated
as a Changing force, rather than a fixed, unified researcher. While I attempt to
keep problems of representation visible, there are also multiple ways I impacted

the research setting, data collection and analysis in ways that I will never know.

The Research Story

Part One: Finding the Site and Gaining Consent (October - December 200 I)

“Just because you are leaving this school does not mean you are
abandoning the struggle for social justice,” my Dad advised me on my cell phone
as I walked through the dark City night. Those words resonated strongly and
stirred up both sadness and relief in my Chest. Until he articulated my concern, I
did not realize how much my current job was also connected to my identity and
life’s work. I did have a lot riding on it. I would be back in an inner city Classroom
teaching again, in a newly created school, using the knowledge I had learned in
my doctoral program, and I would also be collecting data for my dissertation. The
situation had seemed perfect: I would be doing critical literacy and also
researching it. However, the problems of the school overshadowed its original
promise. After it became clear that regardless of my attempts to improve the
school, the troubles were only getting worse, and I decided to leave my job.

It was the fall of 2001 and the mood of the country, following September
11, added to my sense of discouragement and desperation. Practically speaking,
I needed a new Site for my study and a new source of livelihood. Emotionally I

desired to be part of a movement for social Change. After deciding to alter my

46

research proposal and to study another teacher rather than my own practice, and
having only recently moved to this region of the country, I identified and
contacted possible sources and asked them for recommendations of teachers
who might fit into my study. Upon receiving a number of possible names, I
contacted potential teachers. Ms. Elizabeth Darcy was recommended to me by
one of her former professors because She had shown interest in the ideas of
critical literacy in her preservice education.

After observing and interviewing several possible teachers, I Chose to set
my study in Elizabeth’s classroom. My initial discussions with Ms. Darcy were
exciting as she told me about how she was drawn to Paolo Freire and when she
described the connections She saw between social justice and education. During
my initial observation, her classroom struck me as a dynamic environment; her
students were reading a Short story and seemed genuinely engaged as they
shared their ideas. I also Chose to study Ms. Darcy because her classroom
matched what I was looking for - she taught Language Arts in a diverse middle
school Classroom in an inner city school. In addition, I wanted to work with
someone who would have the time to invest in the study. During ourinitial
contacts, Elizabeth returned my calls and e-mails promptly and made time to
meet and discuss the study. Finally, unlike some of the other nearby school
districts, the district was reported to have a relatively easy consent process and
Elizabeth thought her principal would be supportive of the study.

With a sense of relief and possibility, the research project began in
December of 2001 as I worked through the consent process. My initial

descriptions of the project reveal insights into the nature of the study. Because

47

my study largely hinged on what was happening, what arose as interesting and
important, I struggled to explain the dissertation’s focus. At the time, Ms. Darcy
seemed comfortable with the fluctuating nature of the study. Looking back,
though, I think the fluid study design initially caused friction in the research
context. Upon meeting with the school principal, I composed a short list of critical
literacy components to concretize the Study. The principal, a doctoral graduate of
another Midwestern school, began the meeting with friendly university rivalry.
Although she was not that interested in delving into the substance or details of
the study, she did raise an important concern: would Elizabeth be too
overwhelmed with the time and imposition of the study? In that meeting,
Elizabeth quickly said she was ready to invest the time and didn’t think it would
be a problem at all. However as the study began, the implications of the study
were more of a struggle than I think either of us anticipated.

When explaining the study to the 8th grade students, they didn’t seem to
really understand what I would be doing there or why I would be there and the
more I explained the more confused they looked. The basic tenor of the
conversation was, “You’re going to be here every day? Looking at us? What in
the world for?” At the same time, though, they all seemed willing to participate
and I received consent from every student except two: one who left the Class after
a few weeks and another who came nearly at the end of the school year.
Looking back now I see a theme of the dissertation occurring in my first
discussion with the students. While I thought I could describe Ms. Darcy’s
teaching as exceptionally unique and one a researcher would of course want to

look at, students viewed it simply as their 2“d and 3rd period class.

48

I had considerable difficulty describing the study to other teachers at
Elizabeth’s school. After meeting several of Elizabeth’s colleagues who asked
what the study was about, I wrote in my field notes (2/4/02):

This question [what am I studying?] will continue to plague the study in

certain ways at least until it is more clearly defined. In the teacher’s

lounge today, I answered, “Connections and disconnections between
students’ lives outside of the classroom and inside of the Classroom.”

Elizabeth said “we are looking for connecting the practical to the

academic.”

This ambiguity during the beginning stage speaks to the inductive nature of the
study; even my working definitions of critical literacy and the essence of the study

were created and constructed in process.

Part Two: Entering the Site / Ean'y Data Collection (January - February 2002)

On a cold and early morning in January 2002, I drove to Elks Middle
School excited and thankful. I was really happy to have found MS. Darcy and to
have an opportunity to put my dissertation back on track. I did not have an exact
idea of what the study would be like but I felt okay with that ambiguity. From the
beginning of our relationship, I knew it was going to be great to work with
Elizabeth. While I did not realize it that first morning, though, there were several
issues that had to be navigated at the beginning of the semester and the process
was not as smooth as I had anticipated.

One discrepancy between my original ideas about the study and the way
the study materialized surrounded my role in the Classroom. I entered the study
planning to be more of a participant-observer in the classroom but turned out to

be more of an observer-participant. I initially hoped to take more of an active

49

role, one espoused in critical ethnography, by adding critical ideas into the
instruction itself (Lather, 1987; Segall, 2002). However, I quickly realized that
Ms. Darcy relied on a strong sense of order in the Classroom and my active
presence disrupted the environment. Sharing a classroom with another teacher
is often problematic and my relaxed (and slightly Chaotic) teaching style clashed
with Ms. Darcy’s firm tone. I reflected on this general tension in my field notes
(2/10/02):
I want to be a help to Elizabeth but I am afraid the ways I may try to help
might be more of a burden for her than a help Even taking up space in
the classroom seems like a bit of a burden within her well-organized room
I thought that we would be sharing and talking more.
I also commented on a specific time we seemed to clash during a lesson. The
students were brainstorming in groups about speeches they were planning. I
moved to join a group of students and while we were having a lively discussion
another group of students turned their seats to join in with us as well. A few
minutes into the group work, Elizabeth stopped the Class and asked everyone to
go back to their seats. She told them they were being too loud and Should
continue working alone. I reflected:
Again today Elizabeth and I clashed. Our styles are very different. But as
much as I want to participate I need to remember first that this is her
classroom. I may have to stay behind my desk more (field notes, 2/12/02).
In fact, the desk I sat at became a literal and figurative barrier. I began
staying behind the desk the majority of the time and while I continued to interact
frequently with the students sitting right around the desk I interacted less with the

whole Class. As time went on, Elizabeth and I connected more and I do think she

enjoyed having me in the classroom. However, it was less for me to push and

50

prod her teaching and more for having a pleasurable person sitting there in the
classroom. For example, I wrote:
Alfredo made another outrageous comment today that was hysterical
(about the Brownies and Girl Scouts) and I caught Elizabeth’s eye just as
she settled the class down. She came over to me afterwards and told me
it was nice having someone there who gets it. I think this small incident
helped break the ice (field notes, 2l19l02).
Elizabeth also Shared a significant incident in her personal life and I noted:
Elizabeth and I had a good talk today about [this issue in her personal life.]
It helped me understand her frame of mind and made me feel Closer to
her. I also am working at showing her more respect and I think it is
already making things a little better (field notes, 2/21/02).
This was not the relationship I imagined. I thought I would be actively involved in
the classroom, asking and answering students’ questions and participating in
classroom activities. Ultimately, I decided though that “as much as I want to
participate l needled] to remember first that this is her Classroom” and it seemed
my place in it was best behind my desk. Similarly, I was less involved with
Elizabeth’s planning for the class. I initially planned on looking over lesson plans
and helping MS. Darcy rethink her intentions. However, although Elizabeth was
very accessible, she rarely shared her plans ahead of time and feedback did not
seem to be what she was looking for when she did share her plans. Her planning
style was more independent.
While my role was more observer than participant in the class, I did try to
work toward praxis (Lather, 1986). Praxis involves researchers “consciously
us[ing] research to help participants understand and change their situations”

(263). In particular, I worked toward praxis in interviews because the nature of an

interview lends itself to opportunities for people to reflect on what they did and

51

why they acted or thought a certain way. As a critical ethnographer, I tried to use
the interviews as an opportunity for critical reflection. Specifically, in student
interviews, I often followed up on themes they broached in class. I attempted to
push students to reexamine their own positions, think about the consequences of
individual actions, and consider other possible alternatives. In interviews with
Ms. Darcy l consciously tried to help her rethink some of the decisions she made
in class. I focused on helping her articulate, reconsider, and see alternatives in
some of the challenges she was facing teaching critical literacy in a less-than-
welcoming environment. Another way I worked toward praxis involved the
textualization of the research study. As I described earlier, I asked Ms. Darcy to
read, and also to reflect and remark on my representation of her classroom.
Through asking Elizabeth to take on this role, I intended to give her an
opportunity to revisit her teaching practice, read over‘ and comment on another
person’s analysis of the events, and ultimately contemplate what happened, her
own actions, and the possibilities and consequences created.

Another tension l contended with at the beginning of the research project
involved my purpose in doing the study or the possible consequences of my
work. I entered the study believing that researchers are not disinterested
outsiders merely writing down what we see. I knew that l was analyzing the data
as l was writing rather than simply recording what was going on and already
inevitably, both consciously and unconsciously, making decisions about how to
tell the story or what story to tell. For even the most diligent note-taker only
collects a certain amount of information and as I took those notes I immediately

and inescapably interpreted, even created, what took place (Britzman, 1995;

52

Denzin, 1995; Denzin 8 Lincoln, 1994; Flinders 8 Eisner 1994; Van Man, 1988).
As I was “taking notes” I was not merely recording events that were already
established and waiting for me to objectively write them down. Events were
occurring in the research site but I was constructing my own perspective and
version of them as l was writing them down.

Would my work report an amazing account of critical literacy, would it
Show how the school system did not allow critical literacy to prosper? These
questions were looming in my mind as I worked to make sense of what was going
on around me. Numerous previous experiences influenced my thought process.
Throughout my years in graduate school, as I wrote about what I wanted to study,
I was warned, or felt warned, that it was not scholarly to write a piece merely
celebrating what was happening in a particular classroom practice. At the same
time, I was disturbed by Cohen’s (1990) article that documents a teacher’s
diligent but relatively unsuccessful attempt to implement math reform. Although
my comps discussion group read the article and understood the fault to be the
school system itself, I saw it as an eloquent and sophisticated, and maybe even
important piece that violated the work of a teacher.

I never felt apolitical as a researcher, and by implicating myself in the
research I took on responsibility for what I would say. I never felt beholden to tell
a “feel good” story, and the ultimate consequences did not overwhelmingly drive
the work but they were at the surface of my mind, especially in the beginning. AS
I began the research process, I was painfully aware of the implications of what I
was seeing and the story I was telling. For there is not a plain truth to be told, and

every “telling is constrained, partial and determined by the discourses and

53

histories that prefigure, even as they might promise, representation” (Britzman,
1997,p.232)

This issue of purpose is closely connected to the issues of power in a
research study. There is a certain benefit that I will receive if I finish this
dissertation. It potentially helps me gain more power in our society. As the
official author, I have the power to report what happened in the classroom. I am
interpreting the students’ and teacher's thoughts and actions. Though I have
used a number of data sources to make these interpretations, I am ultimately the
final voice. McLaren (1997) asks researchers to “recognize the arrogance of
speaking for others” (174). One way I have tried to do this is by asking Elizabeth
to add her own commentary within this dissertation. The power of research also
potentially plays a positive role. As Ms. Darcy and I conversed after class, she
told me that, “having you in the Classroom creates this feeling in the classroom
that we are here to do something, to be something bigger than just a classroom”
(interview, 2/21/02). In a school building and system where the doors are usually
Closed and teachers often work individually in isolation, there are many ways in
which teaching is a very singular and private act. The research process has the
potential to make it more public. An audience can bring to an event the sense of
enhanced worth and value. This research project brought to Ms. Darcy’s
teaching practice an audience, which includes me, the writer, and also the
expected audience of those who would eventually read about her teaching.

Up to this point, I have discussed how my data collection was influenced
by my awareness of my own implication in the study and my position of power.

My data collection was also influenced by my own lenses as “it is never possible

54

for researchers to view the world from God’s knee, to know with certainty that
one’s perceptions and understandings mirror a pristine version of reality"
(Flinders 8 Eisner, 1994, p. 353). Although events certainly happen, there is no
external view and no way to see them or report on them without being influenced
by one’s own subjectivities. Rather than believing “that if research is done
properly, if the researcher represents himself well and stands on a point, then the
researcher’s biases can be mastered and fear of misrepresentation can be
assuaged” (Britzman, 1997, p. 35), critical ethnOgraphers believe that a
researcher’s history, experiences, and identities (gender, ethnicity, etc.) shape
everything he or she sees and doesn’t see. “lnevitably, what researchers attend
to and the questions they ask are a reflection of what they take to be important,”
and of who they are (Denzin 8 Lincoln, 1994).

As I collected my data then, I collected it from my own view point. It is
valuable therefore to consider who I am and how my own view point(s) has been
constructed. While I can not trace back and connect every observation and
interpretation it can be helpful to briefly discus my own lenses. It is important to
keep in mind too that my lenses were not consistent and unified. Rather than
unitary authors, researchers are duplicitous selves; identity is fluid and muddled.
Authors’ multiple selves surface at various times throughout the research project;
these selves each bring something different and possibly disconnected to the
work. (Denzin, 1998)

There were ways in which my various identities and lenses shaped both
my participation - and relationships - in the classroom and also my interpretations

of the events that occurred. My own race and class (white, upper middle class)

55

played significant roles in how I was viewed and how I viewed. In both of these
constructs, I resembled and connected to Ms. Darcy more than to the students.
In fact, several times throughout the school year, some of the students in Ms.
Darcy’s first period Class (who were often in the room when I arrived) asked if Ms.
Darcy and I were sisters although I do not think we look anything alike. These
pieces of my identity made me Similar to Ms. Darcy and identified me with her in
my own mind as well. Although many of our life experiences were actually quite
dissimilar, we ultimately related relatively easily. Further, our Shared gender
allowed us to easily discuss many stereotypically feminine topics, such as love,
cooking, exercising and spirituality. My dissimilarities with the students meant
that while I developed what I consider good relationships with many of them, they
were not built on cultural references or certain shared background. While I was
interested in viewing and having them view their own lives as raced and classed
(such as examining the racial profiling they faced in their personal lives or the
class discrimination in society), I observed them from the role of an outsider, one
who recorded - and was interested in - their experiences, but who would never
Share in the same way.

Another important component of my identity that influenced the study was
my duality as a teacher and researcher. There were times when l related to the
students or Ms. Darcy in teacher mode, revising a piece of writing or reviewing a
new seating Chart. There were other times when l was much more of a
researcher (although there are certainly not Clear boundaries between the two -
either in my role in the classroom or in general) wanting to take apart a past event

with a student or with Elizabeth. In my teacher moments I more thoroughly

56

Pa

vii

remembered the fast and overwhelming pace of teaching and may have been
more accepting of what, on other days, in my more removed, reflective
researcher mode, seemed like missed opportunities to engage with the class or
individuals in critical work. I

As I mentioned earlier, though this section does specifically focus on the
“data collection period” in actuality l was already writing this text. “There is a
rather persistent conviction that the problems of ethnography are merely those of
access, intimacy, sharp ears and eyes, good habits of recording and so forth. It
is not a straightforward matter, however, because a culture or cultural practice is
as much created by the writing as it determines the writing itself” (Van Man, 1988,
p. 6). What I wrote down was shaped in two ways; it was Shaped by both what I

noticed and also howl interpreted what I saw.

Part 3: Collecting Data throughout the Semester (February - June 2002)

Though the issues raised above obviously permeate the entire study, they
did not play such a central role, at least in my mind, as I continued on with my
data collection. After the discussion Ms. Darcy and I shared about the stressful
event in her personal life (field notes 2lZ1/02) and once I was in the classroom
regularly (and behind the desk more), I co-existed in the class with greater ease.
In addition, I developed more data collection routines and gained comfort
researching. This comfort was positive in that the data collection was more
enjoyable for me and less of a burden for Ms. Darcy. It was also negative as

some important issues about subjectivity, representation, and power were not as

57

present in my thinking and led me to miss (or ignore) certain important questions
and struggles that arise from dissonance.

The data for this dissertation was collected during the second semester of
the 2001-2002 school year. At this time, Elizabeth Darcy was in her second year
of teaching. In the middle of the semester, I stepped back from the classroom,
wrote an analytic memo recording my sense-making up to that point, and went
back to Michigan State for a meeting with my dissertation committee. This
experience allowed me to obtain feedback about the research and helped me see
the site through different lenses.

Table 1: Summary of Data Collected

 

 

Event Type of Data Dates Collected or
Duration
Daily class sessions Detailed field notes 34 times per week from

January — June

 

Teaching and learning Copies of teacher’s Most class period from

 

 

activities lesson plans January - June

The students’ work Copies of students’ daily Most Class periods from
class work January - June

Selected class lessons Audiotape 10 Class periods

(critical discussions)

 

Interviews with students Audiotape 4 group interviews with
every student

3 interviews with each of
7 focus students

 

 

 

 

Interviews with teacher Audiotape 15 interviews

 

From January through June 2002, I observed the Class three or four days a week.

Each day that I was there, I recorded/constructed detailed field notes. I also

58

 

collected the teacher’s lesson plans and student work from the majority of the
lessons throughout the entire semester.

In addition, since I was particularly interested in critical literacy, I wanted to
be able to thoroughly analyze critical events in the classroom; therefore, I audio-
taped selected lesson, ones where I anticipated sustained critical literacy
discussions or events might occur. MS. Darcy usually gave me an outline of what
she would be teaching during the following week along with more in depth lesson
plans, including questions she would be asking or materials she would be sharing
with the students. From these outlines and lesson plans, along with the
conversations I had with her, I chose specific lessons to audiotape. I wanted to
record students engaging with critical ideas and so my first criteria for audiotaping
was that students would be talking a significant amount during the lessons. I was
collecting all of their written work and would therefore have copies of their written
engagement with critical ideas; the point of audiotaping lessons was also to
record their oral engagement. As an example, I focused on class discussions,
Socratic Seminars, and other student-led activities, such as debates or poetry
readings. A second criteria I applied to decide what to audiotape concerned the
content of the lessons. Here, I chose lessons based on whether or not critical
content was going to be the focus. Specifically, I looked for lessons where
students would analyze the past, present or future of their own surroundings, the
larger society, or broader global contexts. In particular, I identified lessons where
students would delve into issues of race, class, justice or power.

In addition to audiotaping selected Class sessions, I also conducted

interviews with Ms. Darcy and her students in order to follow up on important

59

Classroom events and themes I noticed during data collection. The interviews
were intended to provide opportunities for conversation, rather than simply
question and response. By having multiple interviews with the same subjects, I
attempted to form relationships that would create back-and-forth sharing of ideas
(Carspecken, 1996). I wanted to use the interviews for praxis and also to attain
more information about a variety of topics. The interviews gave me a chance to
Check in the with the Students and with Ms. Darcy about how I was interpreting
actions and events in the classroom and also created space for them to bring up
what they thought was important in the teaching and learning process.

The majority of my student interviews occurred during the lunch period.
The Language Arts class was spread over two Class periods, one immediately
before and the other directly following the lunch period. This configuration gave
me relatively easy access to students, but it also meant that there were time
constraints that caused both the student and me to shove bites of food in
between questions and responses. My first round of interviews with the students
consisted of group interviews, and gave me a chance to include nearly every
student in the Classroom. These were semi-structured interviews; students
responded to my questions - including prepared questions and also follow-up
questions depending on their responses. In these interviews, I asked the group
of students to create a visual representation of the different components of the
class and to answer some basic questions about the substance of the class and
its similarities to and differences from other classes. Then, I asked each student
to put in writing anything they would alter from the group’s visual representation

of the Class. After the first round of group interviews, I chose seven focus

60

students and conducted three more rounds of interviews (descriptions of focus
students, and how I chose them, follow in Chapter Three). The interviews with
my focus students were loosely structured; I prepared questions to bring to the
interview but mostly wanted students to critically reflect on an experience in class
or in their life or on a piece of their writing. To engage in this type of reflection, I
often moved away from my prepared questions and responded to the direction of
the particular conversation. Each of these interviews lasted thirty to forty
minutes.

One of the very fortunate aspects of this study was the access I had to
Elizabeth both during and after the 2001-2002 school year. We talked most days
before, in between and/or after class. There were times when these discussions
were very brief and other times when they were lengthier. If I had a particular
inquiry about the day’s events, particular students, or past or future lessons, I
asked her pointed questions. Other times, we reflected together about the
students’ learning or her future plans. If I anticipated a noteworthy discussion, I
turned the tape recorder on and taped our conversations. Sometimes, important
comments occurred when I wasn’t expecting them and hadn’t turned on the tape
recorder; I recorded these conversation in my field notes immediately following
(and sometimes even during) our discussions.

In total, I recorded fifteen interviews with Ms. Darcy, ranging from 30
minutes to more than 2 hours. Seven of these interviews took place outside of
school and lasted between one and two hours. Eight of the interviews occurred
during the lunch period between classes or during Elizabeth’s preparation period,

lasting between thirty minutes and one hour. The interviews with Ms. Darcy were

61

also loosely structured. I usually asked a few of the pointed questions I prepared
but also responded to the direction of the conversation as I wanted to engage
Elizabeth in critical conversations about her teaching and thinking. One interview
focused on Elizabeth’s background and entry into teaching. Three occurred after
the school year was over and were used to follow up on emerging/constructed
themes and to give Ms. Darcy an opportunity to reflect on the school year and

research process.

Part 4: Analyzing Data and Textualizing the Report (June 2002 - Spring 2004)

Analyzing data and textualizing the report began the moment I walked into
the classroom but became more formal in the months following the study. I
managed to transcribe my very last tape the day before I had my first Child,
Dagan, on July 9, 2002. This event forced me to take a break from the data.
When I managed to get enough Sleep to think coherently and get back to work on
my dissertation, my data analysis post-data-collection period got into full swing.
In this section, I first focus on data analysis and then discuss the process I
followed to textualize the account.

Data analysis was an iterative process as I moved reflexively between
reading and re-reading my data set, constantly shifting between different parts of
the data, literature, emerging theories, and new ideas and questions. I analyzed
my data inductively and allowed things to unfold differently from the way I had
expected. By collecting numerous types of data (including field notes, interviews,
lesson plans, student work, Class lessons) over a period of time (Six months), I

was able to triangulate (Hammersley 8 Atkinson, 1983). In this way, many of the

62

larger themes of the Classroom and the study were revisited multiple times in
various ways. For example, I was able to compare Elizabeth’s plans for and
actual teaching, a variety of statements she made at different points, and
responses students had in Class, in interviews and in their written work. These
comparisons helped me to paint a more representative picture of the teaching
and learning.

In particular, I used a two-step process of coding my data. First, I read
through my entire data set to get a sense of the themes and constructs
permeating my data. During this process I organized the large amount of data
and began to make sense of it by labeling noteworthy and reoccurring aspects,
responses, and ideas. Here, I began coding my data to note what type of data it
was (interview, written work, etc.), who was involved or responding (teacher,
focus student, other students), and when it was collected. I also created initial
codes by using my research questions. To do this, I labeled pieces of data with
the corresponding number of the research question they spoke to. For example,
when students talked about their attitudes toward various components of the
classroom, I labeled the data with a number 4 to correspond to my original
research question, “What are students’ attitudes toward literacy in this
classroom?” In addition, during this time, based on my experience in the data site
and my early looks at the data, I recognized that I also needed to create further
categories and codes. Specifically, I added categories in order to organize and
code the traditional teaching in the Classroom and the different types of authority

taken on by Ms. Darcy and students.

63

After this initial review, I started on the second step of analyzing my data
by going back through my data in thorough detail. I further broke down my
general categorical codes (such as the research question addressed) to specify
the different responses and ideas in the data about that research question. My
codes emerged from my experiences within the context of the classroom and my
analysis of the study, through observing the Classroom, through writing analytic
memos and by (re)reviewing the data. There were times when I read my data
chronologically, other times during this process when I pulled out all of one type
of teaching, such as poetry, and further times when I read everything concerning
one focus student, such as Andre. As I began to decide on specific aspects to
explore in the dissertation (such as issues of authority) I poured back through the
data once more to look for data that involved this particular theme, further
examples, and disconfirming evidence.

In addition to intensely focusing on the data itself, I also moved back and
forth between theory and practice to expand my understandings of both the data I
collected and the literature I read. In the midst of analyzing my data, I was also
rereading books and articles that played a seminal role in guiding my study
originally (such as Christensen, 2000; Edelsky, 1996; Freire, 1996; Gee, 1992;
McLaren, 1998). l interpreted these texts in new ways as I considered how they
spoke to and with my data. I also searched for and read pieces that became
important as my work progressed (for example Greene, 200; Nieto, 2000; Sleeter
8 Grant, 1994; Willinsky, 2001). These texts brought important additional voices
and perspectives to my study, raising and answering questions that furthered my

analysis.

64

As I analyzed the data, I did not discover, but rather constructed, patterns,
categories, and central issues. Just as my own experiences and identities
shaped the data I collected, it also informed the ways I interpreted and organized
the data. I was making sense of the context as l analyzed it, and my own sense-
making became the representation (Denzin, 1995; Denzin 8 Lincoln, 1994;
Flinders 8 Eisner 1994). Like many ethnographers, I also used interviews to
access information. Though the interviews did give me insights into the students”
and teacher’s thoughts, their words only offered stories or particular versions
about what they did and what they thought. Not only were the subjects' words
influenced by a complex set of factors, but also my own lenses determined how I
heard their words. Denzin (1995) recalls the words of Willie Nelson, “I hear the
sound of your voice in my mind, and I hear what I want to hear" (p. 9). The
students’ and teacher’s words were filtered through my own desires, identities
(gender, class etc.) and experiences. In addition, the meaning of subjects’ words
were determined by the particular context in which it was told, including the time it
was told, who (among our multiple selves) was doing the telling and who was
asking the questions. The particular context between the interviewer and the
interviewee created the meanings, therefore a new context was also created
each time I listened to the interviews or read the transcriptions. The tape
recordings and transcriptions are not capturing what was said because “the
moment is forever gone. Each reading of the transcribed text is a contact with
‘what has ceased to exist’ The ‘original’ voices, and the intentions behind their
voices can never be recovered, only recorded, or heard These retellings

become new versions of the previously heard [and recorded] voice” (Denzin,

65

1995, pp. 319-320). A final important point about data analysis is that “the object
of study always exceeds its analytic circumscription” (Marcus, 1994). What we
see can not be neatly categorized. No matter how intricate the categories and
codes, they are manufactured analytical organizers that can not fully capture the
setting studied. The points don not simply emerge into concrete piles, themes
and ruptures. We actively make decisions about how to organize and categorize
the data. Different researchers would organize the same data differently. For
social contexts are messy; and ultimately as a particular researcher makes sense
of the data certain pieces emerge as the most important while others are left out.
These choices are partially dependent upon the lenses we bring to the data
analysis.

Though I recognized the limitations inevitable in textualizing the account, I
still necessarily organized the dissertation around certain themes and into
specific Chapters. As is usual especially in qualitative studies, this process went
through several different revisions. Initially, I considered writing the study
chronologically to follow the ebbs and flows of the school year. However, as I
looked through the data I found that various themes reemerged and the rhythm
did not necessarily continue to build in an organized fashion. Instead, I found
major themes recurring over and over and taking over the forefront of my mind.
This does not necessarily mean that these were the major events of the school
year but rather they were the main issues and experiences that drew my attention
in an attempt to describe and analyze what was happening in this classroom. As
I will explain further below, I decided to organize the chapters in order to

represent the different components of Ms. Darcy’s teaching. This led me to a

66

data chapter about poetry (Chapter Four), another about the novel The Outsiders
(Chapter Five) and a third chapter focusing on grammar lessons, protest poems,
and the l-Search paper writing assignment (Chapter Six). Within each of these
chapters, organized around content, major themes of the study emerge. In
Chapter Four, I focus on the possibilities and limitations of critical literacy work in
the classroom, Chapter Five describes and questions the nature of authority in a
critical literacy Classroom, and Chapter Six analyzes the blending of traditional
and critical teaching in room C132.

One of the most important decisions that I made in textualizing the account
was deciding to represent Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice more generally, rather
than only focusing on critical components of her practice. I did this because
during all stages of the study I was continually struck by the different pieces of
her practice. There were times when the lessons were clearly critical, focusing
solely on speaking out against injustice for example. There were also other times
when the instruction looked very traditional, such as during mini-lessons where
Ms. Darcy taught discrete grammar skills. And then there was the majority of the
time when Elizabeth taught the traditional Discourse (such as the way to have a
debate or write an essay) and embedded critical content into those structures.
This blending became of primary importance in the study. As I introduced in
Chapter One and will further discuss in the conclusion, this dissertation focuses
on the shades of gray in critical literacy practices.

Therefore, I wanted my research to include the different components that
made up Ms. Darcy’s overall teaching practice. My initial step was to identify

these components, which I did in several ways. First, I went back over students’

67

responses during my group interviews regarding the components of Ms. Darcy’s
class. During the group interviews, when I asked the groups to describe what
happened in the Class, each group came up with the same main aspects: writing
(some groups called it writing workshop), reading novels, Socratic seminar (or
class discussions), handbook (this is the notebook they keep their mini-lessons
notes in) or mini-lessons, and poetry. I also looked back over Ms. Darcy’s
response when I asked her the same question: writing workshop - including
grammar mini-lessons, reading novels, reading out loud, Class discussions,
poetry, and the l-Search paper. In addition, I used my field notes to categorize
the different aspects of Ms. Darcy’s practice.

Below, I have provided a chart, titled “Components of Ms. Darcy’s
Teaching Practice.” I intend for the chart to serve two purposes. First, I aim for it
to provide a general overview of Ms. Darcy’s teaching to allow the reader a
broader sense of what occurred throughout the semester. To this end, I broke
the chart down into: grammar, novels, poetry, and writing. I separated the
grammar activities from the writing workshop because they were distinct both in
my mind as well as in the students’ and in this way they were also connected to
the parts of speech unit. In addition, I put the I-Search paper in the writing
section because, although it was a main Chunk of inStructional time, it followed
the same general characteristics of other writing assignments. I did not include
reading out loud because the students did not mention it, it did not happen as
often as the other sections, and I did not think it significantly added to the study.
In addition, I embedded the Socratic seminars into the Novels section because

they always took place within that context. The chart lists the main topics on the

68

left and then further details about the lessons on the right. I have also included
approximate lengths of time, configured by the records I kept of what happened
each day (even those days I was not there), through my observation notes, Ms.
Darcy’s lesson plans and my informal interviews with Ms. Darcy.

Table 2: Components of Ms. Darcy’s Teaching Practice

 

 

Topic Details
Approximate Length of Time (bolded)4
Grammar Mini-Lessons

(for example: synonyms, antonyms,
homonyms, prefixes and suffixes)
once or twice a week throughout the
semester

Parts of Speech Presentations

 

3 weeks

Novels The Outsiders
(activities included: pre-reading
questions, comprehension

questions, vocabulary, Socratic
Seminars, debate, final essay)
6weeks

The Diary of Anne Frank

(activities included: author study,
historical research, comprehension
questions and quizzes, Socratic
Seminars, vocabulary, final essay)
Sweeks

Poetry Warm-Ups

Daily

 

Protest Poem

(reading activist poetry, writing
protest poems, extending it to a
neighborhood improvement project)
2 weeks

 

 

 

Poetry Unit

 

 

‘ Ms. Darcy taught two periods per day. Also, many activities occurred on the same day. The lengths of
time presented here are approximations designed to provide the reader with a sense of Ms. Darcy’s teaching
practice.

69

 

(Where I’m From, Thirteen Ways, I
Wish poems, Haikus)

3 weeks

Writing l-Search Research Paper

6 weeks

 

Special Events (Peace Week,
National Peace Corps Day, Earth
Day, Mother's Day, Martin Luther
King’s Birthday)
Total: 3weeks

Other writing pieces (essays about
heroes, short stories)
Total: 4 weeks

 

 

 

 

My second purpose for the chart is to place the lessons I focus on in this
dissertation into the larger context of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice overall. AS I
decided on the data to include or exclude, I made Choices in an attempt to
represent the range of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice. As I explained above, I
decided to analyze Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice more generally, rather than
focusing only on critical components of her practice, in order to make conclusions
about what this critical practice looked like overall, and how it included both
critical and traditional aspects of education. I wanted to include each component
of her curriculum. Therefore, I included data and analysis about poetry, novels,
grammar and writing. Specifically, in Chapter Four, I chose to focus on the
lessons “Where I’m From” and “Thirteen Ways” because they were similar to the
other lessons during the poetry unit and they allowed me to focus in on one
student, Andre, who played a role in other parts of the dissertation as well. In this
way, in a sense Andre became more of a character in the dissertation, providing

depth to the story. In Chapter Five, I chose to write about The Outsiders instead

70

of The Diary of Anne Frank, which had very similar activities, because of the
amount of data collected, particularly interview data. Since The Outsiders unit fell
earlier in the school year, I had richer interview data, with both the students and
with Elizabeth, focusing specifically on the lessons and student work surrounding
the novel. The Anne Frank unit took place at the same time as the l-Search
paper and the end of the year final portfolio activities and these events often
consumed the interview time. Finally, in Chapter Six, I chose a typical mini-
lesson and focuSed on the l-Search writing assignment because it was the
biggest writing assignment and contained the type of blending of traditional and
critical teaching typical of other writing assignments throughout the school year.
Below, I have also presented a chronological look at Ms. Darcy’s
curriculum to provide a sense of the lessons and units over the course of the
semester. Organized in this way, we see that critical components of Ms. Darcy’s
teaching practice were incorporated throughout the year, rather than only during
certain isolated periods. Ms. Darcy did not place these events solely at the end
of the school year; instead She included them throughout the semester in
different ways. For example, the critical “special events” I noted in Table 2 and
describe further in Chapter Seven, corresponded to the dates on the calendar in
which they occurred. Other critical components explored throughout the
dissertation, such as critical Socratic Seminars and poetry assignments, took
place in the midst of poetry units and Class novels detailed below in Table 3. Just
as the critical components occurred throughout the semester, more traditional
components happened similarly. Though Ms. Darcy planned a specific unit to

focus on part of speech, grammar lessons are sprinkled throughout the semester.

71

The table below delineates the mixture of traditional and critical components that
occurred Side by side throughout Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice.

Table 3: Chronology of Ms. Darcy’s Teaching Practice

 

January Hero Essays (final drafts)
Protest Poems
Grammar Mini-Lessons

 

February Martin Luther King’s Birthday: I Have a Dream Speech
Peace Week Activity

Grammar Mini-Lessons

Short Stories (final drafts)

Outsiders Novel (bggins)

 

March Outsiders Novel (continued)
Grammar Mini-Lessons

 

April Poetry Unit
Parts of Speech Preparation and Presentations
Earth DayActivity

 

May l-Search Research Paper begins
Grammar Mini-Lessons
Mother’s Day Activity

The Diary of Anne Frank begins

 

 

June The Diary of Anne Frank (continued)
l-Search Research paper (final drafts)
End of the Year Activities
0 (remember-me poems, portfolio reading)

 

 

 

In addition to covering the different components of Ms. Darcy’s teaching
practice, I also wanted to cover the range of traditional and critical activities that
occurred in the classroom, especially as this became a main theme of the
dissertation overall. I wanted to include the more traditional aspects of the
teaching practice, the more critical parts and the lessons that blended these
approaches - which took place the majority of the time. Therefore, I included the
grammar lessons and the protest poem together in one chapter and organized
the two other data chapters around lessons that blended traditional and critical

approaches.

72

Throughout my data analysis, I thoroughly studied the data in order to
construct a representative account of my observations and recordings, while also
considering ways my work could make a valuable contribution to the field. AS I
moved to formally textualize the account, I worked to convey this site and its
potential importance to a wider audience. In order to express the texture and
specifics of the students, teacher, and classroom I wrote thick descriptions
(Geertz, 1973), using particular details, salient quotations and evocative reporting
and drawing on a large amount and wide variety of data. By delving into and
including data, I attempted to allow readers to experience the context as they
read and interpreted the dissertation.

As I included data in the text, though, I altered its meaning. Language
itself, the way words are put together, creates the meanings embedded within the
words. For example, as I took certain phrases a participant expressed in an
interview and put them together with my analysis or with other participants’
words, the statements took on different connotations. In addition, I also think that
pseudonyms, in addition to protecting participants’ identities, also Change them.
As I wrote initial drafts of the account, I used the teacher and students’ real
names and then went back and changed them to the pseudonyms. At least for
me, the participants took on slightly different identities as they moved from being
people in the study to people studied.

Throughout this chapter, I have discussed the impossibility of accessing
objective truth. However, even if I had such an objective account, I would not be
able to objectively communicate it to an audience. For I would have to rely on

language to provide a clear, uncontested method for communication when “all

73

language is multiaccentual, meaning that it can be both spoken and heard,
written and read in ways that reflect different meanings and different relationships
to [different people], social groups and power formations” (Kincheloe, 1997, p.
62). My words could not travel untouched to the reader’s minds. The linguistic
turn contests the possibility of a unitary, cohesive account. “The ethnographic
promise of a holistic account is betrayed by the slippage born from the partiality
of language - of what cannot be said precisely because of what is said, and of the
impossible difference within what is said, what is intended, what is signified, what
is repressed, what is taken, and what remains” (Britzman, 1995, p. 230).

I hope that by using critical ethnography as my methodology I am able to
create an evocative and dynamic account. Critical ethnographers aim “to keep
things in process, to disrupt, to keep the systems in play, to continuously
demystify the realities we create, to fight the tendency for our categories to
congeal” (Lather, 1991, p. 156). Through this process, I intend to tell one
particular version of what happened in this critical literacy classroom. By calling
into question how this version is influenced by its telling and teller, I aim to paint a
representative picture. I have employed a few techniques in order to “keep things
in process.”

In addition, critical ethnographers attempt to Show “how language is
inextricably bound to the social and the ideological” (Lather, 1991, p. 154). Many
structures in our society, including science, often end up disconnecting language
from its social and ideological influences, and presenting words and knowledge
as neutral. I hope to be part of a research movement that highlights the

problematic and contested nature of the worlds studied in order to create “a

74

social criticism that can intervene in the relationship of information economies,
nation-state politics, and technologies of mass communication, especially in

terms of the empirical sciences” (Clough, 1998, p. 136).

75

Chapter Three
SETTING THE STAGE: LANGUAGE ARTS IN ROOM 132

In this chapter, I begin to delve into the context in which Elizabeth Darcy
worked and to examine her teaching practice. By describing the context
surrounding her Classroom, including the school district and school building, I
start painting a picture of room 132 and I set the stage for a close study of the
teaching and learning in room C132. In the beginning of the chapter, I introduce
North Central Public School District and Elk School. Then I move inside room
0132 to present the students and teacher that engage in the teaching and
learning throughout the school year. These descriptions lay the foundation for
the closer investigation into specific lessons that will follow. The characteristics
of the school district, school, teacher and students, and the ways these
characteristics interact, ultimately Shape her practice. This dissertation focuses
on how these factors shape a practice where traditional and critical notions of
literacy coexist.

In the second part of the chapter, I continue looking at the context
surrounding room 0132 using different lenses. Specifically, by investigating
several documents provided by North Central Public School District that inform
teachers about what should be taught and how it should be taught, I analyze the
culture surrounding the Classroom. While in Chapter One, I compared a critical

literacy perspective to a more traditional one on a more general level, in this

76

chapter I begin to critically analyze specific District guidelines. The traditional
conception of Language Arts influenced Elizabeth Darcy’s practice both in
tangible ways, such as through the resources with which she was provided, and
in intangible ways, such as through the messages she received from her school
and District. Ms. Darcy both aligned herself with the District’s expectations and
also pushed against its current. Throughout the chapter, I continue to build a
picture of Elizabeth Darcy’s blending of critical literacy with more traditional
conceptions of Language Arts, and I investigate the roots and theories behind

these approaches as they relate to literacy education.

The Context

North Central Public School District

Elks Middle School is one of over thirty middle schools in one of the
largest school districts in the United States. The school has been in operation for
more than forty years and has seventh and eighth graders. The district has a
wide variety of students, many considered poor or at-risk. “Factors related to
poverty and race continue to impact heavily on student performance, with the
poorest performing schools having a demonstratively higher percent of both
African-American students and students participating in free and reduced-priced
meals program” (www.ncps.com). Elks Middle School is situated in the middle of
the school district, geographically, academically, and economically. The school
has about nine hundred students from approximately eighty different counties,

with the majority being students of color, speaking forty five different languages.

77

Elks Middle School

I turned off the freeway exit and down the street to Elks Middle School.
The neighborhood was quite varied, with run-down houses and bigger houses
fixed up, old looking buildings and newer ones. I pulled into the parking lot and
entered the school. The school looked like a typical very large middle school.
Bold signs were posted on the front door to inform all visitors to report directly to
the main office. In addition, a camera running continuously was installed above
the front door. The school seemed like a rather confusing maze, consisting
mostly of very long hallways with beige tiles and brick white walls. The large
cafeteria appeared immediately on the left, with rows and rows of white tables
and filled with the smell of school lunches. Three secretaries with unusually
pleasant demeanors worked the front office. They gave me my daily visitor’s
pass as I headed to Ms. Darcy’s classroom.

Overall, especially compared to other large urban schools I have worked in
and visited, the school ran relatively smoothly, especially in the building's long
hallways. Students lined up against the walls before they entered each
classroom and they walked down the balls to lunch or assemblies in fairly quiet
lines. I very rarely observed any loud student disruptions in the hallways. At the
same time, teachers’ raised voices were a regular occurrence in these hallways.
AS I peeked into classrooms as I walked to Ms. Darcy’s room each day, students
were usually seated in rows of desks as teachers lectured from the front of the
classroom. Often I did observe students’ misbehavior in the classroom and
teachers quite often yelled at students in their rooms. There did not seem to be a

administration intervention in individual teacher’s classrooms. As Ms.

78

Darcy stated, “As long as you pretty much follow along with the program, you are
basically left alone” (interview, 3/1/02). It seemed as if the school and school
district administration set the wheels in motion and then left everything alone to
turn. The school set the schedule, gave teachers several district documents for
curriculum and behavior5, and then basically got out of the way in the day to day
workings. There were rarely school assemblies or field trips. Day in and day out
students filed in and out of individual classrooms one after the other.

The organization of the school consisted of teams of teachers, with each
team occupying one hallway. Ms. Darcy was on the C team. Each team had two
Language Arts teachers (students took a 2-hour Language Arts block) and one
teacher from each of the other subject areas, so Ms. Darcy worked with another
Language Arts teacher, as well as a social Studies, science, and math teacher.
These teachers shared a common group of students.

Table 4: Sample Student Schedule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Class

8:30-8:45 Homeroom

8:45 - 9:45 Math

9:45-10:45 Language Arts
10:45- 11:15 Lunch

11:15- 12:15 Language Arts
12:15-1:15 Science

1:15 - 2: 15 Social Studies
2:15 - 3:15 Physical Education

 

 

5 discussed at length further in this chapter

79

 

The teams had a common planning period and held weekly meetings each
Monday. Each team had a leader who ran the weekly meetings and served as a
liaison others could go to with any problems. Ms. Darcy had pleasant but not
particularly close relationships with the rest of her team. She often ate lunch in
the teacher’s lounge and chatted with the other teachers, although she also
commented that “they complain and don’t necessarily do anything about it” and
that “there aren’t many conversations about other things I’m interested in outside
of school” (interview, 2/21/02). She clashed occasionally with the veteran
Language Arts teacher who was very focused on the standardized tests and
wanted the whole team to focus on these tests more often. MS. Darcy did not find
the team meetings very useful and she did not feel She had much in common
pedagogically with the rest of the team. There were times, though, when she
sought support from the team about particular problematic students or parents.
Specifically, when Ms. Darcy was challenged by a parent about a student’s
grade, the team leader was very supportive in helping Ms. Darcy make a list of

student assignments and quiz grades to Show the parent and administration.

Room C732

Overall, room 0132 seemed to mostly exist on an island. Other teachers
rarely entered Ms. Darcy’s classroom and while She generally had friendly
relationships with other teachers, she did not collaborate with her colleagues.
Student discipline problems were handled in the Classroom; Ms. Darcy had a
“bad hair day" desk in the back of the classroom for disruptive students. Involving

both instructional and discipline issues, the principal “is not very present in the

80

room, for better and not” (interview, 6/24/03). Ms. Darcy was expected to
“basically follow the curriculum” (ibid) and keep order in the classroom. Rather
than relying on aspects inside of the school, she taught drawing mostly on
resources outside of the school: books She read in her teacher preparation
program, ideas from her past experiences or current life interests

For instance, after her first year of teaching, Ms. Darcy read and fell in
love with Nancy Atwell’s (1998) book In the Middle. One thing I noticed when I
walked into Elizabeth’s classroom was that it looked like a page out of the book.
Laminated signs hung from the ceiling marking a student conference area, a
classroom library, students’ portfolios, and a supply corner with various types of
papers, pencils, magazines, and newspapers. Students’ writing was portrayed
throughout the room along with multiple inspirational quotes and colorful posters
about writing. The rules for writing workshop were posted. MS. Darcy’s own
personal bookshelf was filled with multicultural poetry books, books about
teaching for social justice. A picture of her favorite activist, Thic Nhat Hahn was
posted on her chalkboard. The desks were grouped together and arranged in

rows facing the overhead projector and chalk board.

The Teacher: Elizabeth Darcy

While this study investigates a broader landscape, including the
interrelationships between. the students, the school building, the school district
and the community, Elizabeth Darcy is at the heart of this dissertation. This study
focused on Elizabeth’s second and third period Language Arts block. Of course,

this existed within her entire school day. As the Chart below shows, during the

81

2001-2002 school year, Elizabeth taught two tvvo-hour Language Arts blocks
along with an additional one-hour inclusion reading course for special education
students.

Table 5: Ms. Darcy's schedule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Class

8:30-8245 Homeroom

8:45 - 9:45 Inclusion Reading
9:45-10:45 Language Arts B
10245-11215 Lunch
11:15-12:15 Language ArtsB
12: 1 5 - 1 :15 Preparation Period
1:15-2:15 Langu_ageArtsC
2:15-3:15 Langgage ArtsC

 

 

 

In order to understand the analysis presented in this dissertation, it is
essential to know Elizabeth Darcy as a person and as a teacher. I begin by
describing Elizabeth’s background, to give insight into the multiple aspects of her
identity and to Show how her own experiences influence her as a teacher.
Elizabeth Darcy grew up in a small town in the Midwest. Her family was
Mennonite and she was raised in an insular community. She is a white woman
who grew up in a working class environment. Several factors during her
upbringing later influenced her commitments to critical literacy as a teacher.
First, a hurtful rumor about her that circulated in her tight-nit community ultimately
shaped her as an independent thinker and convinced her of the importance of

being able to think outside of your own small world. She carried this belief into

82

her teaching; pushing her students to think outside the walls of their own contexts
- a vital tenet in critical literacy - played a central role in her classroom. As she
descnbed:

There was this rumor about me where I grew up and l was very

isolated and very alone and didn’t like it but turned it around so I prided

myself on being very independent. I was able to go to Chicago after I

graduated and I stayed on my own and made a courageous decision

and I think someone who had an easier upbringing maybe wouldn’t

have even entertained. Being out on my own has given me the Space

to make my own opinions about things. And teaching has really made

me want to share that with others (interview, 4/23/02).
For Elizabeth, the act of thinking on your own was not something taken for
granted but something She realized through difficult struggle. It was a priority for
her teaching practice to share the liberating power of this ability with her students.

A second way her background influenced her teaching practice in critical

ways was through her own economic experiences. She explained (interview,
4/23/02) that her commitment to critical literacy “was tied to Class but in a very
personal way. Both of my parents came from working Class, and so we didn’t
have a lot of money. I remember it being a source of shame for us, and thinking
about it very personally and not abstractly. If someone had been there to say
let’s examine classism or different or conflicting messages then maybe it would
have given a little space around the invading feeling that adolescents feel. I like
to think that you can help them understand things.” Again, Ms. Darcy wanted to
make it different for her students, to “give them a little Space” to examine issues
like classism so it wouldn’t be such a “source of shame.”

A third negative experience in her own schooling also contributed to Ms.

Darcy’s critical practices as a teacher. She recalled, “When I was in middle

83

school I felt really stupid and I got bad grades. I remember reading Romeo and
Juliet and never being asked to compare myself to Romeo or Juliet, and never
being asked to bridge my life with some problem out there, and never someone
having faith in your problems.” These memories vowed her to teach differently
and led her to believe: “That is what I think it is all about, if you can get the
students to believe that their problems are worth writing and talking about, then
you can teach them any skill. If you get them on board with their lives, you have
to get their whole lives interested, they are able to talk about their dreams for the
future and they learn some skills. It is really just about what they want for the
world (interview, 4/23/02). This belief is the core of critical literacy; education is
“really just about what they want for the world.”

Elizabeth’s teaching practice and commitment to critical literacy continued
to form after high school, as she moved away to attend college and to experience
the larger world. After living in a big city and converting to Budhism, she joined
the Peace Corps and spent several years in Africa. Upon returning to the United
States, she entered a special program for former Peace Corps volunteers.
Through a partnership between a university and a school district, Elizabeth
received tuition reimbursement toward a master's degree in Secondary Education
in English by committing to teach in this district for at least three years.

During graduate school, Elizabeth was formally introduced to critical
literacy ideas. She recalled:

It started with Freire, I liked [his ideas] so much because he links

empowerment to education and links not just education but education

filtered through and tailored to the learner. It is so practical and makes a

lot of sense to me, and has an activism aspect that I like without being
something separate from your life. I can be a teacher and fulfill an activist

84

role while being an ordinary teacher ...I remember hearing on the radio
about how CEO’s salaries is widening from their lowest paid workers and
the gap is widening rather than equalizing. Many social issues, the rich
are getting richer and the poor staying poorer seems to be pretty accurate
right now. The power structure seems pretty intact. Teaching helps me be
an activist in daily ways. For Change to occur, it happens in small ways.
My teaching for me is part of my way of bringing about social change
(interview, 4/23/02).

As Elizabeth described, her teaching and activism were connected for her in her
personal and professional lives, “Teaching help[ed] [her] be an activist in daily
ways teaching for me is part of my way of bringing about social change.”
Though Elizabeth Darcy was an activist, she was not a radical. The
following example illustrates her go-with-the-flow personality. I wrote these field
notes after Elizabeth and I went swimming together at the JCC after an interview.
Something Elizabeth said really hit me today at the JCC pool of all places.
There were several signs about the need to take a shower before entering
the pool. Elizabeth and I both talked about how we hated to Shower, even
to rinse off, in the cold showers, and how we didn’t see its real value.
However, she proceeded into the showers while I headed straight out to
the pool. She smiled at me and said that when they only had one Sign
there, she often didn’t shower, but now that there were three signs, She
figured they were serious about showering and decided to follow their rule
(field notes, 6/5/02).
While this anecdote about showering in the locker room is not earth shattering, it
does Show Elizabeth’s relatively acquiescent nature. She described the way this
anecdote connects to her critical literacy teaching.
I’m not the type of person that is going to take on critical literacy as this
battering ram to go against the traditional teaching method (interview,
7/15/03).

Elizabeth’s commitment to critical literacy was strong but it was not in her nature

to consistently push against the conformist expectations of teachers.

85

Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice during the 2001-2002 school year was
shaped by her myriad of experiences, characteristics, and beliefs. It was also
affected by the fact that it was her second year of teaching. She was still a new
teacher, although she was beginning to develop a strong and clear sense of the
type of teacher she wanted to be. She was strongly influenced by what She
learned and experienced during her first year of teaching. As she explained, “I
was surprised at how out of control [the students] could be. I didn’t know what
my role was, what I needed to establish and when I could let them go and I have
Ieamed a lot about that” (interview, 6/5/02). As I further explain in Chapter Five,
during this school year, Ms. Darcy was figuring out what type of authority She
wanted to pose in the classroom. Though she was only in her second year of
teaching and still very much developing who she was as a teacher, she had a
clear vision of her (critical literacy) teaching practice in this context. In her own
words, she described her goals as a teacher as wanting to help her students
“actively construct meaning through oral and written means in a context of social
change [and to] be able to synthesize and analyze materials within a context of
broader societal roles, to maneuver in the world that exists, and to work to
make changes in their communities” (interview, 2/22/02).

Elizabeth Darcy’s practice can be more fully understood in comparison to
Cissy Lacks, the teacher I described in the first chapter of the dissertation. I
asked Ms. Darcy what she thought of Ms. Lack’s story and she replied, “I don’t
know if [Cissy Lacks] edited the scripts the students wrote but I would if I were
doing something similar. I do have students write from their experience a lot and

I would have it filtered through me in terms of what was appropriate and

86

inappropriate for the classroom.” This response reveals Elizabeth’s stance in
terms of “keeping one foot in the system and another foot outside.” While she
often moved outside of the system in terms of the questions she encouraged
students to ask and answer, she also had clear lines she did not cross.
Specifically, I asked Ms. Darcy about her beliefs about using standard English.
She replied, “I think it depends on the assignment. There would be times when it
would be very academic, standard English and there would be times when it
wouldn’t. I would want the end product of the year [for students] to be able to
fluctuate in and out of those worlds based on their own will” (interview, 2/22/02).
Finally, I asked Ms. Darcy how to describe her own position in terms of
traditional and critical teaching. Her words paint a clear picture that runs
throughout her teaching and this dissertation.
Critical literacy fits very beautifully within an academic setting The point
of education is not to just think critically of society but be empowered by
knowledge throughout the culture. Not knowledge of just the dominant or
just the oppressed but both. Learning the standard is very much part of
critical literacy for me. Learning to negotiate within the society that exists
is a very necessary part. But that is also not all or enough. It is also
about seeing flaws in what exists and seeing beyond that to create who
you are in this world and to create changes around you (interview, 7/8/03).
In a sense, Ms. Darcy wanted her students to be able to keep “one foot in the
system and the other foot outside.” In this dissertation, I Show the ways Ms.
Darcy prioritized “Ieaming the standard” and the ways she helped her students
“see the flaws in what exists and see beyond.” I analyze what this teaching
practice made possible and also what it constrained for students in “creating who

they are in this world and creating Changes around them.” I believe that Ms.

Darcy, though still developing her teaching persona, had established a Clear

87

sense of what she wanted her critical literacy teaching practice to be and
ultimately put these ideals into practice. In other words, her blending of critical
literacy and traditional aspects of teaching was not a failure to truly implement
critical literacy but instead an enactment of the critical literacy teaching that made
sense to her.

While it is my interpretation that Ms. Darcy successfully operationalized
her beliefs about critical literacy teaching, there are also other possible
interpretations. In particular, one main reason I came to this conclusion was
actually because of a lack of data revealing contradictions between what she did
and what she stated she wanted to do or wished she had done. During my
numerous informal and formal interviews with Ms. Darcy, she continuously
painted a consistent picture between what she believed was right and set out to
do and what happened in the classroom. For example, at the end of the school
year, I asked Ms. Darcy if she struggled between the different pressures on her
teaching, either internal or external. She responded (6/5/02):

At this point, I feel very comfortable. The traditional curriculum is very

valuable and this critical literacy is very valuable, it is much more of a

blending. I think the struggle comes when you initially take that leap of

trying it because it is a lot of work to figure out what works and what is not
helpful for the students. I do still continue to try to find ways to better
empower the students through a combination of traditional teaching
methods and critical literacy but I feel very comfortable with that.
Between her first and second year of teaching, Ms. Darcy put a lot of work into
figuring out the type of teaching practice she wanted to have. As I interpret the

above response and others like it, during her second year of teaching she was

implementing th“ “hlending;” of course still adding to what she was doing, but

88

basically putting into practice her ideals. However, there are other possible
interpretations. Maybe Ms. Darcy did not reveal contradictions between what she
wanted to do and did or reveal tensions inherent in the decision she made
because it was not in her nature to think that way. Or, this type of thinking may
have been unproductive and unsettling for her as a teacher, especially a new
teacher, who had to make countless decisions in the midst of every school day.
She may not have wanted to delve into uncertainties or doubts that may create
quicksand rather than firm ground to stand on. She may have consciously or
unconsciously avoided types of thinking that she might perceive as moving her
backwards instead of forwards, or place her in a weaker rather than stronger
position. In fact, she may have used the interviews to justify what she was doing
in order to feel more at peace. It is also possible that the nature of our
relationship led to the absence of contradictions and underlying struggles. Ms.
Darcy and l formed a collegial relationship and this may have caused me not to
push her into this type of thinking or it may have led her to believe that my
questions were never challenging, but rather requests for more or deeper

information.

The Students

Ms. Darcy’s students came from a wide variety of backgrounds. There
were 20 students total, all 13-14 years old, with 13 boys and 7 girls. Nine
students came from families that lived in the United States for at least three
generations; all of these students were African American. The remaining

students were from first or second generation immigrant families from a variety of

89

countries including: Nicaragua, Jamaica, El Salvador, Trinidad, Puerto Rico,
Panama, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. This Class
was a regular level class, none of the students were labeled as gifted nor were
they in special education.

Table 6: Student lnfon'nation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Ethniciy Gender
Calvin African American M
Alfredo Nicaragua M
Chris African American M
Juan Mexico M
Deon African American M
Kiara Jamaica F
Luis El Salvador M
Jenetha African American F
Nhat Vietnamese M
Zalmai Afghanistan M
Thadeus African American M
Alexia El Salvador F
Leroy African American M
Andre African American M
Darryl Trinidad M
Tyrrell Puerto Rico M
Tonya Panama F
Crystal African American F
Trisha Dominican Republic F
Marquita African American F
Focus Students

While Elizabeth’s class was comprised of 20 students, I Chose 7 of them to
be focus students (bolded below) in order to conduct more in-depth interviews. I
chose a range of students to include the diversity (race, ethnicity, and gender) in
the classroom. Ms. Darcy helped me to also include a range in terms of students’

grades in the course, although I did not include any students whose grades were

90

below average because these grades resulted from poor attendance which would
limit both their participation in the class as well as my ability to interview them. In
addition, based upon my first month of observations, I took into consideration
how actively the students participated in the Class discussions and I chose
students who both actively participated as well as students who were relatively
quiet during class discussions.

Table 7: Focus Student lnfonnation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Ethnicity Gender Grade in the Participation
course Level

Alexia El Salvadorian Female Above average Average

Andre African Male Average Average
American

Crystal African Female Average Average
American

Juan Mexican Male Average Quiet

Marquita African Female Above average Active
American

Nhat Vietnamese Male Average Quiet

Tonya Panamanian Female Average Active

 

Marquita, an African American student, was at the top of the Class
academically. She received A’s each quarter and on most of her assignments.
As Ms. Darcy stated, “You can always count on Marquita to have the right
answers” (interview, 2/21/02). Her participation level during class discussions
was high. Observing her poise and involvement in the classroom, she seemed to
be a confident and solid student and young woman. Underneath this
appearance, however, Marquita had “negative feelings and problems with her

family My parents, they hold me back. Last year because my sister had a baby

91

and she ran away and my mom always wanted me to take care of the baby.
They hold me back” (interview 4/11/02). Marquita, though, had a strong inner
desire to graduate from high school and attend college. Like many other
students in the classroom, Marquita thought the grammar mini-lessons were one
of the most important parts of the classroom in order to prepare her for her future.
At the same time, she enjoyed and actively participated in the more critical
literacy components of the class.

Alexia shared many similarities with Marquita. She too shone in her work
in the classroom and was an avid reader and talented writer. She did not
consider her academic success inherent as she wrote, “people think I’m smart
but really I just study hard.” Like Marquita, Alexia also thought Ieaming the
school Discourse was very important for her future plans. She too enjoyed
critical lessons and poured her ideas into writing assignment but was much
quieter during class discussions. Alexia also divulged negative feelings about
her family. “I live with my Mom and I don’t really talk to her I guess I just don’t
want to be like her, just do nothing and have a bunch of kids.” When Alexia’s
mother was 15 years old, she “ran away from El Salvador with an American guy
and had [Alexia].” (interview, 4/12/02)

Andre was a complex and dynamic African American young man. He had
a pleasant and quiet demeanor and wrote eloquent poetry. Andre had great
respect for his mother who “raised me by herself without the help of my father
and pushes me to do the right things in my life,” including working hard in school
(interview, 4/22/02). School was not that interesting though to Andre and he did

not always give his work his best effort, as he aimed, “to get C’s.” There were

92

times when his work was outstanding, such as in several poetry assignments and
on his I-Search research paper. But there were also times when he quietly
resisted doing his work though he never caused loud behavior disruptions. He
considered Ms. Darcy “a good teacher, strict, so people do what they are
supposed to, for the most part” (interview, 4/22/02).

Juan and Nhat shared similar stories. They were both quiet students who
did their work consistently and received average grades. They both moved to the
United States when they were young from other countries, Juan from Mexico and
Nhat from Vietnam. Their parents pushed them to do well in school and they
thought they were learning what they needed to know in Ms. Darcy’s class.
Though they had positive feelings towards critical literacy discussions and
assignments, neither of them engaged that deeply in these lessons.

Tonya and Crystal were both keen observers and always had a lot to say
about what they thought of the class. Both young women had average reading
and writing skills as well as grades. Tonya participated a great deal during class
discussions; Crystal was quieter and put her ideas more often into writing. They
both indicated that the class encouraged them to do a lot of writing even outside
of the class. Tonya, originally from Panama, had a “mom and dad watching over
[her] shoulder and encouraging [her]” (interview, 4/25/02). Crystal’s mom was “a
good mom, but she is very busy” (interview, 4/26) and Crystal was living with her
aunt at the time.

By focusing on the students in Ms. Darcy’s class, as well as the other
participants in the classroom, school and district, I’ve laid the groundwork for my

investigation of how these different players ultimately related in the daily

93

(n

at
Ins

W0

Bdu

Coil

moments of teaching and Ieaming. In the next section, I continue to set up the
story of the interaction between critical and traditional conceptions of Language
Arts. Specifically, by critically analyzing the traditional notions implicit in District

Standards and Guidelines, I continue to set up the story of Ms. Darcy’s practice.

Language Arts in North Central Public School District
A Traditional Approach
North Central Public School District’s Language Arts Guide (2000) states
that, “Language Arts is composed of those processes and content areas relevant
to successful living” (p. 2). The District’s purposes for education follow a long
pattern in American educational history of connecting education to societal
success. From its inception, public education has been tied to the American
Dream. In the late 1830’s, the reformer Horace Mann proposed a system of free,
universal. education for all [white] children. Under his plan public schools,
primarily funded by taxes, began to educate students regardless of religion or
social class. In order to sell his ideas, Mann had to convince wealthy landowners
to support universal education. He assured the landowners that the Common
Schools, which would teach a common curriculum covering basic literacy,
arithmetic skills and democratic values, would alleviate much-feared political
instability and societal upheaval because children would gain the knowledge they
WOUId need to be productive democratic Citizens. Some historians view Horace
Mahan’s efforts as an attempt to promote truer equality through universal
edUcation while others claim his intentions were to evade insurgency while

cOntinuing a stratified economic system. Regardless of one’s interpretation of

94

Mann’s intentions, his efforts and ideas set into place a connection, at least
rhetorically, between universal education and equality, a notion that continues
today. (Cohen 8 Neufeld, 1981)

According to the Common School movement, equality could be realized
only by teaching all students a common curriculum. In this way, all students
would have access to the same knowledge and skills, and therefore would have
an equal chance to succeed in society. The current educational policy and
reform resembles Mann’s original notion: if students learn from the same basic
curriculum, they will have an equal opportunity in society. For example, one
popular reformer, E.D. Hirsch, bases his current reforms on the same notion of
common (core) knowledge and even uses Mann’s original words to sell his ideas
(Hirsch, 1996). Further, policy-makers, educators and academics have worked
and continue to work fervently to create national, state, and regional standards
for every school subject and grade level. School district officials ardently align
school curriculum and textbooks to meet these standards. These standards are
conceived to make sure all students learn what they need to be successful in
school and in society. In addition to demanding a common curriculum, the new
policies also require standardized assessments to make sure each school’s
students are reaching these standards.

North Central Public School District “promotes student achievement in
alignment with school system and state standards” (AWS, 2000, p. 4). These
standards provide a common set of Skills and knowledge for all students to know
and have: “These content standards enable administrators to know that there is

a degree of uniformity despite regional differences across the state” (Standards,

95

2000, p. 3). The District adheres to the national accountability approach. North
Central requires quarterly grade-level assessments, state standardized tests, and
a mandatory high-school graduation exam. Thus, North Central Public School
District’s primary purpose for education, typical (at least in rhetoric) of many
United States’ school districts, is to enable all students to be successful in school

and in our current society (Language Arts Guide, 2000).

A Closer Look: What’s in the District Curriculum ?

In this section, I analyze the knowledge and skills the North Central Public
School District encouraged its teachers to teach in order for students to be
successful. Specifically, my” analysis centers around two documents the District
provided to guide teachers’ instruction. In order to analyze these documents (as
well as the AWS text further in the chapter) I treated these texts as data and
coded them. I decided to use the documents given to teachers as one way of
considering the expectations of the school district for Language Arts Classes. To
code these documents, I first read through them all a few times to get a feel for
the tone and contents. At that time, I noted anything that related to my original
research questions, labeling these sections with the corresponding number of the
research question. During this initial read, I also coded anything that explicitly
described the purpose of education or literacy. After surveying the complete set
of documents, I moved on to examine each document in further depth. At that
point, I noted more specifically what or how they were instructing teachers to
teach. For example, I looked at their statements about the language students

Should use in their writing and the types of interpretations they should make when

96

they were reading. I attempted to paint a rather comprehensive picture of the
type of reading and writing instruction advocated by the district as indicated in
these documents. I focused on these statements in order to look for consistency
throughout the entire document. I also looked throughout the district documents,
as well as further reviewing district-purchased textbooks and district-provided
grading rubrics, in order to find consistency and discrepancies in the districts’
messages about Language Arts education. Ultimately, as you will read in this
chapter, I compared the notions in these documents to ideas in the critical literacy
literature.

The first document I analyzed, Standards for Instructional Content in
Language Arts (2000) was created and distributed by the state and adopted by
the District. This document breaks Language Arts down into six sections:
Reading, Writing, Literature, Language, Listening and Speaking. Under each
section, the document lists specific content standards such as comprehending
and evaluating literature, comparing texts, revising and evaluating writing, and
acquiring vocabulary. These standards are delineated further to define what
students should know and be able to do by the end of specific grade levels. The
second document, the Language Arts Guide (2000) was created by the North
Central Public School District. Its purpose is to detail what teachers should teach
in a Language Arts class. To this end, the Language Arts Guide provides unit
concepts, lesson plan ideas, and assessments for each month of the school year.
The Standards, as well as the District’s other guiding documents, are similar to
those found throughout the country and address a number of important and

sensible goals according to a variety of audiences.

97

There is a commitment to diversity throughout the documents as evidenced
by the following examples. First, the Standards introduction states:

Works for study in the English classroom should be of significant merit,

reflect many literary traditions and should be drawn from diverse writing

styles and points of view that reflect the concerns of both genders and

wide range of ethnicities and cultures. (p. 4)

Also, the Introduction to the Language section of the Standards states: “A
language evolves as it is influenced by Changes in society Language enables
people to preserve historical and cultural traditions.” Furthermore, the District
textbooks include multicultural pieces such as “Once Upon a Time When we
Were Colored,” “from Harriet Tubman: Conductor of the Underground Railroad,”
and the poetry of Langston Hughes.

However, I will demonstrate that this commitment to diversity does not
influence the standards teachers are guided by nor the ways students are
assessed. For example, though the Standards state that language is formed
from multiple cultural traditions, it only recommends for study words with Greek,
Latin, and Anglo-Saxon roots. The explicit and implicit messages throughout the
Districts’ documents do not match the inclusive rhetoric in the texts. As I detail in
this section, though multicultural stories are read and written about, the standards
and assessments guiding and judging students’ comprehension of these texts
and students’ responses to these texts remain mono-cultural.

Specifically, I argue that what the North Central Public School District
thinks teachers should teach is based on a particular Discourse (Gee, 1992),

which most closely reflects one culture: white, middle-Class (Gee, 2001, 1992;

Heath, 2001, 1983; Michaels, 1984). This Discourse includes specific ways of

98

speaking, comprehending and organizing texts, and participating in
conversations; these ways of reading, writing and Speaking are considered
standard In our society (Christensen, 2000). By looking closely at the District’s
documents, I demonstrate how this District promotes the teaching of this one
standard non-inclusive Discourse in their Language Arts classes.

First, throughout the District’s guiding documents, there is a Clear
message that this particular Discourses’ dialect (Christensen, 2000), standard
English, is the language to be taught and used in a Language Arts class. For
instance, the Language Section of the Standards contains Standard 4:
Comprehension and Application of Standard English Language Conventions.
The following goals appear under this standard:

1. Identify and use standard English language conventions correctly to
communicate clearly, including: sentence structure, punctuation, grammar,
and usage.

2. Use language fluently and appropriately for a variety of contexts
(academic, everyday settings).

On every assessment rubric I found, while looking through multiple guides and
texts, students’ writing was judged by the rules and conventions of standard
English. Specifically, multiple rubrics specified that students’ writing was to be
evaluated according to “uniform impression of correctness: correct usage,
punctuation, spelling, capitalization subject/verb agreement correct pronoun
usage Clear sentence structure and correct use of language conventions”

(Language Arts Guide, 2000, p. 97). At times stated and at times implied,

“correctness” was always judged according to the rules of standard English.

99

Also, interestingly, though the Standard 4 refers to “a variety of contexts,” one
way of communicating, standard English, governs all contexts.

Throughout the Standards and Language Arts Guide, numerous implicit
examples revealed that Language Arts in this District embraced standard ways of
reading and writing. Specifically, the expectations for how students should
organize texts, express ideas and tell stories comply with the standard Discourse.
The Standards require that by the end of grade 8, students should know and be
able to: “create an organizing structure,” “use logic of ideas” and “relate a clear,
coherent event” (Standards, 2000, pp. 1820). Teachers were provided with
rubrics that define what it means to logically organize a paper and to write clearly.
Accordingly, students’ writing should “present a sequence of related events in
chronological order [with] beginning, middle and ending (Language Arts Guide,
2000, p. 453), be “linear and not off-topic [and] support main ideas with facts and
details (93)." These specificities of how a text should be organized are Closely
associated with a white, middle class way of writing and speaking (Gee, 2001,
1992; Heath, 2001, 1983).

The Standard’s Reading section directs students to comprehend texts
according to the same structures they are judged by in their own writing. For
example, when judging an author’s writing, students are asked to “evaluate the
Clarity and internal consistency of the text’s organizational structure” (Standards,
2000, p.12). In addition, according to the Standards, as students read non-fiction
texts, they should “assess the adequacy, accuracy, and appropriateness of an
author’s details to support claims and assertion” (ibid). As readers, the students

are again guided by the rules of the standard Discourse.

100

In addition to presenting a mono-cultural style of reading and writing, the
Guide promotes a singular way of comprehending texts and presents texts as
neutral objects. A reader's goal is to extract “central ideas from the texts” and
“clarify main ideas” (Standards, 2000, p.12). These expectancies are based on
the idea that agreed-upon main ideas exist in texts. Though the District directs
teachers to teach four reading stances (Language Arts Guide, 2000, p. 349) -
global, interpretation, personal, critical - the District and state assessment exams,
as well as those in the textbook, judge students by whether or not they correctly
answer generic comprehension questions about the text’s main ideas. The
Standards guide the students to “recognize instances of propaganda and
persuasive technique ...not[e] instances of bias and stereotypes” (Standards,
2000, p.12) and “differentiate between evidence and opinion” (24). These
standards imply that texts contain distinct instances of bias and propaganda,
rather than following the assumption that bias permeates all texts. If it is possible
and desirable to differentiate between evidence and opinion, the assumption is

that there is a clear line between the two.

Implementing the Curriculum: How Should Teachers Teach ?

The school district provides an additional guide, All Will Succeed (AWS).
AWS delineates specific roles for teachers and students. The document is
intended “as a planning guide and instructional decision-making tool for use by all
staff members” (AWS, 2000. p. 3). For my purposes here, I will focus specifically
on the Guide’s ideas about learning (preparing for and delivering instruction) and

classroom management. Ms. Darcy, along with all new teachers, attended

101

professional development sessions to discuss the AWS Guide. During one of
these sessions, she received a handout that highlighted a quote by Harry Wong;
“Objectives are what a student must achieve [in order] to accomplish what the
teacher states is to be learned, comprehended or mastered.” This quote
highlights two of the Guide’s guiding principles. The first is that the teacher
makes the majority of the decisions in the learning process. The second is that
good instruction follows a specific pattern: the teacher sets the objectives and the
students learn those objectives.

Throughout the history of public schools, and according to the AWS Guide,
the teacher is positioned as the one who knows the important knowledge in
advance, she makes decisions for herself and the students, and she controls the
actions in the classroom. The teacher’s role is to decide on the activities the
students will engage in day after day, give the students directions and
information, and discipline the students. The language throughout the Guide is
teacher-centered; for example, even in the way the sentences are written, the
teacher is the one doing the actions: “the teacher prepares, the teacher has an
objective, the teacher models, the teacher uses, the teacher begins, the teacher
explains, the teacher presents” (AWS, 2000. p. 12). The AWS Guide organizes
planning and instruction around two set structures. First, for each lesson and
unit, teachers are guided to follow a set format:

Plan a warm-up for 3-5 minutes to focus student attention.

Develop long-range and daily lesson plans with Clear objectives and

specific learning objectives.

Select appropriate Ieaming indicators from curriculum guides.

Identify desired results.

Determine acceptable evidence.
Plan acceptable experiences and instruction.

102

Again, in this structure, we see that the teacher is the one leading all of the
actions. Also, this Guide is to be used, regardless of the content of the unit,
implying that a generic structure can and should inform each context. The
second structure guided daily Class time. To plan an effective lesson, teachers
should use the following format (AWS, 2000, p. 18).

Focus students’ attentionl Warm up

Objective stated

Introductory activitiesl Developmental activities

Guided practice

Independent practice

Assessment

Closure
This structure includes typical lesson plan components. It carries with it specific
assumptions about teaching and learning: objectives should be stated up front,
students learn by first being guided through instruction and then practicing on
their own, and the information students will Ieam should be decided before
instruction begins. In fact, according to both of AWS’s structures, the teachers
Should identify what the students will know at the end of the lesson before the
lesson begins.

According to the AWS Guide, “The classroom is organized and student
behavior is managed so as to result in the maximum amount of time for students
to engage in productive learning experiences” (AWS, 2000. p. 9). The wording of
this sentence reveals the emphasis on the teacher - student behavior is
managed. AWS centers on the responsibilities and actions of the teacher. The

Guide does include a few instances for students to participate in classroom

management. For example, the Guide advises teachers to ask students to help

103

make the classroom rules. However, even in this instance, the Guide still
instructs teachers to control this rule-making activity by monitoring the students,

facilitating their participation, and making final decisions about the outcomes.

Throughout, the AWS Guide emphasizes that “the effective teacher
manages and organizes classroom activities” (AWS, 2000. p. 8). It is clear that
the teacher must remain in charge of order and discipline. This section also
consistently focuses on the teacher as the one doing the action in the classroom:
“the teacher groups students, the teacher articulates outcomes, the teacher
maintains on-task behavior, the teacher focuses and monitors students, the
teacher recognizes and reinforces student behavior“ (pp. 8-9). The underlying
idea repeatedly stated in the Guide is that the teacher’s responsibility includes

controlling students’ behavior and keeping the classroom orderly.

The focus on the teacher and the emphasis on classroom management
make sense. The audience for the Guide is teachers and the District wants to
emphasize the classroom as a productive environment. By outlining the
assumptions embedded in the Guide about the specific ways the District
suggests teachers create this environment, I showed that consistently throughout
the Guide, the teacher is active while the students are passive: the teacher
manages the students. In addition, the teacher makes the majority of the
decisions about the lessons - so prescribed because it ensures students will have

the best learning opportunities.

104

Language Arts in Critical Literacy

A Difi‘erent Approach

While the wide variety of critical literacy advocates may not agree on
much, it is safe to say that they would all agree that critical literacy’s conceptions
of a Language Arts class would be very different from those espoused by North
Central Public School District. While no exact recipes for critical literacy exist
(McLaren, 1999), and though there are discrepancies among its advocates, in
this section I respond to North Central Public School District’s guiding documents
by drawing from critical literacy literature (including Freire,1996, 1987;
Lankshear, 1997; Luke et. al. 2001; McLaren, 1999; Willinsky, 2001). These
ideas differ from North Central Public School District’s ideas in terms of the
curriculum taught, the purposes for teaching, and the positions teachers and

students take on in the classroom.

Curriculum: What Should We Teach ?

First, critical literacy differs from the traditional curriculum’s emphasis on
teaching the standard Discourse. Instead, critical literacy recognizes and
encourages a variety of Discourses within a Language Arts class. Critical literacy
teachers include a diverse array of languages and dialects. Christensen (2000),
a critical literacy teacher, illustrates ways authors, such as Zora Neale Hurston,
blends home language with Standard English and encourages her students to
write in this multi—Discourse style. “Bringing students’ languages, ancestors,

saying from their homes into the classroom validates their languages, cultures,

105

and history as topics worthy of study. It says they count; their language is part of
a history that most textbooks ignore, or worse, label as incorrect” (Christensen,
2000, p.109). Critical literacy emphasizes the importance of valuing students’
cultures, especially those outside of the mainstream that may be unintentionally
devalued by a traditional cannon.

Though the Discourse espoused by the North Central Public School
District is taught in critical literacy classrooms (Christensen, 2000;
McLaren,1999), it is also investigated as an object of study. For example, in
critical literacy classrooms students ask who benefits from standard English’s
pervasiveness, trace its history and current use in society, and study how their
home Discourses differ from the school Discourse. Also, teachers help students
make connections between their home and school Discourses, ponder the
consequences of knowing both a primary and secondary Discourse, and value
multiple Discourses. (Edelsky, 1999; Fecho, 2000; Willinsky, 2001)

Another main difference revolves around what is meant by interpreting a
text. In critical literacy, interpreting a text is not, should not be, and ultimately
cannot be separated from the social and political contexts in which the text is
read and written; reading the word and the world are intricately connected and
texts are “pregnant” with meanings (Freire, 1985). In critical literacy, decoding
and comprehending are not distinct steps and comprehension takes on a
different meaning than espoused by the North Central Public School District.
Reading (and writing) are defined as understanding (and expressing) the
embedded code which requires analyzing the historical roots, assumptions and

hidden contexts of power underlying the codes (Freire, 1996, 1987).

106

These differences in interpretation manifest themselves when students
search for the main idea of a text. Much of North Central’s curriculum for
teaching reading is built around teaching students how to find the main idea.
Critical literacy instruction focuses more on unearthing the complexities in texts
than on distilling them to find a single main idea. According to critical literacy
theorists, the main ideas of a text depend on the reader’s perspective and
experience. Thus, meaning-making is considered a negotiation between the
reader and the text. Meaning does not reside in the text nor does it reside in the
reader; instead, meaning depends upon the interaction between the reader and
the text. This interaction, then, is influenced by a wide variety of factors. It
depends upon the authorial invitations for the reader -how the author invites the
reader into the text and how she expresses her ideas - and how this style
corresponds to the particular reader. Meaning also is determined by the
interaction between the reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 1978). These lenses are
shaped by a myriad of factors including the reader’s own history, culture,
language, and experience. The standard notion of interpreting a text, the one
included in North Central’s curriculum, does not adhere to critical literacy’s core
definition of reading: reading is politicizing the text. Reading ultimately is
understanding the inherent partiality, rather than the generalizabilty, of all
meanings and texts (Lankshear, 1997; Luke et. al. 2001; McLaren, 1999;

Willinsky, 2001).

Purpose: Why Should We Teach ?

107

According to critical literacy, “the act of reading requires a political and
social transformation” (Freire 8 Macedo, 1987, p. 54). Critical literacy’s main
purpose for education differs from North Central Public School’s; the main
purpose is not to teach Language Arts so students can succeed in our current
educational system and society. Rather, the purpose for teaching Language Arts
is to help students change their approach to life and change society. More
specifically, as people gain literacy, they gain a more powerful way of viewing life
and society, so the goal is to have them recognize assumptions and inequity, see
how things can be different, and see themselves as creative actors capable of
creating change. The primary aim in critical literacy is not to teach students to be
literate in the school Discourse so they can do well on standardized tests or go to
Ivy League colleges (i.e. to find success in the current structures of society). This
aim, which North Central Public School District shares with a large number of
educational institutions, may very well be intended to lead to future change by
allowing diverse students access to powerful institutions previously denied to
them. Critical literacy, though, wants to use literacy education to change
students’ relationship with school and society now.

Further, whereas public education in our country and in North Central
Public School District calls for the curriculum to be the same for all economic
classes, believing that the commonality insures all students have the same
opportunities, critical literacy calls for each specific context to determine the
curriculum in that setting. While national policies focus especially on making sure.
poorer students meet the common standards, critical literacy educators believe

poorer students need some different knowledge and skills in order to create

108

change (Finn, 1999; Shor, 1992). For example, poorer students need to contend
with their own internalized oppression in terms of wealth and status. Traditional
Language Arts curricula operate on the underlying belief that students are poor
because they can not read [well]; therefore by teaching them to read, they will be
able to access more economic wealth. On the contrary, a critical literacy
philosophy believes that people can not read [well] because they are poor and
[consciously or unconsciously] denied access to certain powerful aspects of
society, including powerful literacy education (Freire, 1985). Therefore,
education is not simply a matter of teaching poor students to read better; it is
investigating why particular groups do and do not have wealth and power. It is
imagining and working toward a society where all citizens equally share power
and resources (Christensen, 2000; Finn, 1999; Shor, 1992).

There is one final important distinction between critical literacy’s and the
School District’s purposes for education. North Central focuses on the individual
gaining the necessary knowledge and skills. Groups of students may work
together but the overall goal is for each person to gain the specific information
and skills. The purpose is for each individual to get what he needs to have a
chance to succeed in school and society. In critical literacy, the object for
education is geared toward a more collective notion. The interaction between the
students is as important as any individual piece of knowledge. In addition,
change is possible only by groups of people working together. Therefore, the

focus for instruction moves from the individual attainment to the group interaction.

109

Teachers and Students

While the teacher-directed approach and the emphasis on structure
included in North Central’s curriculum are typical in most schools and logical in
today’s climate, they are in conflict with core principles of critical literacy. Critical
literacy rejects the teacher-directed approach because this approach views
teaching as a two-part process for the teacher. First, the teacher takes on a
cognitive role as she decides on the knowledge to be learned, organizes it, and
thinks about it. Second, she takes on a narrative role as she delivers it to the
students. The goal of the teacher in this configuration is to pass on the
knowledge she already knows to the students. As Freire (1997) argues,
“Education is suffering from narrative sickness” (p. 52). “Narrative sickness,”
which Freire saw as the central problem in the educational system, contaminates
the learning environment by taking the students out of the cognitive part of
educafion.

According to critical literacy, teacher-directed education is negative both
for teachers and students. In this design, teachers are not fully engaged either
creatively or intellectually in the classroom as they “narrate” information they
have already processed and organized. This approach is also hurtful for
students. For when teaching plans are “instigated, ended, shaped, paced,
topicalized, assessed, by someone other than the reader - the event positions
the reader as an Object” (Edelsky, 1996, p.97). When students are expected
primarily to listen to the teacher, follow directions, and take in information, they
are ultimately merely spectators in the Ieaming process. Their thinking and

actions are controlled by someone else (or at least this is the goal) and “to

110

alienate human beings from their own decision-making is to change them into
Objects“ (Freire, 1997, p. 66). Positioning students as Objects reinforces passive
participation rather than encourages the type of active engagement necessary for

change.

Instead, in critical literacy classrooms, teachers are positioned as learners,
entering into dialogue with their students in order to learn with and from them. In
this way, the teacher does not know everything she wants to teach her students
before class begins. “Through dialogue the teacher-of-the—students and the
students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student
with students-teachers” (Freire, 1997, p. 61). The teacher learns along with the
students as together they create and re-create knowledge. lmportantly, rather
than learning the facts first and then narrating them to students, the teacher is
always cognitive, always re-learning and re-forming reflections.

Students are positioned as Subjects and are posed with problems that are
connected to their lives; they are challenged to actively participate in thinking
about the problems posed. Through a process of inquiry, students grapple with
issues and create knowledge. The critical literacy curriculum “takes [students’]
historicity as the starting point” (Freire, 1997, p. 65). Teachers plan curriculum
considering their particular students and context. Teachers guide students to
critical thought and help students see what the world has made them, recognizing
both what they want to continue being and what they do not want to be any
longer (Giroux, 1988). Knowledge is not simply transferred, but instead consists
of students actively participating in the Ieaming process. The relations are

dialogical in nature where multiple and diverse perspectives are juxtaposed in

111

conversations between equally knowing subjects (Gee, 2000). At times, teachers
and students work together to create unit themes about justice, equity, and race
or research together students’ vocabulary and experiences (Fecho, 2000).
Contrary to the School District’s approach, the knowledge to be learned and the

direction to be followed is not laid out or completely known in advance.

Conclusion

As my dissertation sets out to show, Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice existed
between the traditional conception of Language Arts evident in these district
documents and a critical conception of literacy that analyzes all texts and their
connections to race, justice and power. This chapter established the wide
discrepancies between North Central Public School District’s conception and
critical literacy’s conception of a Language Arts class. Of course, the official
District documents and educational theories only begin to tell the Story.
Throughout my work, | highlight how these traditional notions did not just exist in
the district documents, but in Ms. Darcy’s, students’ and society’s ideas about
teaching and Ieaming as well. Such texts and ideas are filtered through teachers,
as they work to craft their beliefs and create their instruction, and through
students, as they participate in the learning process. At the same times, I show
how the teacher and students also created and engaged in inspirational critical
work.

To further understand how these two conceptions of Language Arts
influenced Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching, we need to step inside her classroom.

One concrete visual illustration of her classroom’s combination of critical literacy

112

and more traditional school literacy existed on her bookshelf, situated behind her
desk. June Jordan’s (1995) Poetry for the People stood next to the North Central
Public School District’s Curriculum Guide; Paolo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the
Oppressed leaned against the State Standardized Test Guide; Enid Lee’s (1985)
Letters to Marcia and Linda Christensen’s (2000) Reading, Writing and Rising Up
sandwiched the state English Language Arts Scope and Sequence. These texts
literally coexisted on her bookshelf as the curriculum and pedagogies they
express coexisted in Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching practice. Ms. Darcy succinctly
described the mixture of critical literacy and traditional literacy that made up her
teaching practice:
The traditional curriculum is very valuable and the critical literacy is very
valuable, it is a blending. I think the struggle comes when you initially take
that leap of trying critical literacy because it is a lot of work to figure out
what works and what is not helpful for the students. I continue to try to find
ways to better empower the students through a combination of traditional
teaching methods and critical literacy (interview, 6/24/03).

Throughout my dissertation, I paint a picture of this “combination of traditional

teaching methods and critical literacy.”

113

Chapter Four
POETRY AS POLITICAL ACTION

Poetry is a political action undertaken for the sake of information, the faith, the
exorcism, and the lyrical invention, that telling the truth makes possible. Poetry
means taking control of the language of your life. Good poems can interdict a
suicide, rescue a love affair, and build a revolution in which speaking and
listening to somebody becomes the first and last purpose to every social
encounter. (Jordan, 1995, p. 3)

Elizabeth Darcy underlined this passage in June Jordan’s (1995) Poetry
for the People. It captures her beliefs about the power and importance of poetry.
Poetry was a major component of Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching practice. Each
day, as the students entered C132, a poem illuminated by the overhead projector
literally welcomed them. Their daily warm-up activity was always poem based;
Ms. Darcy asked students to read the poem and focus on the poets’ word choice,
the topic of the piece, or the poem’s structure. Elizabeth also incorporated poetry
lessons throughout the school year. In this chapter, I focus on Elizabeth’s
teaching of two poems, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird” (Thirteen
Ways) by Wallace Stevens, and “Where I’m From” by George Ella Lyon.6 This
first data chapter examines a major component of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice:
poetry. The purpose of the chapter is to provide a look inside the classroom walls

and to examine the ways her practice moved into the realms of critical literacy

while remaining within the bounds of traditional instruction. In particular, after

 

6 Please see Appendix A for copies of these two poems.

114

describing several poetry lessons, I detail critical literacy components that existed
within these lessons and also show the limitations on this critical work. This
chapter begins to paint the shades of gray I described in Chapter One. Ms.
Darcy’s teaching practice, as illustrated through analysis of poetry lessons,
existed between the conceptions and pedagogies of traditional and critical
literacy. Through this analysis, we begin to see what her teaching practice made

possible for students.

The Poems: “Thirteen Ways” and “Where I’m From”

“Thirteen Ways” is considered a classic American poem. In it, the poet
Wallace Stevens describes a multitude of ways to see a blackbird. He looks at a
blackbird as “a small part of a pantomime,” as a math problem, and as a very tiny
detail in a much larger world. He expresses numerous images of the blackbird to
illustrate the multiple ways an object can be viewed. “Where I’m From” is also a
descriptive poem. In this autobiographical text, George Lyons depicts her own
background and upbringing, illuminating a variety of components of her life.7

Ms. Darcy chose “Thirteen Ways” as a model because she “was drawn to
the different ways of looking at a certain thing as a way to free up the editor in a
writer’s mind and just let the more creative part of the mind come forth”
(interview, 7/15l03). Below are excerpts written from my field notes describing the

“Thirteen Ways” lesson.

 

7 Author and educator Linda Christensen included “Where I‘m From” and a corresponding lesson plan in
her book, Reading, Writing, and Rising Up. The lesson plan is widely used. It was featured on the Lehrer
News hour, taught by a teacher at the Maya Angelou Charter School classroom and is part of Dr. Cheryl
Rosaen’s TB 401 class.

115

Ms. Darcy put a transparency with “Thirteen Ways” on the overhead. She
told the students they were going to copy the poet’s style of describing one
object in many different ways. The students read Stevens’ poem,
stumbling over several of the words. She reread several of the stanzas (2,
3, 12, 13) and explained how Stevens was seeing the blackbird in different
ways. Ms. Darcy explained how there are so many different ways to view
and describe things. Writing, especially poetry, gives writers the chance to
express these differences. Out of her brown canvas bag, she pulled an
orange, a grapefruit and a pen. The students chose one of these three
items to think and write about as Stevens had. The room was quiet as Ms.
Darcy circled the room and stopped at students’ desks that weren’t writing
or had a question. When a student had a good idea (Freddy described the
grapefruit as a globe) she read it out to the whole class. The students
seemed to all be working and everyone had a poem completed after about
15 minutes. ’

Jenetha shared her poem out loud:

The grape fruit is:

A big yellow ball in a shape of an overgrown orange
The grape fruit is:

A bright yellow piece fallen from the sun

The grape fruit is:

A giant lemon bright and yellow

The grape fruit is:

As round as a bouncing ball

The grape fruit is:

A sad piece of my soul that only looks happy.

After several students read their pieces out loud, Ms. Darcy asked the
students to again emulate Steven’s process of writing; this time, she asked
them each to choose an item from their everyday lives to write about in
their poems. During this part of the lesson, there was a wider variety of
reactions to the assignment. More students seemed stuck and had a hard
time getting to work, as Nhat, Calvin and Alfredo did not have anything
on their paper after more than five minutes. Ms. Darcy told them to look
around or ask another student for ideas and after a few more minutes they
were writing. On the other hand, Crystal, Andre and Tonya laughed out
loud as they worked together. Ms. Darcy gave students almost thirty
minutes to complete their drafts. Once they finished, she encouraged
them to read each other’s and give feedback and she also read and
commented on several students’ work. She circled the room to make sure
all students had finished at least one poem about their own object. Then
students moved their desks into a circle. Each student went around and
read his or her poem, with Ms. Darcy commenting. When Tonya read her
poem describing her teachers several students laughed. When Chavez
read his poem about hair weaves, the majority of the students and Ms.

116

Darcy laughed and several students called for him to read it again, which
he did. '

Ms. Darcy also began the “Where I’m From” by putting George Lyon’s
poem on the overhead. She then passed out two student example poems,
written in response to Lyon’s poem, published in Christensen’s book (2002),
“Reading, Writing, and Rising Up.” The students seemed to like the two student
example poems; almost half of the class raised their hand to read out loud. The
class read the poem out loud twice so all volunteers would have a turn. These
student examples included vivid imagery, with phrases such as “swing sets
rusted metal mounted in dirt used by many kids, well broken in,” and “courageous
people who paved a way for me.” Before asking students to write their own
“Where I’m From” poems, Ms. Darcy’s scaffolded their writing by having them
take note of various components of Lyon’s poem and the student examples. The
students underlined and shared numerous topics written about in the examples,
such as items found in the poets’ neighborhoods, family foods, names of
relatives, and painful memories.

Then, Ms. Darcy gave the students time to brainstorm lists of these topics
in their own lives. All of the students wrote easily, as Ms. Darcy circled the
classroom she did not stop at any desks to prod students to get writing. After
working on the lists, Ms. Darcy gave students the rest of the class period, about
thirty five minutes, to compose drafts of their own “Where I’m From” poems. As I
looked around the room, I noted how all of the students seemed to be working the
entire time. The room was quiet as students worked independently. Ms. Darcy

worked with a few students as they read parts out loud to her, but did not have to

117

prod any student to begin or keep working. Every student turned in a draft at the
end of class and Ms. Darcy commented on each student’s paper. During the next
class period, the students again moved their desks into a circle and read all or at
least a part of their poems. This was a very lively sharing. A few students looked
embarrassed, asking if they had to read, looking down and reading quietly. But
the majority of the students read their entire poems out loud and several even
stood up at their desks. After almost every student’s reading, one or two other
students commented on a part of the poem, without being prompted by Ms. Darcy
to respond. (field notes, 4/3/02)

During these lessons, the entire class worked consistently without much
intervention from Ms. Darcy. Other than pushing a few students to start their own
poems following “Thirteen Ways” the students worked for chunks of time on their
own. During both sharing times of these poems, the majority of the students
were engaged as they read and listened to each other’s poems, especially during
selected “Thirteen Ways” poems and all of the “Where I’m From” poems. The
students engaged in critical literacy in different ways. All students listened and
responded to a variety of Discourses within the poems, students’ examples, and
classmates’ work, issues I will go into in more detail later in this chapter. They all
engaged in seeing objects in multiple ways. They all became authors for an
audience of their peers. Many students, in their work, especially during the
“Thirteen Ways” lesson, remained in mainstream typical school Discourse. They
wrote about pens or fruit. A few students moved outside of this Discourse and
used this opportunity to bring their own lives, often left out of the classroom, into

the classroom. They all seemed to enjoy this diversity, especially in Andre’

118

poem. The nature of “Where I’m From” invited details about students’ lives, and
since most of Ms. Darcy’s students are not from mainstream homes, more

primary Discourses were brought in to this work.

Critical Literacy Components

These lessons exemplify Ms. Darcy’s pedagogy. They combine the
multiple goals she aimed to work toward in the class, and demonstrate how she
embedded her instruction with the critical literacy ideals she believed in. For
example, as she stated (interview, 7/8/03), “there would be times when it would
be very academic, standard English and there would be times when it wouldn’t.”
These lessons, as poetry easily affords, allowed the students to write outside of
the standard Discourse. It also worked to “get [students] on board with their
lives.” Ms. Darcy believed that “you have to get their whole lives interested, they
are able to talk about their dreams for the future and they learn some skills.” As
Ms. Darcy developed and created her teaching stance, she integrated critical
literacy into the lessons.

In particular, in this section, I go into more depth about the critical literacy
components in these lessons. Specifically, I discuss. how these lessons
connected to students’ lives, welcomed diverse topics and language, and
encouraged multiple interpretations of texts. In the next section, I discuss how

the critical literacy existed within traditional boundaries.

119

Connecting to Students’ Lives

When I asked Ms. Darcy what she hoped to accomplish when she chose
to teach “Where I’m From” and “Thirteen Ways,” she said that “poetry is often
presented as very vaulted and prestigious and I try to encourage a more down to
earth relationship with poetry and my students” (interview, 6l5/02). Elizabeth
crafted lessons based on poems that were not “vaulted,” distant or removed but
instead were connected to students’ lives. In each of the assignments, students
reached inside themselves to write, drawing from what they knew, what they saw
around them, and what they experienced. Connecting literacy to students’ lives
is an important component of literacy instruction, particularly for adolescent
learners (Alverman, 2000). Students are able to find personal connections to
interest them as they use and expand their reading and writing repertoire.
Creating linkages across situations also helps students organize and apply prior
knowledge while building toward future Ieaming (ibid). As Christensen (2000)
argues, “finding space for student’s lives to become part of the curriculum” (19) is
essential to critical literacy. By connecting their own lives to the curriculum in
school, students see themselves as part of this official knowledge as well as part
of the learning process itself (Shor, 1992). Through this avenue of instruction,
students can begin to engage in “action and reflection upon their world” (Freire,
1997, p. 60). Ultimately, active involvement in literacy and a dynamic stance
toward learning can move students to use literacy for authentic purposes, to
identify themselves positively as literate, and ultimately to strive for “emergence

of critical consciousness and critical intervention in reality” (ibid).

120

When the student examples were shared along with Lyon’s poem,
students became highly engaged hearing about items familiar to them. While
reading one example, written by Oretha Storey, about “doc-rags soul food
and fried chicken” the students laughed out loud, energetically volunteered to
read stanzas of the poem aloud, and asked Ms. Darcy if they could reread the
poems several times (field notes, 4l3l02). Ms. Darcy’s students’ poems mirrored
many of the same items Storey wrote about in her piece.

After reading about such familiar items, students then wrote poems based
on their homes, backgrounds, families and lives. The students’ poems painted
vibrant images of their lives, rarely exposed in school. The reader saw the
“yellow perennials and cherry blossoms in front of [Leroy’s] apartment building,
and the dark green furniture in the living room,” heard the “TV blasting all day on
BET” in Tonya’s house, smelled the “jerk chicken, baked potatoes and soul-food
Sundays” in Kiara’s house, and felt the “enduring love that loves [Andre]
unconditionally.”

Students were also asked to reach into their own lives during the “Thirteen
Ways” lesson. After writing about objects Ms. Darcy brought in, students were
encouraged to choose an object from their everyday life. Ms. Darcy “wanted to
see what they pick, what’s important to them and what surrounds them”
(interview, 6/5l02). While many of the topics in the district curriculum were drawn
from generic topics that students may or may not be familiar with, here in these
lessons students were connected to literacy in ways that related to their lives.
Students wrote about a wide variety of topics, many which were not typical to

mainstream textbooks and curriculum. For example, Andre and Marquita both

121

 

wrote about hair weaves, Jenetha wrote about bandanas and Luis wrote about a
religious symbol. In both of these lessons, students connected reading and

writing texts to the texts of their own lives.

Diverse Topics and Language

Ms. Darcy included multiple topics and Discourses into these lessons. This
multiplicity was apparent in both the topics and the” styles students read and
wrote about in the lessons. In comparison to the District’s lesson about
autobiography, in which students work on using pronouns “correctly” and write a
narrative chronologically (Language Arts Guide, 2000. p. 57), students read
examples and used language in ways which veered from this traditional,
mainstream format. Ms. Darcy brought in models that included multiple
Discourses and non-mainstream topics. In the example responses to “Where I’m
From,” the poems included phrases like “get it girl and shake it to the ground,”
and the phrase, “I am from Kunta Kinte’s strength, Harriet Tubman’s escapes,
Phyllis Wheatley’s poems, and Sojourner Truth’s faith.” Ms. Darcy told her
students she wanted them to “hear the voices of those around them and put into
writing what it sounds like around you,” (4l3l02). thereby welcoming the multiple
Discourses students were hearing in their homes and communities.

The students in room C132 were not from the mainstream [i.e. white,
middle class] homes where standard English is predominantly spoken;
Elizabeth’s assignment allowed a wide variety of voices into the classroom. The
students’ language and topics moved outside of what is associated with white,

standard America to include the phrases “Girl you know I just playin’ with you”

122

and objects like “ghetto streets, ” “doo-rags,” and “soul-foOd.” The students’
responses did not simply contain non-mainstream phrases; they moved into
terrain that can be construed as controversial, and in the extreme case of Cissy
Lack’s students, described in Chapter One, be seen as “unreasonable.” This is a
risk that all critical teachers face; when the doors are opened for students to write
about their own lives, there is no guarantee that they will stick to topics viewed as
reasonable or appropriate. Further, because Ms. Darcy’s students’ lives were not
the ones reflected in mainstream texts, it is even more likely students’ responses
were apt to move outside of the realm of standard, safe, non-controversial topics.
For example, Chris wrote:

I am from the agony and pain of the ones whose minds was diluted by the

many drugs that surrounded them I am from the 40 which you drunken

people lift up and gulp down like soda.
These phrases reflected Chris’s life; the items discussed are not included in any
of the textbooks or materials sponsored by the District and could be construed as
controversial.

Ms. Darcy included the “Where I’m Poem” assignment because she
thought it was important for students to bring into her curriculum aspects the
school curriculum often omits. In her words, the “Where I’m From” lesson:

allowed them to talk about things that other teaches probably haven’t

asked them to speak about, where they’re really from, including the good
and not so good parts. It allows the whole child to come into the room and
to feel spoken to and heard I want the whole child to feel valued

because without that they’re not fully present” (interview, 7/8/03).

This notion of being “fully present” was necessary for students to be critical

Subjects (Freire, 1997) in the classroom.

123

Similar to the space opened up for students’ diverse expressions in the
“Where I’m From” lesson, in response to “Thirteen Ways to See a Blackbird,” Ms.
Darcy asked the students to write about objects in their lives. Some students
stayed within comfortable, mainstream terrain; Nhat wrote about the fruit in his
kitchen and Tonya described her teachers. Again, though, because Ms. Darcy’s
students were not from mainstream households, many of them based their
poems on non-standard items that do not appear in school or state sponsored
materials. For example, Andre wrote about a hair weave, an item little known or
worn in white America, and his piece is written in his home Discourse, which is
not the standard Discourse.

I saw this girl with a rack of weave.

So much you of thought that a bald horse was standing cold shivering.

the things you can do with it:

you missing a shoe string? Weave comes in handy.

you forgot to floss? Weave comes in handy.

you lost your rubber band? Weave comes in handy.

If you lost your belt, Weave comes in handy.

You have a charm but no necklace? Weave comes in handy.

This poem reflects Andre’s language style. In addition to being about an item
rooted in Black culture, it includes phrases such as “rack of weave,” “you of
thought,” and contains a rhythmic, song-like style. Andre participation in school
in general and in Ms. Darcy’s class in particular was inconsistent. On the one
hand, he had great respect for his mother and wanted to live up to her
expectations about his school work. On the other hand though Andre often

wasn’t that interested in working hard in class and only worked for C’s. He

wanted to do well ideally but didn’t always want to put the work in on a day to day

124

basis. However, there were several times during Ms. Darcy’s class that he was
passionately involved in his work. In several different writing assignments,
Andre’ work flourished. During other lessons though, such as in a class debate,
he did not do his work. Though it did not happen all of the time, Ms. Darcy
successfully engaged Andre to use literacy passionately.
Though Ms. Darcy expected students to choose items from their own lives,
she was surprised by some of their choices, including Andre’s:
When Andre read his poem, I remember having one of these a-ha
moments, omigosh maybe to him this is an everyday object. That he even
wrote about hair weaves, it cracked me up. He wrote about it with so
much enthusiasm and energy that it was great to see him get into this
poem. It shocked me because coming from a white culture it was an
unusual thing to write about and it was a glimpse into an African-American
growing up culture, this is as usual for African Americans as brushes and
curling irons It’s very common to hear the girls in class talk about their
weekends and getting their weaves done, it’s a part of their culture
(interview, 7/15/03).
Rather than fearing the unknown, Elizabeth welcomed the way this assignment
engaged Andre. She commented on his “enthusiasm and energy” and declared
that “it was great to see him get into this poem.” Ms. Darcy’s positioned herself
as a learner in the classroom as she opened up to learning about the students’
“growing up culture” which was different from her own. In critical literacy,
teachers Ieam along with their students and from their students. Elizabeth
recognized her own cultural bounds as she stated that “coming from a white
culture it was an unusual thing to write about.” She recognized that hair weaves
' are “as usual for African Americans as brushes and curling irons” were for her in

her white growing up culture. In this assignment, Ms. Darcy allowed multiple

Discourses to permeate the classroom and to exist on the same ground as the

125

standard Discourse which is oftentimes welcomed exclusively in school. In room
C132, Andre’s poem was not only accepted, it was celebrated. As Andre read his
poem, the students and Ms. Darcy responded with joy and laughter, and asked
him to read it several times (field notes, 4/8/02). Literacy, in these two lessons,
moved into critical literacy terrain as it was truly connected to students’ lives and
moved outside of the mono-cultural topics and language the district guidelines

exclusively contain.

Interpretation as Multiple and Contradictory
During these lessons, Ms. Darcy purposely encouraged her students to
interpret and create texts in dynamic and differing ways because she believed
that texts and identities “all contain these multitudes” and she saw her classroom
as a place for students to express these complexities. When we reflected upon
this assignment, Elizabeth expressed her commitment to encouraging this
multiple approach:
To be able to commit to writing, that you contain all these contradictions, is
a really powerful affinnation of who you are. I knew that a lot of the
students would compose some very painfully contradictory pieces of work
because I know a little about where they’re living and for me the
contradictions were an important piece about the model that we can be all
these things. We can hear shouting and find moments of peace. We can
say shut-up and love, they’re not all a straight line (interview, 7/15/03).
This multiple way of seeing and writing was contrary to her district curriculum and
assessments that perpetuated a more singular version of meaning. In Elizabeth’s

classroom, students were encouraged to interpret texts and express themselves

in multiple, and at times even contradictory, ways.

126

First, when teaching “Thirteen Ways to See a Blackbird” Ms. Darcy
repeatedly pointed out the multiple ways the poet viewed a blackbird and
instructed students to “see” or “read” their own items from as many different
perspectives as possible. One of Ms. Darcy’s goals for this lesson was “having
their minds circle around an object rather than putting a spotlight on it, move
away from one explanation of an object” (interview, 6/5/02). Typical
comprehension questions, found on many standardized tests, often ask students
to take this “spotlight” approach but here Elizabeth encouraged a different
standpoint.

As the students worked to make sense of Steven’s poems, Ms. Darcy
explained that by concentrating intensely on an object, the writer and reader
experienced alternative, even unusual ways of seeing things. Elizabeth guided
students through a process of emulating this type of thinking as they wrote about
an orange and a grapefruit. After brainstorming a variety of ways to look at the
object, she moved around the classroom, encouraging students to add more
ideas, prodding them to move outside of the “normal” main ways of thinking about
the object, and repeatedly asking them to concentrate harder and write more.
She stopped the class several times to share a particularly creative way to look at
fruit and also asked students to share their examples, enthusiastically praising
each new way a student wrote about the object. She purposely prolonged this
part of the lesson so that students would think creatively (field notes, 4l5/02).
Throughout this lesson, she kept a light attitude, laughing often and showing her
delight by expressing joyful expressions. These teaching moves pushed her

students to think about everyday items in multiple ways.

127

Similarly, Ms. Darcy wanted students to look at their own lives in multiple
ways in the lesson surrounding the poem “Where I’m From.” In this lesson,
Elizabeth wanted to give students an opportunity to express the contradictory
nature of autobiography. As Ms. Darcy explained,

the model contained contradictions, it got to the nitty gritty, it’s not write me

a poem about all the good things in your life or all the things normally

allowable in English class, but it was a poem about where you’re really

from (interview, 6/5/02).

In a narrower view of literacy, contradictions are often suppressed to impart a
clear, clean main idea. When reading the poem, Ms. Darcy focused specifically
on one line in the poem about sayings the poet heard growing up: “perk up and
pipe down.” Expressing the idea that many people receive opposing messages
from their homes, she encouraged students to express the inconsistencies in
their lives. Emphasizing this point, she repeated the idea that this lesson was a
place to write about both good and bad components, and noted that both can
exist together in the same place or person (field notes, 4l3l02). Students
embraced this space for exploring contradictions. Below, I bolded the

contradictions evident in the work by Alexia, Chris, Trisha and Kiara.

Alexia began her poem by representing the range inside her family, in terms of
skin color, beliefs, and family members

I am from dark skin to light skin,

Struggles in the past to the dreams I see in the future,

fights to hugs.

I am from a father I never knew and grandparents who gave me their love.

Chris’s poem is full of descriptive, conflicting images: first he described a

depressing scene with rocks and scrapes and then brought the reader into a
heavenly and hopeful scene.

128

I am from the rocks which bring you down and scrape your knees never

allowing you to get up and the heavens which is parted every morning by

the burning bright sun.

I am from the words which cut you down through your heart such as “shut-

ups” and the helpful sayings such as “do your homework.”
Trisha and Kiara both explicitly describe the different parts of their
neighborhoods, from the cursing to the silence and the trees and flowers to the
fistfights and arguments.

I’m from the cursing, and screaming I hear out my window. And I am from

the pure silence I hear sometimes.

I am from the trees with beautiful flowers, playgrounds, and bees in front of

my house. I am from the fistfights and arguments that happen almost

every day and night.
These multiple examples demonstrate students’ willingness and desire to
express contradictions in their lives. The students’ personal expressions were
also a testament to the environment of trust Ms. Darcy successfully created in the
classroom. Middle schools are often treacherous backdrops for cruel and
humiliating jokes, put-downs, and actions. Students are not always willing to
share their private lives with their teachers and their classmates. The culture in
room 0132 made it possible for students to genuinely and openly respond as Ms.
Darcy’s asked them to share “Where I’m From.” Students shared personal
feelings and events as they drew on both the good and bad from their lives.

As our current educational climate and Ms. Darcy’s school district
attempted to direct students in this “straight line,” Elizabeth Darcy instead
encouraged her students to circle around. This lesson is in some ways

subversive, because it is not aligned with the direction her district wants her to

prioritize, but it is also just good teaching.

129

Critical Literacy Blossoming Within Traditional Boundaries

As I illustrate above, significant critical literacy components appeared in
the lessons surrounding “Where I’m From” and “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a
Blackbird.” However, this criticality was constricted with boundaries. For
example, for the most part these lessons remained teacher-centered and
students and teachers stayed in traditional roles rather than pushing into critical
terrain. Though students did actively participate in the lessons and at times - in
particular, when reading their poems aloud when they even took the floor - by and
large Ms. Darcy controlled the lessons. Ms. Darcy decided on the poems the
class would read, chose the ways the poems and assignments would be
addressed, and designed the formats for students” responses. During each
lesson, she instructed students as they underlined various components of the
poems and closely monitored their progress as they wrote their responses.

Ms. Darcy made decisions about how to plan and teach these lessons in
order to create productive possibilities for student learning, yet the large amount
of teacher control might have also worked to eliminate some opportunities for
students: “If the print-user is being controlled in her print-use - if someone else
decides what literacy event will occur, how it will begin, what it will be about,
when it will end, and so on - then the print-user is positioned as an Object”
(Edelsky, 1996, p. 99). While these lesSons created spaces for students to act as
Subjects, the overall classroom space was ultimately controlled by the teacher,
bringing the world in but avoiding its implications. While it is the norm for
teachers to control classroom lessons, critical literacy depends on teachers

finding alternatives to teacher-centered instruction. While Ms. Darcy was

130

successful in doing this in many ways, she also relied on traditional roles of
authority. As a result, this combination had mixed consequences in her teaching

practice that will be addressed further in the next chapter.

Critical Examination

I turn now to the students’ examination of the critical topics they raised
during these lessons, and I will examine ways this critical examination occurred
within limits in these lessons. Students’ “Where I’m From” poems included
references to race, such as Alexia’s line “I am from dark skin to light skin.” In
addition, Marquita’s lines showed an awareness of her own identity in relation to
others.

Now this place I call the ghetto,

where all stray dogs choose to roam,

it may not be your first choice,

but to me this is the place I call home.
First, Marquita chose to own, “lcall,” the politically charged word “ghetto.” Then
she acknowledged an unnamed other - “it may not be your first choice” and
expressed her own loyalty: “but to me this is the place I call home. ” Marquita was
a very intelligent student and one who seemed to have a keen sense of critical
issues such as race and class; as she exhibited in this poem she was aware of
her neighborhood and identity in relation to a larger society. I think Marquita
might have benefited from being pushed further in terms of her own expressions
here and other’s reactions to them.

However, though students raised critical issues in their writing, they were

not explicitly addressed during the lesson. As a class, students did not question,

131

compare or problematize their “Where I’m From” poems. They did not
collectively think about themes running through their poems, nor did they analyze
why things were the way that they were, how they got to be that way, or how they
might be different. While critical components existed in these lesson, such as
including students’ home discourses and students’ out-of—school identities, they
did not really get into troubling their realities. In the lesson, individual students
did not engage in critical analysis of their texts; for example, Alexia did not
address the implications of skin color and Marquita did not explicate the
difference between “I” and “you” in her piece. Nor did the entire class examine
the violent elements included in so many of their poems.

Elizabeth: / would say the main reason why I stopped where / did with this
lesson is because to write the poems themselves was a monumental act of self-
discovery for many of these children, a construction of their own voice, and /
feared that to push them to question why they held the constructs they do, and
where that may come from and the forces that shape them, may be construed by
a 8’” grader as an attempt to deconstruct the confidence lhad just worked to build
up. Some of the students may have regarded such an attempt on my part as
dangerous and confusing, which is altogether true, but they may back ofi‘ from
further honest writing assignments if they were afraid or not trusting me.

Similar to the limitations of critical discussion in “Where I’m From,” the
students did not engage in troubling their environments in their responses to
“Thirteen Ways.” Though students wrote about non-mainstream topics, such as
hair weaves and soul food, they did not push into truly disruptive terrain. The

examples Elizabeth brought in for students to write about after reading Stevens’

132

poem - an orange, a grapefruit, and a pen - set a non-contentious tone. While
these items, like all items, could be looked at critically, they are not normally
associated with anything critical or divisive, compared to, for example, an anti-
war rally banner or a gay rights sticker (items which Elizabeth has in her home.)
Elizabeth: I feel rather strongly about keeping my own political opinions out of the
classroom, which is the reason why I chose to keep my own items at home. I
wouldn ’t bring in a pro-war banner or a pro-Bush/Chene y sticker. Similarly, I
choose to allow students to make up their own minds and not influence them with
my own views.

In an interview with Ms. Darcy, I commented on students’ use of their own
lives outside of school in their writing and asked her to describe the environment
she was trying to set in her classroom and in the “Thirteen Ways” lesson in
particular. She answered:

It’s a nice contradiction; creating this comfort zone with boundaries.

You’re still in an academic setting. Bring who you are and bring your

playfulness but keep the vulgar side out, that’s not why you’re here. It’s

almost like that would be a waste of time (interview, 6/24/03).

But where is the space between “academic” and “vulgar?” The boundaries Ms.
Darcy attempted to create might have worked to keep out important pieces of the
students’ lives that could have made her classroom a more critical space. The
lesson missed an opportunity to critically question the definition of mainstream in
our society. For example, when Andre wrote about hair weaves, Ms. Darcy had

an “aha moment,” but she did not use this as an opening to think with the class

about what counts in the curriculum and in society as mainstream. Nor did the

133

class consider the consequences of being counted or not counted as
mainstream.

I asked Ms. .Darcy about her choice not to include further critical
questioning in these two poetry lessons. Elizabeth provided an insightful and
complex look into what kept her from pushing these lessons even further in a
critical direction. First, she described the “obvious pressures by the principal,
vice-principal or parents [that inhibit critical teaching].” One particular incident
that occurred early on in the school year further explained Elizabeth’s answer.
Upon overhearing a group of students negatively condemning homosexuality,
Ms. Darcy told these students that not everyone thought that way and
homosexuality was accepted by many people. In response to this informal
conversation, one of the student’s parents called Ms. Darcy and voiced a
complaint against her position and actions. Ms. Darcy listened to the parent’s
objection and that was as far as this particular parent took his complaint.

However, this incident demonstrated the possibility of parental
dissatisfaction when a teacher discussed risky topics, and critical literacy often
increases conversations around such topics. As Tonya put it in Chapter One,
“parents might complain. And the teacher might get in trouble” (interview,
5l16/200). Tonya recognized the context surrounding the classroom and its
place amidst the web of administrators and parents. Elizabeth: When working in
public schools, there is a certain push to keep all curriculum comfortably neutral.
I do feel pressure to stick to curriculum that is “endorsed” in our school district
and believe anything outside of its parameters runs the risk of adding danger to

one ’5 professional career. If challenged, critical literacy can seem radical and,

134

therefore, is not always the highest priority in guiding my public-school
curriculum.

Ms. Darcy had reason to believe that she would not receive full support
from her administration if a complaint were filed by a parent. Though her principal
was actually unusually supportive, she was also incredibly busy and fairly
inaccessible. The assistant principal usually dealt with issues between parents
and teachers. For example, when Ms. Darcy faced a parent complaint, this one
about a student’s grade, Ms. Darcy was not adequately supported by the
assistant principal. First, Elizabeth sought the assistant principal’s support after
the way the parent complained made her uncomfortable, but the administrator
failed to respond to several attempts Ms. Darcy made to discuss the issue. Then,
when the parent came to school to complain, Elizabeth was pulled from her
classroom to meet with the parent with no prior warning. She was left alone in
the assistant principal’s office with the parent who screamed at her without
allowing space for discussion. After this episode, the assistant principal did not
provide any support for Ms. Darcy. All teachers risk parental dissatisfaction, and
the risk can even be higher for teachers who raise the risky topics often
associated with critical literacy. Instead of believing she would have the support
she needed, Ms. Darcy was given the message that when faced with criticism,
she would stand alone. Further, a strong possibility existed that the assistant
principal might not support critical literacy instruction in the classroom.

Ms. Darcy also brought up another factor that kept her from pushing

critical examination further in her classroom:

135

One reason I keep from including it [critical examination] in the discussion
is trying to keep in mind their age and maturity level and what they think
about these issues and how well I’ll be able to bring these questions
across to them in a way that will be understandable to them and not just
confusing. There are a lot of issues going on and one is their maturity
level, whether they can really digest it or not is something I question

(interview, 7/15/03).

Students’ age and maturity level were a legitimate concern. In fact, many
teachers and critics question the appropriateness of having critical literacy
discussions with younger students. While Elizabeth was open to bringing up
critical topics and questions with her students, it was logical for her to wonder
“how well I’ll be able to bring these questions across to them.” Also, what models
did she have of teachers successfully engaging in critical literacy examination
with their students? Though her teacher education program mentioned critical
literacy, she was not exposed to actual teachers attempting this work, let alone
doing it successfully. Further, examining issues of race and class is incredibly
difficult and Elizabeth has not participated in professional development that
teaches one how to put critical literacy into practice. She has not had the chance
to practice working with these issues, nor has she had mentors or colleagues to
learn from about teaching critically. Critical literacy instruction requires support,
experience and practice that Elizabeth has not been privy to.

Elizabeth raised a final risk she might incur by pushing things further in a
critical direction - the risk of losing the students’ trust. She began raising this
concern by declaring that “the greater risk is worrying that [the students] would
feel I’m criticizing them because then they would start to separate us. Because

I’m already different from them in so many ways.” Elizabeth worried that asking

critical literacy questions might “start to separate us.” Elizabeth had many

136

differences from her students; most notably she was the only white person in the
room, a reality noticed by her students. When I asked Alexia about why she
thought Ms. Darcy included issues of race in a discussion in class about the
novel they were reading, she answered it was “probably because she’s white and
most of the people in the class aren’t white.”

Elizabeth was very protective of her relationship with her students and
wanted to stay as connected as she could, despite their differences. She did not
want to put that relationship in danger by asking invasive questions. She
explains:

The greatest problem for me is the chance of them hearing these

questions from me and thinking, Ms. Darcy thinks we deserve something

better which translates into what we come from is bad. I think that is a

logical jump for 13 year olds. I may be wrong but that’s what I get from

their looks when I start asking those questions, why did you ask us to write
about these things only to start questioning them. For me, them trusting

that I care about all the pieces of them is very important and sometimes I

think those kinds of question can come off to them as a criticism and that

makes me hesitate because I don’t want them thinking I’m telling them that

they’re surroundings are bad (interview, 7/15/03).

Elizabeth had created an amazing trust in her classroom. This was evident in the
depth and intimacy of the experiences and ideas students shared in their writing.
Trust in any relationship, especially between teacher and student, is fragile and
Ms. Darcy did not want to jeopardize it. While she raised critical questions about
other topics in her classroom, she did not want to take the chance of appearing
judgmental of students’ most personal expressions. She did not want students to
wonder, “why did you ask us to write about these things only to start questioning

them” and then conclude that Ms. Darcy judged their lives negatively. While the

ideas and expressions raised in these lessons might have posed the greatest

137

opportunity for critical transformation, because they were so closely connected to

students, they also carried a risk. It was a risk Elizabeth was not willing to take.

Conclusion

Although Elizabeth was clear about the reasons she held back from
engaging further in critical examination, she did add:

It’s been difficult for me to figure out a way for them to be critical of their

environment without it coming from me. Maybe it’s just that I need to push

it a little further to show it’s not the person but structures imposed on the

person but I don’t know, it’s a leap I’m not sure I want to make (interview,

7/15/03).
In these statements, Elizabeth pondered the possibility of critically investigating
students’ poetry further. During this study, she was only in her second year of
teaching. At this early juncture in her career, she clearly was not expected to
have her teaching repertoire all figured out and established. Unfortunately,
though, neither the culture of her school nor the District’s professional
development program seem likely to provide further critical development. Since
she already had completed a master’s degree, it is doubtful she will gain more
critical literacy education in university courses. Of course, her career will be
influenced by other avenues as well, but she will continue to receive pressure to
teach more traditionally. Ms. Darcy raised valid risks involved in teaching
critically. The questions and issues she brought up need to be reflected upon
and discussed, by new teachers as well as more experienced ones. Sadly, it is
safe to assume that Ms. Darcy’s career, in its current projectory, is unlikely to

provide time to reflect on these concerns, colleagues to work through them with,

or mentors to Ieam from about these issues. Without the time, resources and

138

attention critical literacy educators need, it will be very difficult for Elizabeth to
“push it a little further.” Elizabeth: This is related to my previous comment about
the lack of critical literacy elements within the existing public school curriculum.
l’rn sure I would have been able to extend and further develop many of the critical
literacy elements within my own room ifl had been more supported by similar
practices conducted by other teachers and an encouragement for such objectives
by local administration. Some staff development or school-funded conferences
would be in valuable to a personal sense of support and motivation.

Without the more explicit and deeper critical analysis, these lessons at first
glance seemed powerful to me but also lacking. However, as I talked to the
students about their poems, as I reflected on the classroom environment during
these lessons and as I talked to Ms. Darcy about her own motivations, I began to
see them differently. The students were incredibly proud of their “Where I’m
From” poems. Every student handed in a poem on time. Further, all but two
students rewrote them a third time incorporating Ms. Darcy’s final feedback
before putting them in their portfolios even though they did not need to for their
grades. When I asked both Tonya and Crystal at the end of the year to read me
a piece they felt more proud of in their portfolios, they chose their “Where I’m
From” pieces. At the end of our interview, as the other students came back from
class, Crystal took her portfolio and read her poem to the student sitting next to
her.

While the students did not head out of the classroom to chant protests
down the hallway, my field notes detail how magical these days were in the

classroom. Andre was center stage in the classroom reading about a topic that is

139

almost never spoken of in schools. Andre whole self was invited in that day and
that in itself is revolutionary. The other students too benefited from seeing Andre
this way and from hearing his passionate creation about a topic many of them
were familiar with in their lives outside of school. In both of these lessons, space
was created in the classroom for students to use literacy to connect their lives
outside of school and their lives inside of school. As the students read their
“Where I’m From” poems the trust Ms. Darcy protected was evident in the lines
they chose to share as they stood in front of what can be a rather hostile or
alienating audience.

In particular, this issue of trust became more complicated for me through
this analysis. There is both a positive and negative side of pushing and digging,
no matter what the intentions are. For me, I was able to see the critical literacy in
these lessons differently. As I build toward a broader vision of critical literacy,
drawing in shades of gray, these lessons and my continued analysis of them,
draw complex pictures between traditional Language Arts and critical literacy.
These lessons fall in between a more black and white conception and they
illustrate complicated reasons for why they contain the positions they do on this

spectrum.

140

Chapter Five
THE OUTSIDERS DEBATE AND SOCRATIC SEMINAR:
MATTERS OF AUTHORITY AND FREEDOM

Fundamentally, critical literacy aims to engage students as Subjects in
their own Ieaming. Students take on the role of Subjects when they act in the
classroom rather than when they are acted upon, when they are invested in and
make decisions about their own Ieaming, and when they are free to express
themselves as powerful communicators and humans (Freire, 1997). But creating
opportunities for students to act as Subjects in our educational system is complex
and problematic. Often the system’s inertia places students in the role of objects,
both in terms of being acted upon and being viewed as passive receptacles to be
filled with knowledge and information. Similarly, the educational system expects
teachers to use their authority to control students’ actions and thoughts, as
teachers often decide who gets a bathroom pass and who does not, where
students sit, how students will learn subject matter and how successfully they
have Ieamed it. Freire writes that “authority must be on the side of freedom, not
against it” (Freire, 1997, p. 61) and this sounds compelling; but what does this
mean in a United States public school classroom context? When teachers try to
use their authority to be on the side of freedom or to use their power to create

emancipatory educational experiences, as Elizabeth hoped to do, they enter

141

intricate and uncertain relationships with their students, administrators and
parents.

This chapter explores the question, “What is the role of authority in the
critical literacy classroom?” In the 1984 movie about Nadia Comaneci’s life, a
scene occurs between her coach and his wife after Nadia tries to make a
comeback but fails to keep her weight down. Her coach’s wife says, “You never
taught her to diet, you took away her food.” In other words, at her peak Nadia
was the ideal finished product but she had not learned to get there on her own.
The “finished product” for critical literacy teachers includes students becoming
Subjects in the world: able to “critique issues which surround [them] as [they]
live, Ieam, and work - to help understand, comment on and ultimately control the
direction of [their] lives” (Fehring 8 Green, 2001, p. 10). Getting to this point is
incredibly complicated. Ideally, it would be best for students to act in the
classroom as we would want them to act in society - in terms of sharing power
and gaining a voice as decision-makers or members of a democracy. But is this
goal feasible in this classroom - in any classroom?

Engaging students as Subjects necessitates a certain amount of freedom
for students. At the same time, “the teacher’s authority is not set in opposition to
the child's ‘freedom,’ but seen as a set of relations that can be acknowledged, as
grounded in teachers' and students' evolving (and various) connections to each
other, the curriculum, and the classroom and societal setting” (Maher, 1999). In
this chapter, I focus on the roles a teacher takes in this “set of relations.”
Specifically, drawing on Shor’s ideas in his novel, When Students Have Power:

Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy (1996), l have created three

142

delineations of teacher authority in order to investigate Ms. Darcy’s positioning in
this classroom. While I define and discuss these delineations as separate
entities for the means of advancing a productive discussion, the boundaries
between these conceptions are fluid and they are not mutually exclusive in
actuality.

First, I discuss teacheras authority. This is the authority that institutionally
(and often practically) makes the teacher “legitimate someone who knows
something worth Ieaming, who knows how to teach what [students] need to
know, who knows how to listen to students and how to be fair with grades and
assignments, and who can maintain order” (Shor, 1996, p. 20). In general, this is
the role of the teacher doing her job. The teacher as authority acts in the best
interest of the students as she (along with others above her in the hierarchy)
makes the majority of decisions about what to teach and how to teach or scaffold
the knowledge. Also, the teacher as authority monitors students’ behavior in
order to keep everyone on task.

Next, I examine the role of teacher as author, where the teacher creates
opportunities that move the positioning from “the teacher-of-the students and the
students-of-the teacher [to become] teacher-student and students-teachers
(Freire, 1997, p. 61). Here, students are engaged in the learning process -
making major decisions about what to Ieam, how to learn, and how to
monitor/control themselves. Teachers are

“moving with instead of pushing being part of instead of being in

charge of. [It is] thus a transformative “apparatus of power,’ as Foucault

might have called it, a means to overcome unilateral authority by
democratizing power relations and a means to critically study subject

143

matter [which is] a critical study of knowledge, power, and society

(Shor, 1996, pp. 154-155).

Maxine Greene’s (2000) defines this role in terms of freedom: “creat[ing]
situations alive with activity and reflection, encouraging the play of imagination,
encouraging inventiveness, opening up alternative possibilities” (11). In other
words, the teacher authors experiences filled with “imagination,” “inventiveness,”
and “alternative possibilities.”

Finally, I consider teacher as authoritarian, which goes beyond teacher as
authority; an authoritarian acts upon students in ways that puts them in positions
as “silenced spectators” (Shor, 1996, p. 18). In this role, teachers [often
unintentionally] alienate students from their own education by treating them as
blank receptacles to be filled (Freire, 1997), by detaching who they are from the
subject matter, or by harshly controlling students’ behavior and environments. As
I conclude the definitions of these three roles, I reiterate the fluid nature of these

demarcations in practice; reality often flows between these roles.

Chapter Overview
In this chapter, I focus on Ms. Darcy’s teaching of novel The Outsiders by
SE. Hinton (1997) in order to examine matters of authority and freedom in room
C132. Specifically, I analyze a debate and a Socratic Seminar, examining the
decision-making process of how the lessons were organized, the structure of the
lessons in terms of students’ participation, and the ways students’ actions were
monitored. I investigate Ms. Darcy as the authority figure during these lessons

within the context of critical literacy to achieve further insights about the role of

144

authority in critical literacy classrooms. l organize the chapter around the three
delineations I described above: teacher as authority, author and authoritarian.
While these constructs provide a useful structure for this chapter, I also illuminate

their static nature as well as the boundaries between them.

Examining Authority in Context

The discussion in this chapter is better understood by first broadening the
observation lens and looking more widely at the backdrop. Authority in this
classroom must be understood in the larger context of the school and society. It
is erroneous to see Elizabeth as an actor in a vacuum without recognizing the
implicit and explicit forces that influenced her actions. Public school teachers
have always been expected to control their classrooms (McNeil, 1986). Like
most teachers, Ms. Darcy was given the message that she alone was in charge
of maintaining order. “As long as everything seems to be going smoothly in the
classroom, everything is basically okay” (interview, 6l24/02).

Very few avenues of support for classroom management existed in the
school. When disciplinary problems occurred, the teachers’ main option was to
elicit help from the school’s security guard. During her first year of teaching, Ms.
Darcy did depend on him at times. However, she “[did] not like the way he
treat[ed] the students” (interview, 2/19/02), and therefore chose to handle
discipline matters herself during her second year of teaching. I observed the
security guard’s actions on several occasions. The following event typified his
style. While escorting a tardy student to Ms. Darcy’s room, the security guard

opened the door, ordered another student (who was quietly completing his work)

145

to stand up, physically moved to within inches of the students’ face, yelled at him
to pull his pants up, demanded that he remain standing, and then left the room,
slamming the door (field notes, 2/19/02).

Ms. Darcy, in only her second year of teaching, was developing her
teaching personae in an environment that did not provide her with support or
resources that matched her convictions about teaching and discipline. Further,
students at Elks Middle School were at times openly resistant to both teachers
and subject matter. In fact, in Ms. Darcy’s classroom, when a department head
filled in so that Ms. Darcy could attend a meeting, the majority of the students
were out of their seats chasing or escaping from a bee for twenty minutes (field
notes, 4l17/02). In addition, when Elizabeth briefly left the room in my charge, I
could not finish delivering instructions to the students because so many of them
were talking at once. When I informally observed these students in their other
classes, they were often out of their seats or off task.

As a new teacher, Ms. Darcy was continuing to develop her role as an
authority. During her first year, she “was surprised at how out of control [the
students] could be. I didn’t know what my role was, what I needed to establish
and when I could let them go and l have Ieamed a lot about that” (interview,
6/5l02). Throughout her second year of teaching, Ms. Darcy was creating an
authority role she could be comfortable with, stemming from her belief that
“there’s an established power within the teacher’s role which is good as long as
it’s not manipulated by the teacher” (6l5l02). Elizabeth’s guiding principle was
that, “My authority as a knowledgeable guide has to be trusted by my students,

they have to buy and believe that in order for it to work” (6l24l02). Ms. Darcy’s

146

students did “buy and believe” and this played a large role in making the
classroom a productive working environment. Her curriculum motivated students
to want to Ieam. However, curriculum alone is almost never enough to keep
students unfailingly engaged in class. To this end, Ms. Darcy closely monitored
and controlled students’ actions. Alexia clearly articulated this sentiment,
“everyone does pretty much what they are supposed to be doing because she is
always checking on you and if you talk or something she screams at you so
everyone just does what she wants” (interview, 4/12/02). Keeping students
working hard was very important to Elizabeth. She used an egg timer to help
ensure that students stayed on track, “because in my first year of teaching, they
wouldn’t get right to work, or wouldn’t work very hard, but the timer really helps
keep us all on track” (3/1/02).

Another important role for Ms. Darcy in terms of developing and
establishing her own authority centered on determining what was appropriate in
the classroom and ensuring students adhered to these guidelines. Elizabeth
stated that “I do have students write from their experience a lot and l have it
filtered through me in terms of what was appropriate and inappropriate for the
classroom” (6l24/03). I asked Ms. Darcy if she worried, especially during lessons
she opened up to students’ own experiences and language, about students
bringing in things she regarded as inappropriate. She responded:

Right now on summer vacation I am in a mode where I’m not in the

classroom and when I am in the classroom my character is more imposing

than it is outside the classroom. The students know by my bearing in the
room that I wouldn’t take that lightly and I wouldn’t appreciate them
devaluing the work in progress by trying to shock the class or something

like that and so typically that never happens. I actually can’t think of any
time when it’s been really, really inappropriate used. I think it’s really

147

because of weeks and months of my setting the stage for what’s

appropriate and inappropriate in the classroom (interview, 6l24/O3).
Amazingly, considering the students’ age level, the norm in other classrooms,
and the variety of “risky” topics Ms. Darcy raised, during my entire data collection,
I do not remember a time either.

The students themselves played a pivotal role in creating the teacher’s
authority in the classroom. “The students do assert themselves, informally and
subversively, by telling the teacher what they like and don’t like, by disrupting
class, by resistant nonparticipation, by faking interest, by breaking the rules, by
cleverly ‘playing the angels’ to beat the system” (Shor, 1996, p. 32). The
students articulated a clear and consistent message during interviews: they
wanted, or thought they needed, a strong authority figure. The students expected
and trusted Elizabeth to know what they should Ieam and to provide them with
the knowledge and information they needed. When I asked students in the first
round of group interviews to describe the role of a teacher, their answers
included, “to teach us the right stuff,” “to prepare us” and simply “to teach us.” In
both group and individual interviews, the students expressed their confidence in
Ms. Darcy’s ability to teach them what they needed to know and to push them to
work hard.

In addition to identifying Ms. Darcy as the authority on what they should
learn, the students also relied on her authority to keep students on task and to
create a productive environment in the classroom. As Marquita noted,
Elizabeth’s role differed from lesson to lesson: “In Socratic Seminar you are more

free to say whatever you want but in mini-lessons she does the talking” (4/11/02).

148

Throughout all class situations, Ms. Darcy was a constant force monitoring the
classroom. Both the students and Elizabeth believed that this imposing presence
was necessary in order to keep the learning environment productive. In contrast
to their other classes, where the students reported they often goofed off and
rarely did much work, they consistently described Ms. Darcy’s class as a place
where they worked hard and were under control (round one interviews, 4l5l02,
4/8102, 4l10/02). For example, Calvin stated, “I think this class is one of the
classes with the most work. Other classes don’t have as much work” (interview,
4/10/02). Further, many of the students, in individual interviews, specifically
referenced Elizabeth's role as a strong authority as necessary to keeping the
class in order. Andre said “if she didn’t do that [act strict] people would not get
their work done” (interview, 4l22l02). Nhat stated that that Ms. Blosser was “strict
so she can make students Ieam” and added that if she wasn’t strict, “people
wouldn’t write down stuff, they would be talking to other kids, not working and
learning” (interview, 4l17/02). Juan commented that “In Mr. Black’s class, he isn’t
hard at all, and the students just take advantage and goof around all the time”

(interview, 4/1 8/02).

Teacher as Authority
As in most typical classrooms, Ms. Darcy often acted as the authority in
the classroom. For example, she decided (for the most part) how class time
would be organized, where students would sit, when they would do certain
activities, and what grade they would receive. Students were reminded of her

power each day as she asked (or ordered) them to spit their gum out, to move to

149

a different seat, to talk more quietly in their group work, or to stop working on a
specific task. During the two lessons I am focusing on in this chapter, a debate
and a Socratic Seminar during 777e Outsiders unit, Ms. Darcy’s authority was
apparent in two different ways. First, she was the lessons’ primary decision-
maker; she decided on the objectives and procedures for each lesson, she
organized class time, and she outlined specific guidelines for students’ work.
Second, Elizabeth closely monitored students’ behavior during the lessons.
Specifically, Ms. Darcy decided ahead of time that students would have a
debate over the definition of a family and specifically where two characters in the
novel 7he Outsiders, Sodapop and Ponyboy, should live. In the novel the
parents of Darry, Sodapop and Ponyboy die and the three brothers remain living
together, under the care of Darry, who is 21 years old. Throughout the novel, a
possibility exists that the younger boys will be sent to live in a foster home. First,
Ms. Darcy asked students to write individually, answering the following question:
Imagine you are a judge who must decide the fate of Ponyboy and Soda.
What decision would you reach? Use your book to come up with 3
reasons to support your decision. Then write a 3 paragraph answer.

Include your three reasons, where you think they should live, and how you
came to your conclusion.

Ms. Darcy wanted students both to think about this issue in the novel and expand
it further to question society’s definition of a family (interview 3l13102). Based on
the students’ positions, Ms. Darcy divided them into Mo sides: one side thought
Sodapop and Ponyboy should remain with Darry and the other side thought they
should be removed and placed into a foster home. Then Ms. Darcy broke each

group into two subgroups. During the preparatory work, Ms. Darcy gave each

150

subgroup specific tasks. One subgroup was to find specific textual evidence from
the novel to support their side’s position about where Sodapop and Ponyboy
should live. The other subgroup was instructed to articulate what they think a
good family is, according to society’s definition. Then, they were to state what
they think a good family is and discuss how they agree and disagree with
society’s definition. The subgroups reconvened, consolidated their work, and
appointed three members to speak for their side throughout the debate. She
decided that students would first write an essay to determine their views and she
gave them clear instructions for that essay. Further, she gave students specific
guidelines to follow to prepare for the debate, and she provided an exact format
to follow during the debate. This format included an opening argument by each
side, two chances for each side to provide evidence for its position, a rebuttal
from the other side, and a closing statement. In addition, throughout the
students' preparatory work, she carefully supervised their work. She kept a close
eye on all students, as she walked around and checked on each group,
answering questions, helping them organize, and encouraging them to work hard
(field notes, 2/26/02).

These same aspects of authority were evident during the Socratic
Seminar, which Ms. Darcy Ieamed about in her graduate education courses and
decided to implement it in her classroom (interview, 2/22/02). A Socratic Seminar
(Adler, 1982) names a particular way a teacher leads a class discussion. This
teaching method is implemented to help students understand information by
fostering a thoughtful conversation in the classroom, focusing on a specific text.

The goal of a Socratic Seminar is to help students develop a deeper

151

understanding of complex ideas in the text through dialogue rather than by
memorizing bits of information. This particular Socratic Seminar took place over
several class periods as students prepared for the Seminar, participated in whole
class discussions, and wrote reflections. The Socratic Seminar focused on
different social groups and gangs in The Outsiders, students’ lives, and society.

For the Socratic Seminar, like for the debate, Ms. Darcy made the majority
of the decisions about when the Seminar would take place and what texts the
students would discuss. Elizabeth also provided clear guidelines for students
about her expectations for their behavior, and she continued to monitor them
during the Seminar. Ms. Darcy posted students’ responsibilities (such as do not
interrupt or act silly, do look at class members, do not dominate the entire
conversation, etc.) on charts in the front of the classroom. Students selected one
responsibility on which they would focus during the Seminar that day. Ms. Darcy
stemly told the students that the seminar would stop if the rules were not
followed. During the Seminar, she occasionally stopped the discussion to remind
students that they needed to focus on their responsibilities in order to continue
the conversation. During interviews about the Socratic Seminar, the students
noted that though the structure differed from the normal classroom set-up, it was
still clear that Ms. Darcy was in charge:

Alexia: We get to say our opinions but Ms. Darcy doesn’t let us get

too silly (4/12/02).

Marquita: We do more of the talking but we are still following her

We. Darcy’s] rules (5/8/02).

Elizabeth: l think an efi'ective classroom should operate within the teacher’s

guidelines, as a way to enable students’academic and emotional safety.

152

While the students acknowledged that they had more of a voice in these
conversations than in other classroom activities, they still ultimately recognized
Ms. Darcy as the unmistakable authority. During these lessons, Ms. Darcy did
what a good teacher does: She acted as “someone who knows something worth
learning, who knows how to teach what [students] need to know, who knows how
to listen to students and how to be fair with grades and assignments, and who

can maintain order” (Shor, 1996, p. 20).

Teacher as Author

Though Ms. Darcy was a strong authority during both of these lessons, at
the same time she also took the role of teacher as author, creating opportunities
for students to engage in the practice of freedom (Greene, 2000) as they were
“co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher” (Freire, 1997, p. 62). Each lesson
included aspects where the teacher and student departed from the typical
teacher-centered instruction that continues to permeate many public school
classrooms. On a structural level, the set-up of the furniture created an
environment where Ms. Darcy and the students moved from the typical teacher
and student hierarchy to one in which participants Ieamed together. For
example, during the debate, the three student representatives from each side
faced each other as the rest of the class (including Ms. Darcy) took a seat in the
audience. For the Socratic Seminar, the students and Ms. Darcy arranged their

desks in a circle, all being seated at the same level.
Notably, during both of these lessons the students took on leading roles. In

the debate, the students spoke to each other and carried out the entire debate,

153

with Ms. Darcy silently observing from the audience. During the Seminar, the
students also spoke to each other, as they agreed and disagreed with each other
and posed questions. During long segments of time during the Seminar, Ms.
Darcy did not speak at all. This type of student participation gives students’
opportunities to act as Subject in the classroom. As Alexia and Andre express
below, students recognized that during the Socratic Seminar they moved outside
of the roles they normally adopt at school.

Alexia: It was fun because we got to talk and say what we thought

about things and we don’t usually get to do that in school (interview,

4l12/02).

Andre: You tell your opinion, what you think about stuff. Usually, in other

classes, we just sit there and listen (interview, 5/10/02).
lmportantly, during both of these lessons Ms. Darcy altered the “vertical patterns
characteristic of banking education” (Freire, 1997, p. 61). Instead, students
actively participated in their learning. Particularly during the Socratic Seminar,
Ms. Darcy and the students engaged in dialogue. Consequently, though Ms.
Darcy was a strong authority in these two lessons, she and her students did
engage in “the practice of freedom” (Greene, 2000).

In addition to acting as an author through the designs of the lesson, Ms.
Darcy also “created opportunities for students to act as Subjects by connecting
her students to the subject matter, by drawing the lessons from ideas real and
important to them, and by “creat[ing] situations alive with activity and reflection”
(Greene, 2000, p. 11). Educational theorists point out that in order to build the

emancipatory educational experiences vital in critical literacy, students must be

engaged in their learning (Freire,1997; Greene, 2000; Shor,1992). In this

154

section, I first describe how Elizabeth successfully engaged her students in the
subject matter by both deliberately basing the lessons on ideas interesting to her
students and by giving students opportunities to explicitly connect their lives to
the lessons. Then, I describe discussions Ms. Darcy facilitated to help her
students question and critically analyze society and their realities.

In both the debate and the Socratic Seminar, Ms. Darcy chose ideas that
her students could relate to and then helped them connect to the lessons. By
building this type of student investment, Ms. Darcy authored an environment of
freedom that is key in critical literacy. In order to create freedom in the
classroom, in order to make classroom “situations alive with activity and
reflection” (Greene, 2000, p. 11), students must be truly present, meaning that
they must be active in the learning process as their ideas are authenticated and
valued, and they must also be open to Ieaming.

First, for the debate, when Elizabeth selected the topic, she purposely
chose a subject they would be interested in:

I wanted the debate to be about something that affected them. “What is a

family” really touches a nerve with a lot of them, which I wanted it to do,

because a debate should spark interest. With that enthusiasm, they will be

able to create a good argument (interview, 3/13l02).

Students’ enthusiasm for the topic was evident in their work throughout the
preparation for the debate. Whereas in other assignments students were at
times slow to start, they began writing their essays about Ponyboy and
Sodapop’s fate as soon as Ms. Darcy gave them instructions. In my field notes, I

noted that the entire class seemed to be focused in an especially determined

manner. In addition, on their way out of the classroom at lunch time, Tonya asked

155

Marquita and Kiara if they thought Ponyboy and Sodapop should go to a foster
home or not. Discussing school topics outside of the classroom may be a rare
occurrence but this lesson genuinely interested the students because of the topic
itself and their involvement in it. (field notes, 2/26/02)

Similarly, the Socratic Seminar topics interested the students in room
0132. Students actively participated in the Seminar discussion. Not only did
every student in the class share at least two comments during the Seminar, but
also the students spoke enthusiastically as they shared their ideas. Even more,
when I asked students to tell me what they thought of The Outsiders unit during
interviews, several of them commented about their interest in these particular
conversations. Marquita told me that she “especially enjoyed the Socratic
Seminar because she [Ms. Darcy] compared us to the book and that’s
interesting.” Though Nhat was not a very active participant in class discussions
and did not seem to really delve into the issues in post-writing activities, he
commented that the Socratic Seminar was “fun because we talked about subjects
that were interesting to us, the students.” Crystal, who also did not contribute very
many responses, also said that the Socratic Seminar was her favorite part
because “it was very interesting to hear students’ ideas about the question
[asked],” (interviews, 5/8/02; 4/17/02; 5l14l02).

In addition to basing the lessons on topics that her students were
interested in, Ms. Darcy also gave students opportunities during each of the
lessons to connect what they were learning to their own lives. After the debate,
Ms. Darcy asked students to answer two questions:

What did you hear today that made you think of your own family?

156

De

8

981

its

How did the debate affect your own definition of a family?

Even when a teacher thinks a lesson relates to students’ lives, it is possible for
students not to make these connections; by asking students to write about these
two questions, Ms. Darcy helped them make these links explicit as shown in
students’ responses. For instance, several students, such as Nhat and Alfredo,
connected to the positive ideas about family expressed during the debate.
Alfredo wrote that, “like they said, it [family] is a group of people who is together.
I think my family is the same. Nhat similarly noted that connection, “when they
said parents give you guidance because my family always gives me guidance.”
Other students, though the realities of their lives are not as rosy, were still able to
make connections between the debate and their own lives, as Jenetha wrote:
“The part that made me think of my family was when she gave an example of
Pony, Soda and Darry fighting.”

While the above students wrote about how the debate made them think
about their own family, other students, such as Kiara and Juan, connected to the
different ideas about what defines a family, focusing specifically on whether or
not kids need two parents. Kiara wrote that “one debate team said there should
be two parents when really you don’t need two - for example, my mom is a single
parent.” Juan noted, “It affected me by letting me know that you don’t need two
parents to have a family.” These students’ writing illustrated the type of personal
connections students made to the lesson. It also showed the relationship
established in Ms. Darcy’s classroom between the students’ worlds outside and

inside of the classroom. While Kiara drew on her home experiences to respond

157

to the subject matter during the lesson, Juan carried the learning from class out
into his broader thinking about family.

Ms. Darcy also gave students opportunities to connect their own lives to
the subject matter during The Outsiders’Socratic Seminar. In preparing for the
Seminar, which focused on social groups and gangs in the novel and society, Ms.
Darcy began by ”asking students to respond to several prompts:

What social group do you belong to? How would you define your

group of friends? Do different groups at Elks Middle School make

fun of each other? How would you define a gang? What are your

feelings about gangs? Do you think there are gangs in the Elks

Middle School area? Why do you think so?

Elizabeth encouraged students to be specific in their answers. Students wrote
about a wide variety of groups to which they belonged. For example, Crystal
belonged “to 212 because it’s with people who live in Powder Mill and I do” and
Juan “was in a soccer group.”

Almost all of the students responded that they believed gangs were active
in the neighborhoods surrounding Elks Middle School. Students wrote about the
gang activity they saw in the school, from gang members messing with other kids
to graffiti decorating the bathroom. They also noted gang activity they saw in
apartment complexes they lived in. A few students also noted gang members
they knew and Marquita wrote about her own involvement with gangs:

I used to be a Dice Chick where there were a group of boys and two

girls from Adelphi. I didn’t live around Adelphi then. When I

discovered that there was a little hatred between them, I knew I

could not be in two groups that hated each other. So I stuck with

my neighborhood group 212 which I have been associated with for
three years.

158

As we see in the above comments, Ms. Darcy helped students make connections
between their own lives and the themes of the novel. Specifically, they wrote
about their experiences with social groups and gangs. In both of these lessons,
students had opportunities to make explicit personal connections to the subject
matter. These types of connections were an integral part of positioning students
as Subjects in this classroom as they helped these students relate to school,
engaged students in their learning, and opened opportunities for growth.

Another essential component of the teacher as author involves creating
opportunities for students to take on roles as Subjects; for this to occur, the
teacher as author creates situations in which student are free to express
themselves as powerful communicators and humans. From a critical literacy
perspective, freedom of expression means that learners see themselves as
actors or creators in the classroom and in society. To this end, Ms. Darcy
facilitated discussions where students questioned their own realities and
considered issues of inequity, power, justice, class, and race. In these
conversations, Ms. Darcy helped her students explore social constructs rarely
examined in school settings (Adams, 1995,) and they began to reveal the
constructed nature of perceptions often accepted as truth in society.

Specifically, during the debate, Ms. Darcy encouraged her students to take
a nuanced and complex look at a basic, often taken-for-grated definition of what it
means to be a family in our society. Elizabeth asked students to define what a
“good family” is according to society, the novel, and their experiences.
Throughout, one side of the debate took the conventional position, arguing for the

traditional two-parent family. Marquita argued that Ponyboy should move to a

159

two-parent foster home because he would have a better chance to go to college,
pointing out that Sodapop had already dropped out and claiming that adult
parents would provide stability and security. Jenetha supported Marquita’s
argument, adding that Pony, Soda and Darry did not always get along.

Students from the other side of the debate countered these ideas. Juan
presented a position outside of this norm, stating that a family includes people
who share love and show compassion, whether there are two adult parents or
not. Alexia pointed out that the standard belief is not always true as Johnny
(another character in the book) has two parents but they do not support him and
they abuse him. Chris added that a family is not reliant on two parents, but are
people who comfort and care for each other. He used specific examples from the
book to show ways Darry, Soda and Ponyboy cared for each other. For example,
Darry cooked dinner for his brothers and checked up on Ponyboy’s activities.

Throughout the debate, the students analyzed this issue from multiple
angles. This practice allowed them to see several different points of view and to
disrupt the notion that there is only one way of looking at things or one universal
truth. In an interview weeks after this lesson, Tonya (interview, 5l16/02) spoke
about how the complex analysis Ms. Darcy facilitated helped her think critically
about what a family is:

You might see something like what is a family but then you start to

think, is a family what I really think it is, they seem like they’re

[Ponyboy, Sodapop, Darry] a family, but then people are trying to

split them up and tell them a family is with two guardians.

.Tonya is beginning to question the standard “the people” are trying to enforce. I

asked Tonya, “So, what does Ms. Darcy do?” She replied:

160

Well she assigns it, and at first you think oh I don’t want to do that.

But then you start thinking about it and you be like no it ain’t this. I

get confused sometimes personally because of the fact that she

makes me get thinking like that, because I have been thinking a

certain way all my life, like a family is this, but then Ms. D. is

bringing something different into my life and I’m like wait a minute.

And I start thinking and I get confused and I think but I thought it

was this and then I asked my parents and they might tell me

something different and I come to school and Ms. D. tells me

something else.

Elizabeth: Especially in middle school, a good teacher tries to introduce
conflicting and varied concepts. These are ski/ls introduced to be developed and
refined throughout the leamer’s life. Tonya’s description of her thought process
during the debate lesson shows Ms. Darcy‘s success in reaching her critical
goals. Tonya “starts thinking about it” (no small matter for middle school
students) and reconsiders what “[she has] been thinking all [her] life.” Tonya
recognized that Ms. Darcy is “bringing something different into [her] life” and
pauses, “I’m like wait a minute” and genuinely thinks about, even becoming
confused by her reconsideration. Tonya also shows here an awareness of Ms.
Darcy’s teaching and of her own Ieaming process. She is able to articulate the
critical thinking she is going through in this classroom.

During the debate lesson, Tonya met a goal fundamental in critical literacy;
she examined and questioned an assumption that she held and that permeates
certain facets of society. At the same time, she meta goal central to Elizabeth’s
critical teaching practice. Ms. Darcy asked her students to analyze their own
thinking and specifically focused on questioning what society considers standard,

such as how a family is defined.

I want students to pause and mindfully consider what they have to
say. I want them to feel comfortable with not always knowing the

161

answer. Basically, without just reacting. The social maneuvering

where everyone is given the chance to consider what they think to

pause and listen and craft and think. It’s a skill that a lot of adults

don’t have (interview, 7/15/03).

In this way, she encouraged her students not to simply accept the standard as
truth or as right but to instead develop more nuanced viewpoints that might lead
them to more transformative thinking.

Similarly, in the Socratic Seminar - which lasted two class periods
(2/27/02-2/28/02) - students engaged in the “critical study of knowledge, power
and society” (Shor, 1996, p. 155), which is at the heart of teacher as author. The
class questioned the status quo; in particular, they asked and answered
questions about different social groups and the ways our society is stratified.
From the beginning, Ms. Darcy set the tone for dialogue, rather than more
teacher-directed question-and-answer style classroom practice. The students
and Ms. Darcy sat in desks in a circle and she began by reminding them that they
were to look at and talk to each other. She then went on to open with questions
“designed to get all students involved” (interview, 3l13/02). She began by stating,
“Don’t look at me, look at other class members. It is more like a conversation,
rather than a teacher giving you a question, but more like a conversation. First, I
would like you to look at the cover of the book, and go around and tell one thing
you see on cover that is different from other students.”

Zalmai: There is blood under the Outsiders.

Marquita: The faces of Johnny, Ponyboy, Randy, Cherry.

Luis: The Socs and their fancy cars and clothes.

Leroy: There’s the movie theatre where Ponyboy starts in the book.
Nhat: There are lots of colors, reds and purples, and dark in the back.

162

In my field notes, I noted the energy in the room during this warm-up
period. “Though this is a relatively surface-level opening, the students are really
getting into it. They all contribute, look at their books intently to find something
new to say, and laughing and looking for what other students raise” (field notes,
2/27/02). Ms. Darcy engaged students as participants in a way that everyone felt
welcome enough to contribute. During this opening piece, she did not speak
between students’ responses, instead letting students reply to each other. She
then probed them to think deeper about the book title, asking them why they
thought the book is titled the Outsiders.

[S)eon: Because they are not really that popular, they are different from the

ocs.

Marquita: I would add to Deon saying they were different from the other
groups, they were more emotional.

Crystal: I agree with Marquita, they really are emotional, because Ponyboy
was so upset when Johnny died that he could not go back to school or eat

or even get out of bed.

Ms. Darcy: And what is an Outsider?

Luis: Someone who is left out of the inside. Someone from another place.

Marquita: But they separated themselves.

Crystal: I don’t think they separated themselves. They were left out of the

Socs with their fancy cars and always beating up the Greasers. They had

to be together because they didn’t have nobody else.

After Ms. Darcy allowed a “wait-time” minute and asked students if anyone
else wanted to add to Crystal’s comment, she again moved the conversation to a
deeper level. As evidenced above, Ms. Darcy continued to allow students to
respond to each other without constantly interjecting comments of her own. She
then prodded the conversation to move it further along. In the next section of the
conversation, Ms. Darcy asked students questions to set the context of the story

and the characters, specifically by addressing issues of race and class. She

163

intended to “bring these issues out in the book before extending this type of
thinking to relate it to issues in their own lives and society” (interview, 3l13/02),
[areas Ms. Darcy raised the second day of the discussion] Ms. Darcy asked
students to identify the two main groups or gangs in the novel. She encouraged
them to reference the book with specific details to describe the groups and
characters. She also specifically asked students to “consider these groups in
terms of social class, who has more money and resources.”
Juan: The Greasers are poorer than the Socs.

Kiara: The Greasers are lower class while the Socs are upper class.
Calvin: Socs have Mustang cars and Madras shirts.

Ms. Darcy: And what is the central conflict in the story?

Leroy: The Greasers are poorer than the Socs, the Socs have nicer

clothes, the fight is the main problem.

Jenetha: There are bigger issues.

Ms. Darcy: Such as?

Andre: Everyone they loved died in their lives, creating anger.

Ms. Darcy: Who in the book is angry?

Marquita: Ponyboy says that Darry is angry for everything, and Dally is

angry about his parents and childhood. And they are all angry for what

happens to Johnny.

Jenetha: The Socs have their own problems, Randy said Bob had his own

problems

By raising issues of social class in the discussion the students discussed a

central concept in fire Outsiders. Social class is rarely addressed explicitly in
school (Adams, 1995), and teachers therefore often miss opportunities to connect
education inside and outside of school, and to examine important aspects of their
environments. Elizabeth brings in relevant texts and uses them to broaden
students’ thinking about their own social realities. By engaging in such
discussion, she attempts to help students see their own lives as gendered, raced

and classed (Greene, 1988), and to help them gain insights into the origins and

164

structures of the society in which they live. The ultimate goal of this type of
critical examination is to inspire students to take “control over the direction of
[their] lives,” (Fehring & Green, 2001, p. 10), to make decisions about who they
want to be and who they no longer want to be, and ultimately to recreate both
themselves and the contexts around them (Giroux, 1988).

Ms. Darcy continued by pointing out two key words, “anger and respect”
and asking students “how do those two things deal with the main conflict in the
story, how does the anger and the respect, how does that play in with the main
conflict, how are anger and respect related? Marquita responded that “when
somebody is angry, they take it out on other people, they use their anger as an
excuse to get respect.” As the end of the class period neared, Ms. Darcy asked
other students if they could add to Marquita’s response. Ms. Darcy then ended
the first day’s discussion by pointing out that though both gangs in the book are
white, connections between gangs and race often exist.

She asked students to write a response to the question: What are
connections between gangs, or groups of people, and race? Ms. Darcy
explained that she wanted to use writing here “to push each student to think
further, sometimes writing is the best method for that, especially after students
have been talking for quite a while” (interview, 3/13/02). Alexia responded:

At my old school races usually stuck together. There weren’t that

many Hispanics and Blacks... The white race stuck together and the

Hispanics and Blacks were one group. I belonged to the Hispanic

and black group. In this school there is a lot of diversity and race

doesn’t matter in the same way.

Alexia’s response shows that she made connections between group identity and

race. She was able to express the fluid nature of social constructs and comment

165

on how they can change depending on the context and situation. In her other
school, where there were fewer students of color, those students “usually stuck
together” while the plethora of diversity in her new school meant that “race [did
not] matter in the same way.” By giving students chances to articulate on issues
of race in their surroundings, Ms. Darcy often brought unacknowledged ideas to
the surface where they can be named, discussed, critiqued, and possibly
changed.

Ms. Darcy continued the Socratic Seminar in a second day of discussion
and extended the conversation to make connections between the novel and their
lives. First, she asked students to read a quote by Randy, one of the Socs:

“You can’t win, even if you whip us. You’ll still be where you were - at the

bottom. And we’ll still be the lucky ones with all the breaks. So it doesn’t

do any good, the fighting and the killing. It doesn’t prove a thing. We’ll
forget it if you win, or if you don’t. Greasers will still be Greasers and

Socs will still be Socs.”

After asking students to identify the speaker and the events in the book
surrounding Randy’s statement, Ms. Darcy moved outside of the book and into
the larger society. Specifically, she asked students, “Now let’s take a look at our
society today, we know the Socs are the top, I want you to think about who would
occupy the top position, if you could think of one particular person who would be
the Soc, of our society today.”

Students: Bill Gates, George Bush, Dr. Watts (the school principal).

Ms. Darcy: What about a Soc race?

Marquita: White.

Several students nod or voice agreement.

Ms. Darcy: What about a top profession, a Soc profession or job?

Students: Broker, lawyer, doctor, judge, someone who makes a lot of

money.
Ms. Darcy: Would there be anyone in that top group that wasn’t white?

166

Students: Johnny Cochran, Abe Gordon (local news reporter), Brian
Gumbell.

Ms. Darcy specifically worked in this conversation to connect the book to
the students’ present contexts. While the book used two gangs, the Socials and
the Greasers, to divide society into the “top and the bottom,” Ms. Darcy asked
students to consider the top (and later the bottom) in our current society. By
identifying specific individuals in this group, such as “Bill Gates, George Bush,
[and] Dr. Watts” the class set a concrete picture of these demarcations. Then, as
Ms. Darcy pushed the students to consider various professions in “the top” she
began to help them see the demarcations outside of only specific individuals.
Further, by continuing to interject questions to keep race in the conversation, she
further connected the themes of the book to situations currently in their local and
broader contexts. As the conversation continued, Ms. Darcy asked the students
similar questions about the “bottom” and the students specifically discussed their
own role in this configuration.

Ms. Darcy: What’s more important than race?

Students: Money, social status, who you know.

Ms. Darcy: Who occupies the bottom?

Calvin: Us.

Jesse: We’re more in the middle.

The Socratic Seminar about The Outsiders asked students to see
themselves in relation to both the characters in the book and also to other people
in their local and national communities. Ms. Darcy pushed the class to consider
the complex relationship between social class and race. At the end of the lesson

the students themselves demonstrated the dynamic nature of social class as they

expressed alternative points of view about their own positioning. Rather than

167

viewing social class as a static and agreed-upon construct, they articulated the
subjectivity and context-specific qualities of its definitions and realities.

Ms. Darcy herself reflected on the level of conversation the students
engaged in during the Seminar:

I think today they recognized social reality, they stated issues of race and

class I also want them to think more about how it affects their lives, to

define themselves within the structure I think there has to be a step
defining where they are, and then they would have to list the factors
that isolate, that pre-program someone into a certain spot. Because you
have to be able to identify the oppression before you can be an activist or
you are just swinging out at stuff. They would have to define themselves,
identify the chains, the structure, not just what the structure is, but the
mechanism, that keeps people in their roles.
Elizabeth decided to continue engaging students in these steps of “defin[ing]
themselves, identify[ing] the chains, the structure, not just what the structure is,
but the mechanism, that keeps people in their roles” by planning another Socratic
Seminar about Langston Hughes’ poem “Mother to Son,” which I discuss in
Chapter Seven.

During the Socratic Seminar, Ms. Darcy facilitated critical conversations,
guiding students to think about issues of race and class both in the novel and in
society. These issues are extremely significant, yet rarely mentioned in many
schools (Gay, 1988). Adams (1995) found that even when a teacher included
multicultural literature in the classrooms, “classroom discussions were void of any
meaningful and honest discussion about racism in today’s society” (30). Ms.
Darcy’s students recognized both the importance of talking about such issues
and its usual absence. When I asked Alexia what she thought of The Outsiders

unit, she mentioned that she especially liked the Socratic Seminar because “it

talks about race and that is important.” Alexia added that “at school, teachers

168

don’t take much time to talk about these important issues, when a person says
something to another person about race, like saying nigger, teachers don’t say
anything” (interview, 4/12/02). Elizabeth included such topics in her curriculum
because:
Race is so important to the direction the US is heading. Your own
contribution to racist or classist thought or action, directly or
indirectly. I want kids to start questioning what the factors are
behind race and class. So that will grow into a continuing
thoughtfulness of why does this exist. Driving by slums and
thinking about what creates to the structure of slums and is there
something I’m doing that’s contributing to this (interview 7l15/03).
Elizabeth’s statement identifies ideals critical literacy theorists hope that
educators espouse. Ms. Darcy recognized that race is a defining concept in
American society, understood that we are all complicit in continuing stratification,
and sought to create a vision of change with and for her students. The content of
the Seminar, like the content of the debate, opened up chances for students to
act as Subjects in their learning. The students explicated social stratification
within the book and society, thinking about connections between class and race,
and they commented upon where they fit within society. While students often feel
alienated from what they Ieam in school (Shannon, 1992), in these lessons, Ms.
Darcy asked her students to connect their life experiences to the novel The
Outsiders. Further, she helped her students make personal connections to

societal assumptions and structures that often seem removed and disconnected

from their lives.

Teacher as Authoritarian

169

While during the ovenlvhelming majority of the time, Ms. Darcy was either
in the role of teacher as authority or teacher as authorthere were times when she
became teacher as authoritarian. This role underlies Alexia’s quote that “if you
talk or something she screams at you” (interview, 4l12lOZ). Elizabeth: This is
interesh‘ng to me. The word “scream” is far from the term I would use to describe
my interactions with my students. Ms. Darcy herself acknowledged that though
she might not like it, her experiences taught her that sometimes students
responded best when they were yelled at, [Elizabeth: It’s a teacher-student role
they’re familiar with, so at times, the yelling is comforting] or in my words “acted
upon” (field notes, 5l30/02). In this section, I read one event to illustrate her
position as teacher as authoritarian.

This event occurred on the day of the debate, in the period immediately
before the actual debate. During the several days leading up to the debate, I was
thrilled, particularly as a researcher, because I was seeing critical literacy in
action. One group was questioning society’s assumptions, arguing that though
many people might not think 21-year-old Darry could raise his brothers, he
showed his capabilities throughout the book. Another student talked about how
the two-parent family (society’s notion) does not speak to her because her mom
is a single parent and she has a great family. Further, another group of students
expressed the importance of context, claiming that what would work in one
situation might not work for Darry and Ponyboy (field notes, 2/26/02).

When I reached the classroom on the day of the debate, students were
filing in and sitting with their debate groups. The students would use the first

period, prior to lunch, to make final preparations for the debate; the debate would

170

begin immediately following their lunch period. Many students were working
quickly, preparing opening and closing arguments, and practicing with the
students who would actually participate in the debate.

While most of the students accepted their roles and responsibilities, the
three students (Andre, Marquita, Kiara) who sat in front of me did not. Ms. Darcy
visited the group and stemly told them that she meant what she said yesterday.
(I had not been in the class the previous day). Andre needed to do his part! He
needed to take the other students’ notes which they had scribbled onto various
sheets of paper, to copy them neatly onto one page, and to add an introductory
and concluding paragraph. She firmly told Andre that he had not helped his
group at all in finding textual evidence and he was not going to get away with
doing nothing. In the same tone, Ms. Darcy told the girls they were not to cover
for him; he needed to do his share. She clearly reminded them that they would
not be able to bring their notes, the various sheets, to the debate but would only
be able to use the sheet that Andre would create. A few minutes later, right
before lunch, Ms. Darcy returned to the group, saw that Andre had not copied
over the other students’ work, and harshly took the various papers from his desk.
As a result, the speakers on Andre’s side of the debate would not have the notes
they had spent the week preparing and would not have any written work to bring
with them to the debate (field notes, 3l7/02). Elizabeth: Reading this reminds me
of the conflict in teaching critically Goals like inquior-based Ieaming do not
supercede other goals like personal responsibility, cooperation and respect.

Reflecting on the event, I wondered: Why hadn’t Andre copied the work

over? What had he been doing while he was sitting there? Was this fair? Was it

171

that important for Andre to copy their notes over? Why wasn’t he more invested
in his work? What would the students do now during the debate? And most of
all, were critical literacy teachers supposed to act like that? Elizabeth: Critical
literacy teachers are as flawed as others, perhaps with a potential to be more so
by trying to “shake things up”a bit. While this event was well within the confines
of normal classroom teaching, in my own reading of this event I think it moved
into the realm of teacher as authoritarian.

I also wonder if things might have been differently if I had been in class the
day before. This group of three students sat directly in front of my desk. On most
days, I interacted with the students sitting right around the desk. Further, Andre,
Kiara and Marquita were students I had pretty strong relationships with through
the class and interviews. There were many other class periods in which I
assisted students who were having trouble getting started on their work. I very
well may have prodded Andre to begin writing. Looking back on this event, if I
had influenced Andre to do his work, I may have altered the events in the
classroom and my own data collection.

My strong response to Ms. Darcy’s actions may be the result of a variety of
factors. I was disappointed by this turn of events especially because the debate
preparation lessons were such rich pictures of critical literacy teaching. This
event called into question students’ seemingly genuine engagement in the
assignment. Further, it raised concerns for me about Ms. Darcy’s reaction to
students who were not truly participating in her lessons. My reaction connects
back to my initial beliefs about critical literacy teaching and specifically my na'ive

expectations that students would be completely engrossed by a critical literacy

172

curriculum. Though I do still critique this event I also have come to a place where
I understand it differently. Literature about critical literacy (Bigelow et. al, 1994)
often purports the idea that if you “make the work interesting the discipline will
take care of itself” (Wolk, 1998, p. 72). At the beginning of this study I saw critical
literacy as a panacea that would create a nearly perfect classroom community.
While it is true that engaging curriculum plays a role [and played a role in this
classroom] in keeping students interested and motivated, I realize now that it is
unrealistic to expect any form of instruction to interest every student at every
moment. Eight graders are going to veer from the learning environment in the
classroom inevitably and all teachers are going to have to attend to these issues.
Elizabeth: Exact/y. And a critical literacy assignment can be used by some
students to not step up.

My response was also influenced by my relationship to these particular
students. By this point in the school year, I really liked and felt pretty close to
many of the students in room C132, particularly these three. Kiara sat near my
desk and we often talked for a few minutes before or after class. Marquita and
Andre were both focus students who I had spent considerable time interviewing.
I had great respect for them as writers as well as they had both produced class
work I thought was exemplary. Elizabeth: This may afiect your hurt feelings to
my actions.

It is also important to consider the multiple possible interpretations why
Andre did not do the work. Maybe he did not do his work because he was too
busy being social with the girls or even trying to show off for them by being bad.

Possibly he wasn’t interested in the debate and did not want to put effort into

173

something he did not care about completing. It is possible that something had
happened in Andre’s life outside of school that made him angry or belligerent. He
may have been slow to start his work and then dug his heels in once Ms. Darcy
threatened him. Knowing Andre throughout the school year, I think he simply just
did not get down to work. There were other times when I noted that Andre talked
or even sat quietly instead of doing his work (field notes, 2/25/02; 5/8l02). He
even admitted that “sometimes I’m lazy and just don’t feel like working”
(interview, 4l22lOZ). Thus, I do not think Andre was intentionally going up against
Ms. Darcy. He never acted openly resistant before or after this event and Ms.
Darcy herself described him as “very respectful” (interview, 2/22lO2). Elizabeth:l
think Andre was aware of his piece, and knew what to do. He wasn ’t caught
unaware.

Looking back at this event with my more complex, practical view of critical
literacy, I recognize that critical literacy teachers are inevitably faced with the
reality that all students are not always going to be engaged. Further, it is still
their responsibility to keep the working environment productive. Ironically, Andre
himself believed that “If We Darcy] wasn’t so strict then people wouldn’t do their
work, they would think it was okay not to do their work” (interview, 4/22/02).
Andre probably read this event less harshly than I did.

However, I still think it is noteworthy to read this instance as authoritarian
because it was out of sync with the way teachers and students in a critical literacy
practice share authority over actions and learning. While it is unrealistic to think
that in any classroom, all students will be completely invested in their work at all

times, this demonstration of authority in a brief moment sends a message to

174

students contrary to the long range goals of critical literacy. For even in these
moments when students are not invested in their work and/or do not do what they
_ are supposed to do, ways still exist to treat them as Subjects in their own
learning. Basically, once Ms. Darcy saw there was a problem, I think she may
have been able to play the role of problem-solver instead of reacting angrily and
threatening the group. Elizabeth: This had been tried the day before, and ignored
byAndre. She might have asked Andre why he still was not completing his work,
if there was anything he did not understand, or if there was a way to make it
easier for him to work (such as moving to his own table). She also might have
asked Kiara and Marquita what they thought would help the situation. Elizabeth:
These ideas of using die students as problem-solvers are great suggestions and
ways I would like to explore further in my teaching. Of course, teachers are
humans and therefore not perfect and Ms. Darcy very well might have believed
that this was an appropriate level of responsibility to assign to the students.
Ultimately though, this type of reaction was not an isolated incident and this role
of authoritarian, while maybe even necessary, still works against the teacher

“creat[ing] situations alive with activity and reflection” (Greene, 2000, p. 11).

Conclusion
This chapter places issues of authority within the shades of gray context I
raised in Chapter One. Teachers “can not be totally outside the system if the
system continues to exist” (Freire, 1985). The system and the students within the
system place certain expectations of authority on teachers. As Shor (1996)

notes, “If I deny these professional signs of authority, I will broadcast

175

incompetence or carelessness. This will tell [students] that they are in an
‘anything-goes’ class where I lost their respect and confidence, thus inviting
frivolous disregard for the work, or even chaos” (20).

As we see in this chapter, by moving back and forth between teacher as
authority, teacher as author, and teacher as authoritarian Elizabeth Darcy was
able to remain in a position students respected while at the same time giving
them opportunities to act as Subjects in their own learning. My data illustrates
how Ms. Darcy both strictly established her authority in the classroom and also
shared her authority with students by giving them genuine opportunities to speak
and lead during class. Ultimately, although Ms. Darcy maintained her authority
as a teacher, it did not prevent - and in fact might even have allowed - students to

experience freedom (Greene, 2000) in the classroom.

176

Chapter Six
GRAMMAR LESSONS AND PROTEST POEMS

In the previous chapters, I analyzed times in Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice
in which she blended critical literacy goals and her school district’s more
traditional goals in the same unit or lesson. For example, in The Outsiders unit,
Ms. Darcy taught academic formats and standard Discourse while simultaneously
delving into critical content such as analysis of society’s assumptions and
discussions of race and class. In the poetry unit, Ms. Darcy followed her district
curriculum’s topic of autobiography while incorporating diverse, non-mainstream
themes and multiple Discourses. Chapters 4 and 5 illustrate the type of teaching
that occurred most of the time in room C132.

This type of teaching exists somewhere in the shades of gray between
traditional and critical teaching. Ms. Darcy believed that “critical literacy fits very
beautifully within an academic setting.” This “fit” included a strong belief in and
commitment to teaching students standard knowledge. As Ms. Darcy explained,
“Ieaming the standard is very much part of critical literacy for me.” Believing that
the students desperately needed standard knowledge to be successful in school
and society, Ms. Darcy prioritized this learning in her teaching practice. In this
way, she firmly had “one foot within the system.” At the same time though she
believed that “learning to negotiate within the society that exists is a very

necessary part. [It] is also not all or enough.” Ms. Darcy was also very

177

committed to actively working with her students to see “flaws in what exists and
seeing beyond that to create who you are in this world and to create changes
around you.” To do this, Ms. Darcy also moved that other foot outside of the
system in order to bring in Discourses, topics and questions not typically part of
the system. (interview, 7/8/03)

During the majority of days, Ms. Darcy drew ideas from both critical
literacy and more traditional conceptions of Language Arts. However, some
lessons focused solely on critical or traditional goals. In this chapter, I focus on
occasions where Ms. Darcy’s lessons did not blend these two approaches, but
rather focused solely on one or the other in order to continue describing Ms.
Darcy’s teaching practice as a whole. Specifically, I examine both more
traditional lessons about grammar and critical lessons about protest from three
angles: l contrast the way knowledge was defined, the purpose of the lessons,
and the positions the students and Elizabeth occupied in the Ieaming process.
Ultimately, by contrasting the lessons from these three angles, l demonstrate in
this chapter how students received dual messages about conformity and change.
While this chapter concentrates on lessons that contain almost solely traditional
or critical conceptions of literacy, I end the chapter by reviewing the l-Search
paper assignment to show how these dual notions of conformity and

transformation existed together in the same assignment.

178

Grammar Lessons

In this section, I focus on aspects of Ms. Darcy’s practice that directly align
with her school district’s curriculum. As I described in Chapter 3, these lessons
worked toward a particular purpose for education - preparing all students for
success in our current educational system and society by teaching them standard
knowledge and skills. As Ms. Darcy described, “it is something they will be
expected to know in high school” (interview 5l14l02). While in many ways the
lessons I describe here seem like ordinary parts of Language Arts education, I
highlight them in my data analysis because it is important to question and disturb
that very ordinariness - what is often accepted as the norm. Specifically, I
analyze how these lessons defined knowledge in particular ways, how they
aimed toward conformity to a standard Discourse and how they positioned

students and the teacher in relation to this knowledge and purpose.

Writing Convention Mini-lessons and a Parts of Speech Unit

Throughout the school year, Elizabeth led writing convention mini-lessons
to teach skills such as grammar, vocabulary and writing conventions. These
mini-lessons were a regular part of this Language Arts class. In the beginning of
the school year, Ms. Darcy asked each student to buy a folder and create a
writing handbook that would be separate from their other materials. Ms. Darcy

instructed the students to create a table of contents on the first page and record

179

the topic of each mini-lesson. Throughout the school year, students’ writing
handbooks contained information about such topics as prefixes, verbs,
synonyms, conjunctions and quotation marks.

While the individual grammar lessons were not identical, they followed a
typical format. Ms. Darcy often based them on worksheets contained in her
school district's adopted textbook materials. Frequently using transparencies on
an overhead projector, Ms. Darcy presented information and asked students to
copy that information into their handbooks. The information usually included
definitions, examples, and practice exercises. At the beginning of the lesson, Ms.
Darcy - standing near the overhead - read and introduced the topic to the
students, explaining the model sentences, asking volunteers for answers to the
example exercises, and recording on the transparency the answers students
gave. Then as students worked on practice exercises, Ms. Darcy monitored the
students to make sure they were copying the information and completing the
work. At the end of the lesson, Ms. Darcy asked volunteers to share their
answers to the practice exercises and told all students to copy down the correct
responses.

Below are excerpts from my field notes from a mini-lesson about prefixes

and suffixes that highlight the format of that lesson (2l11l02):

Ms. Darcy begins class by putting a transparency on the overhead titled
“Prefixes and Suffixes.” Under prefixes, she has written “re” and “fore,”
and under suffixes “ment” and “less.” She writes the definitions and asks
the students to copy this information into their writing handbook. She
reminds them to put the title and page number in their table of contents.
She reads each of the definitions. Students have 3 minutes to copy it
down. She puts a second transparency up [it looks like a page out of a
workbook] with sample exercises to practice.

180

Students have to choose the correct meaning for each prefix or suffix.

1. without: -ful, -ment, -Iess, or -ness.

2. again: re-, fore-, un- or -less

3. act or process of: -ful, -ment, im-, -tion
4. before: pre-, fore-, re-, -ment

Next, they have to choose whether each of eight words has a prefix, a
suffix, or is a compound word. The words are tugboat, forefather,
enjoyment, reinstall, weekend, meaningless, blackbird, and reuse.

Students work for 10 minutes. Ms. Darcy asks Calvin to pick his head up.
Chris has not yet started and she tells him “get going.” She asks Kiara to
work more quickly and says to the whole class, “Start working.” Ms. Darcy
asks for volunteers to share the correct answer - she calls on Marquita.
No one else raises their hand. “Come on.” She calls on Alexia.

The mini-lesson these field notes detailed are typical of the mini-lessons
throughout the semester. The room was usually very quiet during this time. Ms.
Darcy walked around the room and prompted students to copy the work down. I
never observed students blatantly resist doing the work during the mini-lessons,
but they often had their heads down, waited to get started until Ms. Darcy spoke
directly to them, worked more slowly than Ms. Darcy expected, or failed to
volunteer to answer the practice exercise questions. Elizabeth: You capture the
atmosphere clearly.

While mini-lessons throughout the year focused intermittently on teaching
students standard English conventions, in April, Elizabeth focused a whole unit
on these conventions. Specifically, the students studied parts of speech. She
broke the students up into seven groups and assigned each group a part of
speech (nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, and
conjunctionslinterjections). Each group of students was instructed to learn about
their particular part of speech and then teach about it to the rest of the class. Ms.

Darcy gave each group specific objectives for their learning and their teaching.

181

The groups were given the opportunity to actively find the information but
[Elizabeth: ls this a bad thing?] they were told exactly what they needed to find
and were given clear parameters for how to share the information with the rest of
the class. For example, she asked the noun group to cover the following
objectives:

Objective 1: Define and identify nouns

Objective 2: Distinguish between singular and plural nouns

Objective 3: Distinguish between common and proper nouns
Each group was given the precise objectives they were to meet in their
presentations. Elizabeth worked individually with each group and also provided
multiple resources for students to use to complete their objectives, including a
variety of textbooks and writing guides. In addition to grading each group for their
presentation, she also administered quizzes about parts of speech at the end of
each lesson and at the end of the unit.

As Ms. Darcy prepared for the unit, she told me she thought it was
important for her students to Ieam about parts of speech in order for them to be
successful as they moved into high school and because parts lof speech are
considered basic, essential knowledge in our society (field notes, 4/8/02).
Elizabeth: I would add that having background knowledge in grammar creates
opportunities for students to excel in a broader way. Elizabeth also explicitly told
the students that the unit was important because it would get them ready to be
successful in their future (field notes, 4l26l02). In this unit, her aim matched the

school district’s central purpose for teaching Language Arts, preparing students

for school and life success.

182

The mini-lessons and parts of speech unit described above illustrate a
typical component of many Language Arts classrooms. Most state standards and
district curricula encourage this type of instruction. It differs from the other
lessons described in this dissertation thus far, as more time was teacher-directed
and students had fewer opportunities to be creative. While this traditional
instruction did not comprise a majority of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice, it did
occur a significant amount of the time, with a short mini-lesson occurring at least
once a week and the parts of speech unit lasting several weeks. I address three
questions in the next section in order to analyze this traditional component of Ms.
Darcy’s teaching practice: how was knowledge defined during these lessons,
what was the purpose of these lessons, and how were students and teachers

positioned in the learning process. Elizabeth: /like yoUr questions - so juicy!

Knowledge as a Commodity

In the lessons described above, knowledge was approached as something
that had already been created and existed on its own, outside of any person or
group of people. The writing convention mini-lessons and parts of speech unit
followed a pattern common in “contemporary instructional practices [where]
knowledge is objective and stable” (Cohen, 1988). It was stable in the sense that
it was perceived as if it was concrete and already completely developed, and
objective in the sense that it was presented as inherently neutral. Though Ms.
Darcy made it clear that this knowledge was important for her students to learn,
the knowledge itself was not investigated in terms of its origins or cultural

connections. Elizabeth: lalso tried to instill in them that these grammar lessons

183

are necessary to be successfirl in a more diverse won'd than Elk Middle School.
,As I mentioned above, Ms. Darcy drew some of the grammar lessons from her
textbook materials and it makes sense that these materials often present
knowledge as “objective and stable;” this type of instruction has a very long
tradition in American schooling (Cohen, 1988; Phillips, 1995; Sfard, 1998).
Knowledge, in these lessons, was approached as a concrete object that could be
put onto an overhead and copied and stored in a writing handbook.

Traditionally, knowledge has been approached as something that students
need to obtain and a main purpose of education has been to help students “gain
ownership over some self-sustained entity” (Sfard, 1998, p. 5), which in this case
was punctuation rules, parts of speech, and prefixes. As such, learning
exemplified “the idea of gaining possession over some commodity” (ibid). In
each of Ms. Darcy’s mini-lessons, the goal was that students would “gain
possession” of the grammar and writing convention rules as they copied them
down [Elizabeth: and practiced them] into their writing handbooks. Similarly, in
the parts of speech unit, each group was supposed to “gain possession” of the
information about their particular part of speech by searching through reference
books and verifying information with the teacher.

The knowledge in these lessons was broken into concepts - including the
definition and types of nouns, the specific rules for quotation marks, or the
definition of various prefixes and suffixes. “Concepts are to be understood as
basic units of knowledge that can be accumulated, gradually refined, and
combined to form ever richer cognitive structures” (Sfard, 1998, p. 5). Following

this line of reasoning, these concepts can be quizzed and they can be applied to

184

various other situations. During the mini-lessons, Ms. Darcy asked students to
apply what they were Ieaming to various exercises. She then sporadically had
quizzes to see if they accumulated the knowledge and if they could apply it in
other ways. Similarly, during the parts of speech unit, Ms. Darcy gave the
students quizzes over the knowledge they were Ieaming. Ultimately, Ms. Darcy
wanted her students to be able to use this knowledge in a variety of situations in
their academic futures.

The parts of speech unit design, in theory, could have offered chances for
students to be more creative. If students had taken ownership over their learning
and their presentations, they could have engaged in a genuine search for
information they wanted to know. However, the groups were told exactly what
they needed to Ieam and, as Elizabeth pointed out, “did not really invest
[themselves] in their Ieaming” (interview 5l14l02). Nor were the students creative
in their presentations. While they could have used games, role plays or other
alternative ways to teach the information to the students, the groups used a
reference book to find the information and then transferred the information from
the reference book onto a poster to display to the rest of the students. In this
way, knowledge was approached as a discrete entity the students were
supposed to possess at the end of the lessons. Elizabeth: This is interesting. It
makes me wish that my own delivery had been more varied. Perhaps there is a

relationship between the two.

Purpose: Learning the standard Discourse

185

What was the purpose of learning about grammatical concepts and
standard language conventions? Ms. Darcy described her purpose: “I think of the
mini-lessons as 20 minutes to give them the content, the didactic, the little skills I
want them to have I feel good about teaching them because it is something
they will be expected to know in high school” (interview, 3l13l02). Specifically,
Ms. Darcy’s aim was to teach students grammar and writing conventions, such as
rules of punctuation, capitalization and subject-verb agreement, consistent with
what I term “standard Discourse.” In the previous chapter, I explained that during
The Outsiders unit, specifically during the debate and Socratic Seminar, Ms.
Darcy wanted students to Ieam how to participate in traditional academic formats
for writing and conversations. The grammar and parts of speech lessons
described in this chapter also aim at teaching students standard Discourse. This
information - what part of speech a word is, what verb tense correctly fits into a
sentence, or what punctuation fits within a particular sentence - is often tested, in
different formats, on a variety of standardized tests. For example, this type of
knowledge, tested on yearly state required exams, college acceptance tests, and
national teacher examinations, is a definite gatekeeper into gaining access to
certain programs, institutions, and careers. In Chapter Three, I illustrated how
this purpose is very much in line with the school district’s conception of Language
Arts instruction. The school district is committed to giving students what they will
need to be successful in our current society. This purpose dates back to the
beginning of public schools in this country and continues to pervade our

educational system (Powell et al, 1985). One of Ms. Darcy’s goals was “to

186

prepare them [the students] to be successful students in high school” (interview
2/28/02).

Further, the students themselves concurred with this purpose. When I
asked students in group and individual interviews about the purpose for
Language Arts class, e_ve_ry student response indicated that they believed the
purpose of Language Arts class was to help them be successful in the current
educational system - in high school and college - and in our current society in
order to get a job. During group interviews, when I asked students what they
thought the purpose was for Language Arts class, each group came up with a
variation of “preparing them for their academic future” and I wrote these
responses on the board. Then, at the end of the group interview, I asked them to
individually comment on the stated purpose. They all indicated that they agreed
with it. In the individual focus student interviews, I gave the students index cards
with various class components on them (these components were drawn from the
group interview responses). I asked students to organize the cards in order of
importance and every student put the mini-lessons first or second. Elizabeth:
Wow! So the part where they’re personal/y in vested the least (at least outwardly)
is considered one of me most important. Marquita (interview 4l11l02) elaborates
on why the grammar mini-lessons were important. Her comments are typical of
the other focus students.

It prepares us for what we need to know. They are very important for

writing. The way she has us copy stuff down, we copy down what we

need to Ieam. It is what I need to know for my career, for high school,
and college. I am in the Best Friends group, with a lot of girls and we get -

together and talk about a lot of stuff and it helps with school, and I am
going to Upward Bound so I could get a scholarship there ...I will be the

187

only one inour family to go because my brother didn’t go to college, my

oldest sisters just got their GED.

In addition, in an end-of-the-year survey, Ms. Darcy asked the students:
“Which folder used in this class do you think was the most important? Rank order
each one from 1 to 6, with 6 meaning the most.” The majority indicated that the
writing handbook was the most important folder. As Jones (1989) noted, it is not
the teacher alone, nor the district or state, that decides upon instruction in the
classroom. The students themselves have a stake in what they are Ieaming and
a role in how they are learning. Their participation in the classroom works with
and against various types and purposes of education. Jones (ibid) also recorded
working class students’ propensity toward a “conception of school work as an act
of receiving [where] the basic task for the students is to ‘get’ the teacher’s
knowledge [and] to ‘get’ the school knowledge they need in order - they
maintain - to improve the economic condition in their lives” (24-26). The purpose
underlying the grammar lessons, and furthermore the conception of knowledge in
these lessons, fit in many ways with the students’ beliefs and desires. As I further
describe in Chapter Seven, Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice overall, and especially
the critical literacy work, may have been more effective because it included these
traditional components that students valued. Elizabeth: Yes. lfeel like the blend

helped create a sense of trust. I wasn ’t too far gone O.

Positions: Leader and Followers
In examining the mini-lessons and parts of speech unit, I have shown that

knowledge in these lessons was defined as objective and stable and the purpose

188

for these lessons was to gain this knowledge in order to obtain the standard
Discourse. Elizabeth: i also think the idea of the knowledge being pre-
determined by outside forces is important here. Now, I investigate how the
teacher and students were positioned in the Ieaming process.

The teacher was positioned as the one who already had the knowledge.
Knowledge was approached as a commodity that a person can possess, and Ms.
Darcy, as the teacher, possessed it and aimed to pass it to her students. Further,
the teacher was positioned as the one who made decisions about how the
students were going to receive the knowledge. Ms. Darcy carefully decided
ahead of time exactly what students should walk away with at the end of the 20
minute lesson. For the parts of speech unit, she gave each group of students
objectives that identified the exact knowledge they needed to have and that they
needed to pass on to the class. For example, the noun group needed to know
and distinguish between singular and plural nouns, and common and proper
nouns. This format dominates many of the lessons in our educational system
(Goodson, 1998; Cuban, 1984). In fact, a popular lesson plan format follows this
pattern. The objectives are known ahead of time and clearly stated along with
assessments that closely match the objectives, and these are implemented to
make sure students have Ieamed the established knowledge. In this lesson plan
format, which is similar to the mini-lesson format Ms. Darcy followed, the teacher
explains and models for the students and gives the student independent practice.

During the grammar lessons, the students were positioned mostly as
followers. The students were often silent during mini-lessons as they received

the information Ms. Darcy presented. They participated if Ms. Darcy called on

189

them to share an answer to one of the exercise sentences, which almost always
had a definite right or wrong answer. The passion and emotion that existed
during many class periods in room C132 was usually absent during the lessons,
evidenced in the field notes presented earlier in this section: “Ms. Darcy asks
Calvin to pick his head up. Chris has not yet started [working]. No one else
raises their hand [to volunteer an answer]” (field notes, 2/11/02). Elizabeth: I
agree. I think that’s why I limited the time to only 20 minutes. During my first
round of interviews with the focus students, I presented students with eight index
cards, each containing one component of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice, and
asked them to sort the cards according to what they enjoyed the most to the
least. Of the seven students I asked, five of them listed the mini-lessons last or
second-to-Iast.

Although the parts of speech unit design potentially allowed students to
play a more active role than in the grammar mini-lessons, they were still
positioned as followers, as their work consisted of ascertaining the information
the teacher had clearly and completely defined for them. Then, each group of
students became the teacher who already had the knowledge and worked to give
it to the other students, thus positioning the rest of the class as followers. Ms.
Darcy herself noted that the students did not really invest themselves in the unit:
“the Students did not really go into depth and it took a lot of class time with their
presentations, and I didn’t think they were really good presentations, and the
other students weren’t really listening” (5l14l02). Specifically during the parts of
speech unit, Ms. Darcy spent an unusually long amount of time prodding the

groups to finish their work (field notes, 4l26l02). This contrasts sharply to the

190

lessons I look at in the next section - where students were genuinely and

powerfully engaged.

Protest Poems

In addition to teaching lessons on grammar and parts of speech, lessons
that matched the school district’s purpose for education, Elizabeth also taught
content that matches critical Iiteracy’s purposes - to help students view inequities
in their own lives and society and make changes in their communities. In this
section, I focus on a series of lessons in which students read and wrote about
protest, and followed up by taking action in their community. First, the students
read several examples of activists taking stands against injustice through writing
and speaking: excerpts from Nelson Mandela’s (1995) autobiography, Long Walk
to Freedom, Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech,” and poetry by
Langston Hughes and June Jordan. As the class read the pieces together, they
analyzed the various writing styles the authors used and discussed how language
use varied depending on the specific purpose, audience and context. In addition
to looking at specific literacy techniques, such as word choice and rhythm, the
students also compared how the authors used literacy to protest injustices in their
lives and society.

Using the activists as models, Ms. Darcy then gave students the chance to
speak out in protest. She provided her students an opportunity to use their
literacy to speak out against personal and societal discrimination and created a
space in their classrooms where students took positions of power. As Ms. Darcy

explained the assignment to the students, she emphasized that students were to

191

choose issues they felt passionate about and encouraged them to rely on the
models for direction. Students wrote about a wide variety of issues including
sexual assault, racial profiling, slavery, rape and prejudice and they used emotion
and passion in their writing that is rarely seen in public school classrooms. For
example, Kiara wrote about discrimination African Americans face, Marquita
wrote a piece titled “The Ghetto” about violence in her neighborhood, Chris wrote
about racial discrimination he and his mother experienced in “Toys R Us,” and
Tonya spoke out against a situation when a girl was abused by a man she met on
the internet.

Two of the students, Andre and Crystal, wrote poems that highlight the
ways this lesson made it possible for students to engage as powerful Subjects.
Analyzing these two protest poems, I examine the students’ language and the
positions they took in their writing and in the classroom. Andre’s poem, “Store
Madness,” has many similarities to his earlier poem about hair weaves. In writing
both poems, Andre took a very active role in literacy and Ieaming which differed
from his usual position in school, which was less engaged. Again, he drew on his
own experiences and used his own Discourse. In this poem, though, he uses this
opportunity to speak out against discrimination.

As I walk through the

7-eleven to get a snack

I see the white store clerk

eyeballin At my back.

Thinking that l’am going to

steal something when I just

Wanna get a snack

Why is he discriminating and hating?

Is it just because I’am black with my backpack

That ain’t right yo. All these other kids running
around Jumping up and down

aaoooxlcnmrsooM-s

—lO

192

Maybe it’s cause they 12

White and I’am black. 13
As we see in lines 3, 9, and 13, he specifically addressed inequity between
Blacks and Whites. This assignment gave Andre the opportunity to publicly
oppose this discrimination, as he states in line 10, “that ain’t right yo.”

We can also see his use of other Discourses besides a traditional school
Discourse. For example, in line 4, he used the term eyeballin without the “g”
ending. In the sentence “that ain’t right yo,” he made a strong point using two
nonstandard words - “ain’t” and “yo.” In lines 12 and 13, he strayed from
standard pronoun usage: “they White.” In line 7 he includes the word “wanna,” as
part of his Discourse. Andre followed in the tradition of Langston Hughes -
providing a social critique of society by writing a short piece about an inequitable
event using a Black Discourse. This would be a great feat for any student, but is
especially noteworthy because Andre did not typically engage in school in these
ways. During this assignment, as in the earlier lesson about Wallace Stevens’
poem, Andre engaged actively. He wrote enthusiastically and wanted to share
his work with others. He was the center of attention in the classroom for his work
as the students positively affirmed his poem, applauding and asking him to read it
again. This opportunity allowed Andre to turn a critical eye on society; it also
inspired him to participate in the classroom as a Subject in his own Ieaming.

A second student, Crystal, also African American, described an incident
that happened to her in a poem titled, “Sexism and Rape.” As Crystal explained
in an interview, this involved a man who “liked to sexually harassed young girls

and stuff and he tried to do that to me and we had to go to court” (interview,

193

5l14l02). Like Andre, Crystal spoke out against an injustice in her life. As Andre
claimed “that ain’t right yo,” Crystal also made a declaration: “they think they have
that right, but I know they don’t.” She repeated this line multiple times in the
poem. Also like Andre, Crystal used her primary Discourse throughout the poem -
including words like youngings, pumpin and the phrase “shame on that man.”
While Crystal was a relatively compliant student, she did not often engage deeply
in school. As she explained, “when things don’t interest me I do them but
[without] much effort” (interview, 6l13l02). However, she poured herself into this
assignment; it gave her an opportunity to reflect on a powerful event. Like Andre,
this led her both to participate in literacy in very engaging ways and to take a
central place in the classroom. Further, Crystal explained that after writing this
poem in class, “I write poems at home now when I feel too much” (interview
5l14l02).

Why is it that men over the age of I will look him in the eyes.

30,

Take advantage of youngins.
They think they have that right.
But I know they don’t.

It makes my heart start pumpin.
Like a tree

In a severe storm,

With that force

I am truly annoyed.

My thoughts and emotions,
Run everywhere,

Should I go near him.

I would not dare.

Now that I’ve told my ma.
What happens to him.

I do not care.

All that was left to do was cry, cry.

I didn’t talk for days.
Weeks months went by.
The time is coming to go to court.

Or something of the sort.

Why is it that men over the age of 30,
Take advantage of youngins.

They think they have that right.

But I know they don’t.

I’ve succeeded

Without a word said

Now we’ll go home

I feel the need for a warm bed.

We pull up to my house.

What happen ma,

I didn’t lie.

I didn’t get to testify.

Crystal he has confessed his crime.
Shame on that man

He is not worth a dime or my time.
Be happy I told you

Cause I was mighty scared

To do such a thing he must not have
cared.

194

Ms. Darcy allowed space for students to bring their primary Discourse into
the classroom, even though it differed from the Discourse espoused by the
school district. Both of these poems show how this assignment allowed students
to engage in authentic literacy tasks, providing opportunities to explore and
express their own voice. While Andre gained power by reading his piece out loud
to the class, Crystal gained power by writing the poem. She explained, “I was
getting it all out, and it helped me a lot emotionally, cause it used to bother me a
lot but writing it helped me get it out and move on” (interview, 5l14l02). Crystal
needed to explore this event in a Discourse that enabled her to write intuitively
and emotionally. This literacy act helped Crystal work through a painful event.
This activity allowed Andre and Crystal to speak out against things that happened
to them and to transform themselves from positions as victims to ones of power.
In addition to giving students a chance to work through and speak out against
individual episodes of discrimination, Ms. Darcy also connected literacy and
justice more broadly. Ms. Darcy focused on literacy’s potential to transform an
audience, in large ways evidenced by the model activists the lesson started with,
and in smaller ways as the students themselves created a powerful space in
room 0132.

Ms. Darcy’s critical practice also moved outside of the classroom walls.
She followed up on the “protest poems” later in the school year with a
“neighborhood improvement project.” In groups, students investigated their
neighborhoods and wrote a report detailing positive and negative elements of
their community. Then, each group narrowed in on one negative element they

thought they could positively impact. Through a process of meetings, research,

195

and writing, Elizabeth guided the students to plan steps they could take toward
making improvements, to identify resources they could use to help them, and
ultimately to take action to improve their neighborhood. Students organized to
create a petition to oppose a local liquor store’s practice of selling liquor to
children, to clean up trash in the neighborhood, and to organize a petition and
school pledge to create a more positive school climate. Elizabeth: / remember
the sense of shock the students experienced when told they had to truly do
something in the “outside world. ” It was very interesting to point them in that

direction.

Knowledge as Created

In contrast to the grammar Iessons’ conception of knowledge as
something concrete that already exited, knowledge in these lessons was
presented as something that was being created. Rather than being “objective
and stable,” the creation of knowledge was presented as dynamic and contextual.
As the class read the model activists’ work, they discussed how each specific
writer was influenced by the position they were in at the time they wrote and by
the audience they wanted to reach. In addition, Ms. Darcy expressed the notion
that the context itself determined the way a piece was read, received and known.
For instance, “the original audience of Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream
Speech’ created a specific set of meanings while in my class, we created another
[meaning]” (interview, 2/22/02). As students wrote their own protest poems, Ms.
Darcy guided them to draw from the model pieces as well as from their own

identities and experiences. They each created a text, a piece of knowledge, to

196

share with the rest of the class. In this way, Ms. Darcy recognized the “crucial
role [of] each individual pupil’s interests and experiences in the learning process.”
(Goodson, 1998, p. 31). As we see in the examples of Crystal and Andre, the
knowledge the students created was tailored to individual students’ lives and
needs.

Similarly, during the neighborhood improvement project, the lesson grew
from students’ knowledge of their neighborhoods. In order to put the students
into groups, she asked them about the community in which they lived.
Specifically, she asked the class to detail the different neighborhoods around the
school and listed these on the board. Rather than giving them specific
knowledge to learn, she was genuinely drawing on the knowledge they already
had. Using the knowledge they had of the community’s geography, she guided
them to delineate various boundaries within their community. Using this
delineation, the students then got into groups with other students who lived in
their specific neighborhood. In these groups, Ms. Darcy asked the students to fill
out a “neighborhood improvement committee worksheet.” On this worksheet, the
students detailed resources in their community and described the strengths and
the weaknesses of their neighborhood. In this work, they were drawing on what
they knew in order to create an improvement plan. Students were encouraged to
connect their knowledge outside of school and inside of school. During an
interview, Marquita indicated that she liked the neighborhood improvement
project and when I asked her why, she said “because that’s where you come from

and that’s going to be how you react to things. If it’s bad at home you are likely to

197

do it at school” (interview, 4/11/02). Marquita is making connections here
between school and home.

During these lessons, the knowledge itself was built through a series of
interactions, rather than presented as a “self-sustained entity” (Sfard, 1998).
According to critical literacy theory, it is through interaction that “teachers and
students attempt to make themselves present as active authors of their own
worlds” (Macedo 8 Freire, 1987 p. 17). During the protest lessons, Ms. Darcy
wanted her students to interact with the model activists and each other as they
created and read their pieces (interview, 3l13l02). To this end, Ms. Darcy chose
model activists with whom students could identify - due to a similarity in race,
class, and/or Discourse. She encouraged her students to “talk to” these writers
as they created their own texts. Andre created his piece in the style of one of
those models, Langston Hughes. During the protest lesson, the audience
provided an important component as students shared what they created with the
rest of the class. During the neighborhood improvement project, the students
created their ideas through a series of interactions with the other group members.
In addition, as they designed their projects, each group received feedback and
suggestions from the rest of the class. During the protest and neighborhood
improvement project lessons, students were creating knowledge as “active
authors” as they spoke out against injustices and took action against problems in

their community.

Purpose: Turning a Critical Eye on Unfaimess

198

The purposes for these lessons differed considerably from the grammar
lessons described in the first part of this chapter. Here, Ms. Darcy concentrated
on what she termed “civic goals that have always been a part of education,
turning a critical eye on unfairness what else could we ask from a citizen than
speaking out against injustices?” (interview, 7l15/03). Ms. Darcy thought the
lesson would help students gain literacy because “it allows them to create a voice
to speak out against injustice If literacy is about finding a voice, then they did
that” (ibid). lmportantly, voice in these lessons moves beyond the standard
Discourse that occurred exclusively in the grammar lessons.

While the purpose of the grammar lessons was to gain parts of the
standard Discourse, the purpose of the protest lesson was to use multiple
Discourses to “find a voice” in the classroom and the purpose of the
neighborhood improvement project was to expand this voice and make a
difference in the community. Andre provided an example of how this purpose
was achieved during the protest lessons. As I previously explained, Andre was a
student who tried hard to obey and please his mother, but did not really enjoy
school. However, as he poured out his passion and emotion, and was
encouraged to use writing to protest something in his life, he powerfully engaged
in literacy. When I asked Andre to share something from his writing notebook
with me at the end of the year, he chose his protest poem and read it to me with a
huge smile on his face. He told me that he was very proud of this piece he felt
“powerful to read it” to his peers (interview, 4l22l02). Andre’ protest poem gave
him an opportunity to name discrimination and he provided a strong, important

message of critique to the class. This type of exercise of power helped Andre

199

understand how literacy can be used in authentic contexts to make a difference in
his life, as he voiced his protest. During the protest pieces, many students spoke
about things they felt needed to be changed in society.

The follow-up neighborhood improvement project gave students an
opportunity to take this powerful voice and put it into action to make a small
change in their community. After students identified strengths and weaknesses
in their neighborhood, they chose one element to work on to improve. The
groups met several times and continued to fill out the neighborhood improvement
committee worksheet. This worksheet guided students through a series of steps
and group meetings. On it, students wrote out a detailed plan about what they
were going to do. They identified people and other resources they could draw on
to help them achieve their goal. They decided on roles for each group member,
anticipated potential problems, and thought of solutions to help them reach
success. In this lesson, the purpose was not to learn knowledge already
established in order to help them individually, but rather to make a change that
would benefit the entire community. This way of thinking, using resources to help
others, rather than drawing on resources for self gain, is not a prominent way of
thinking in most classrooms. Ms. Darcy’s used this classroom assignment
toward a purpose synonymous with critical literacy; thinking, discussing and

writing in order to improve one’s community.

Positions: Leaders and Leaders
The positions Ms. Darcy and her students held during the protest poem

lessons and neighborhood improvement project were dynamic in nature, with

200

Elizabeth and the students taking on roles as creators and leaders in the
classroom during different points in the lesson. Right from the start of the lesson,
Ms. Darcy shared the floor; as the class read about a variety of activists who
protested in society, these model writers shared power with Ms. Darcy. Whereas
in the grammar mini-lessons Ms. Darcy alone symbolically stood for the voice of
power, here she literally and figuratively shared that power with others: “I want
the students to see these models in the classroom, to feel their strong presence”
(interview, 6l24l03).

Ms. Darcy also viewed her students during these lesson as teachers as
well as students. She described her view during the protest poems: “the students
use that [the models] to jettison into their own writing and then they come back
and teach me how they’ve used the model” (interview, 6l24l03). As Ms. Darcy
planned the lessons around students’ unique experiences and insights, she
aimed to Ieam from her students as she taught them. Andre provided a good
example; he relied on the model of Langston Hughes poetry to provide his own
critique. He described something that Ms. Darcy could not experience in the
same way that he did. Ms. Darcy planned this lesson to give students
opportunities to be creators in the classroom. Each of the students brought his or
her own voice to the classroom; in this lesson, Ms. Darcy drew on this knowledge
and guided the students to express themselves on paper. Similarly, during the
neighborhood improvement project, the students taught Ms. Darcy about the
different neighborhoods in their community. Elizabeth: This even further out

down assumptions of where “underprivileged” kids come from. They showed her

201

how they viewed their neighborhoods and they defined its strengths and
weaknesses.

Also, during both of these lessons, different from the grammar lessons,
Ms. Darcy could not and did not plan ahead of time exactly what the outcomes
would be. In the protest poems, Ms. Darcy knew that the students themselves
would decide what they would protest against and she would find out as a
member of the audience. During the neighborhood improvement project,
Elizabeth did not know what element of the neighborhood the groups would work
to change. Therefore, she could not foresee all of the steps and work that would
go into their projects. Elizabeth Darcy had the flexibility to go along with their
choices and the faith that it would work out to be productive.

There were challenges; in particular, one group of boys struggled to get
their work done as they planned to decrease litter in their community. Ms. Darcy
had to visit that group several times and she held them in at lunch to work after
they failed to make progress during class time. She accepted this uncertainty
and was able to keep the project productive by giving them individual attention
and working with them to fill out the neighborhood improvement committee
worksheet.

In addition to acting as authors as they wrote their protest poems, Ms.
Darcy also put students in positions as leaders as they read their work to the rest
of the class. As I noted, Andre commented on the power he felt when he read his
piece to the class (interview, 4l22l02). Also, at the end of the school year, when
Ms. Darcy asked students to choose and read one piece from their writing

portfolios, many of the students read their protest poems. The students and Ms.

202

Darcy responded exuberantly with applause and words of praise as the students

took on roles as activists, leaders and change-agents (field notes, 6/10/02).

Dual Notions of Conformity and Transformation

In this chapter, I described grammar lessons that align with a more
traditional notion of Language Arts and protest poems that match with critical
Iiteracy’s ideals. By examining the way knowledge was defined in these lessons,
I pointed out that while the first treated knowledge as a commodity, the second
conceived of knowledge as something created. Whereas the grammar Iessons’
purpose was to help students learn the standard Discourse, the protest poems
asked students to turn a critical eye on society. Finally, while students held more
traditional positions as teacher and students during the grammar lessons, they
acted as teacher-student and students-teachers (Freire, 1997) during the protest
poems.

What do we gain by contrasting the lessons in these ways? What comes
of these comparisons? Examining knowledge, purpose and positions during
these lessons demonstrates how Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice included dual
notions of conformity and transformation. Looking closely at these different
lessons, we see two different pictures. In the grammar lessons, the way
knowledge is defined, the purposes that are set and the positions that are held -
they all carry messages of conformity. On the contrary, the protest poems
lessons paint a picture of transformation - where knowledge is created, purposes
for education are synonymous with creating change, and teachers and students

hold dynamic and often interchangeable positions in the classroom.

203

Specifically, in the grammar lessons, the underlying message to students
embedded in this instruction is that they need this standard knowledge - which
had been created by others and existed outside of them — in order to be
successful in life. There exists a possibility of change in this conception, because
knowing this standard knowledge may help students who have been historically
denied positions of power access those positions. But as Freire (1997) argues,
this type of change is not the same as transformation. When a teacher presents
knowledge to the students as gospel, students are taught to simply accept this
knowledge as the truth, rather than factoring in the complex nuances of context.
Reality is presented as “motionless, static, and predictable” (Freire, 1997, p.
52), something that is already set for the students rather than something they can
create. Elizabeth: I think students need a sense of both - what is pre-established
for success and how to create within that structure. Similarly, as the teachers
attempt to “fill students with the contents” (ibid) of the standard Discourse, both
the students and the knowledge are disconnected from the dynamic flow of
power, agency and creation. While they may be able to change their own place
in society by gaining the standard Discourse, they will not change their
relationship to the knowledge itself, which is integral in critical literacy.

Meanwhile, the types of change vital in critical literacy were prevalent in
the protest poem lessons. Knowledge was poetry and ideas and actions; it was
students who created this knowledge. Throughout the lessons, the students
were innovators. As they took center stage in the classroom, the students were
energetic composers who engaged with each other and their learning. The

purpose for these lessons was the opposite of fitting into one’s surroundings.

204

Instead, students were asked to speak out against aspects of their society and to
take a part in changing situations they saw as unjust or wrong. The message to
the students was that they should not exist as passive members in their
communities. Instead, they should use their voices and skills to actively shape
their surroundings. Similarly, the students took on active roles in the classroom;

during these lessons, the students acted as Subjects in their own learning.

One More Look: The I-Search Paper

While this chapter focuses on lessons that contain almost solely traditional
or critical conceptions of literacy, I want to end by looking at how these dual
notions of conformity and transformation existed together in the same
assignment. In the l-Search research paper, Ms. Darcy worked toward traditional
and critical purposes in the same assignment. An l-Search8 paper is a type of
research paper in which students choose a topic they want to know more about,
write the paper in the first-person narrative, and include in their paper their
process of research as well as what they Ieamed about their topic. In addition to
using written research resources like books or the internet. students also use
resources like interviews or field trips. Elizabeth drew from her school district’s
curriculum guide, her critical literacy beliefs, and her teacher preparation course
materials to create a unit based on the l-Search paper.

One of the purposes for this unit matched the school district’s purpose for
Language Arts education; she wanted each individual student to gain a common

set of skills deemed necessary for future school success. In a speech to the

 

3 The l-Search paper is drawn from Ken Macrorie’s (1988) book, The I-Search Paper. Portsmouth, NH:
BoyntonlCook Publishers.

205

students during class, and in a discussion with me after class, she stated that this
was an important assignment because it would teach the students research skills
necessary for high school academics (field notes, 5l8l02). To this end,
throughout the unit, she taught various aspects of the research process that she
decided, in consultation with her district curriculum, were important for students to
have.

For example, after students chose their question to research and wrote
down what they already knew about the subject as well as questions they had,
she taught them a skill she thought was important for their future school success -
how to find information on the internet. She guided them to identify key words
and phrases to search, showed them various search engines, and taught them to
bookmark potentially helpful websites. In addition, Ms. Darcy taught students
how to navigate the library to collect information and how to access other
academic reference materials, such as encyclopedias. During the unit, she
taught them how to reference their resources in the standard academic format.
While students worked together throughout the process, she made it clear that it
was important for each of them to learn the academic research process (field
notes, 5l14l02).

In addition to teaching them academic skills to prepare them for future
educational success (i.e. reports they would write in high school), Elizabeth also
thought it was important to give students an opportunity to write up their research
report in the style expected in high school (field notes, 5l21/02). To accomplish
this, she expected all students to use standard writing conventions in their

papers. Students were graded on their correct [or incorrect] use of standard

206

English, sentence structure and verb tense. They were expected to find valid
facts about their topics, based on a traditionally academic notion of “valid” and
“facts.” They were also required to present a clear chronological structure of their
research process in their final paper, with a beginning, middle and end.

This assignment worked toward the school district’s purpose - preparing
the students for future success in our current society by individually acquiring a
set of common knowledge. At the same time, it also worked toward critical
Iiteracy’s purposes as Ms. Darcy encouraged students to explore current
inequities in society, to ask questions about how things got to be this way, and to
investigate other, more equitable, possibilities. Specifically, Elizabeth was
intentional about the students’ process of choosing topics. Early in the unit,
Elizabeth planned a lesson to help students find their l-Search question (field
notes, 4l26). She began class by putting four main categories on the overhead.
Elizabeth chose categories that lend themselves to the type of investigation
integral to critical literacy: health, environment, local government, and teen
concerns. The students grouped themselves according to which category
sounded most interesting and then spent the rest of the class period
brainstorming possible questions. The students were not required to choose a
question in these areas but many of their questions did result from this class
period. Similarly, in a list Elizabeth provided for students who were having a hard
time deciding on a question, she provided critical questions such as “How do
news stations decide what youth news to cover?” and “How do cigarette
companies market to teens?” Again, though students were not required to use

one of these questions, many of them chose questions from this list. Ms. Darcy

207

used her influence as the teacher to guide them toward critical I-Search
questions. While not all of her students researched critical topics, the majority of
them did.

Kiara looked at school funding inequities. Her question was: Did Gatwick
County [a neighboring, wealthier country] educate better than our county. In her
report, she wrote that:

Gatwick County has bigger schools than ours. I know that schools in

North Central Public School District don’t have enough books for all the

students. The newspaper article said that Gatwick County has better
educated teachers.

Crystal looked at what societal and personal factors led teen girls to turn to
prostitution. The two segments below show her ideas at the beginning and end of
her search.
I really hope to learn more about what exactly makes girls want to give up
a good life for a terrible and uncomfortable life and how to help young girls
to stay away from prostitution Teachers and parents need to help young
girls to look and search for a job to make money Young girls shouldn’t be
exploited like that, in sexual active behavior.
In addition, Alexia investigated global politics, looking at the United States’
involvement in the Middle East. Marquita researched how homosexuals and
bisexuals are portrayed in the media. Calvin and Keith studied immigration
issues, focusing on the different policies governing legal and illegal immigration.
Tonya and Nhat looked at the history of banned books. Alfredo explored what

attributes labeled a country first, second, or third world. Finally, Juan examined

access to health care in his county.

208

In addition to guiding students to ask critical questions, Ms. Darcy
embedded into the process other aspects of critical literacy, such as connecting
to your community and considering issues of injustice. First, Elizabeth stressed
the wealth of resources in their families and communities and encouraged
students to interview community members as part of their l-Search process. This
component of the assignment motivated students. For example, Andre
interviewed a local DJ to find out more about parental advisory labels on CDs.
While Andre expressed his interest in this topic as he searched on the computer
(field notes, 5l8l02). the interview really motivated him. He asked Ms. Darcy
three times if he could interview “Itch”, a local DJ, as part of the paper, as if he
were surprised that this would count in school. He wrote that “interviewing a DJ
was the best part of my l-Search l was very excited to have received such good
information from DJ ‘Itch.’” This interview was a central part of Andre’s paper, it
encouraged him to put in effort, and he received an A on his paper. Through
concrete actions, Ms. Darcy used this assignment to give students opportunities
to value and access their lives outside of the classroom and connect it to their
school work.

Elizabeth’s goals for the I-Search paper were not solely for individual
students to gain; she also wanted the classroom to become a place to think about
’ communal change. She asked students to view their topics through a critical
lens, investigating assumptions underlying their subjects, examining the origins of
their topics, and considering how their topics contributed to, as well as hurt, the
social welfare of society. She modeled this process using a student’s topic -

banned books. She wrote several questions on the overhead to engage students

209

in critical discussion and to show them the type of investigations she was looking
for in their work: Why would books be banned? What led to books being banned?
Who would benefit from banning books? Who would be hurt by banning books?
Was there a pattern in what books were banned? During presentations to the
class about their work, Ms. Darcy asked students to raise (and also raised) these
types of pointed critical questions about their topics. In these ways (field notes,
5l29/02), Elizabeth infused the l-Search assignment with purposes for literacy

according to critical literacy.

Conclusion

While it is possible to look at the l-Search as a perfect combination, this
conclusion provides a simplistic solution to a complex issue. There are a number
of reasons it makes sense for teachers to include more traditional conceptions of
Language Arts in their classrooms. Historically, schools explicitly and implicitly
exist to inculcate youth into the existing society. This pressure is especially
strong within our current political climate. Further, the students in Ms. Darcy’s
classroom are not automatically going to find academic or economic success in
their futures. By providing them with access to the standard Discourse, Ms.
Darcy gave them a chance to thrive in high school and beyond. Moreover, this is
what the students themselves wanted from her class.

Though from a critical perspective, the messages of conformity that
existed in these lessons may lead students down a path of substantiating and
reifying an unjust status quo, the instruction must be viewed from a larger

vantage point. Room 0132 existed within a department, building, district, and

210

country - all that more or less pushed toward a more traditional conception and
purpose for education. Elizabeth Darcy managed to bring in moments of
transformation. She found openings for critical thought in the windows, texts, and
students. At the same time, though, traditional messages of conformity traveled
with gravity and pushed against the occasions when the classroom was “alive

with activity and reflection” (Greene, 2000).

211

Chapter Seven
LOOKING ACROSS THE DATA

In Chapters Three through Six, l analyzed the data I had collected in Ms.
Darcy’s classroom in a variety of ways, exploring critical possibilities that were
opened up in the classroom as well as the boundaries that limited these
opportunities. I set the stage in Chapter Three by examining part of the
landscape that influenced the teaching and learning in room 0132. By looking
closely at several district curricular documents, I introduced the instructional
context of the study. Then, in Chapters Four, Five, and Six I focused on several
specific lessons Ms. Darcy taught in order to investigate critical literacy in her
teaching practice. Chapter Four contains a close look at several critical literacy
components embedded in poetry lessons. In Chapter Five I focused on issues of
authority and freedom during Ms. Darcy’s teaching of the novel The Outsiders
and in Chapter Six I examined differences between lessons about grammar and
ones about protest poems.

In this chapter, I take a broader view of the classroom to provide further
commentary about the possibilities and limitations in Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching
practice and to glean what we can Ieam from looking at a wider scope of the
context within and around room 0132. The purpose of this study is to investigate
critical literacy in one classroom; throughout I pay particular attention to how the

specific context influenced the way critical literacy was enacted in this classroom.

212

My purpose in this chapter is to highlight and examine a pattern that shows up
across all of my data chapters: the pushes and pulls in Ms. Darcy’s teaching
between traditional and critical approaches to teaching Language Arts. I argue
that Ms. Darcy successfully embedded critical literacy components in her practice
while working widtin the contexts her classroom existed in without strongly
challenging those contexts. Ms. Darcy made it possible for her students to act as
Subjects in the classroom, authoring their own texts as they read and wrote.
These opportunities were not always fully extended to help students more
broadly author their own lives and imagine and work toward other alternatives in
society.

Ms. Darcy herself recognized that there is a limit to her critical practices:

I only push them [the students] so far. I introduce things, ways of

questioning, without expecting them to be questioning at my level. I

welcome this critical side of them without expecting them all to be critical.

The best way I can explain the line I walk with them - I introduce ways to

question and express enthusiasm about questioning without expecting

them to be unhappy and revolt against their life situation (interview,

3l13l02). ~
This quote raises the question I posed in Chapter One: is this a traditional
classroom with critical tendencies or a critical classroom with traditional
constraints? Again, I intend to show it is both. “This critical side” of learning is
well woven into the curriculum; it is not an add-on nor is it a stance that pervades
the entire teaching practice.

It is important to note that my representation of Ms. Darcy’s classroom is
only one way of framing her teaching practice. As I examined Ms. Darcy’s

teaching practice and re-examined my data, my lenses constructed this pattern of

pushes and pulls between traditional and critical approaches to teaching

213

Language Arts. I decided that this pattern was significant and built a case around
it. For example, I focused in on lessons about grammar and lessons about
protest poems and concluded that these lessons contained different definitions of
knowledge and different purposes for education. Similarly, my lenses viewed the
critical conversations about the novel The Outsiders with duplicity: first as
engaging lessons where critical literacy was happening and second as
illustrations of critical literacy within limits. In addition, I was delighted by the
ways students shared authority in the classroom and at the same time struck
(maybe overly so) when Ms. Darcy took Andre’s paper during the debate
preparation; these feelings and observations ended up framing a chapter of this
dissertation. Overall, the claim or interpretation that critical literacy and a more
traditional approach co-existed in this classroom and both complemented and
limited each other arose from considerable time in the research site, careful data
collection, thorough data analysis, and extensive (re)reading of educational
literature. It is important to note though that these are not the only
interpretations, or I would argue even the best interpretations, of this teaching
practice. They are merely my interpretations, that I made both consciously and
unconsciously, and that I worked conscientiously and carefully to come to in

order to tell a story and make points in an attempt to add valuably to the field.

Chapter Overview
Chapter Seven begins with an analysis of challenges to critical literacy
teaching that existed in Ms. Darcy’s classroom. I consider the conformist nature

of teachers and schools and explain how deeply-held beliefs about connections

214

between education and standard knowledge bound classrooms within the
system. These challenges created a current that pushed Elizabeth Darcy’s
teaching in traditional directions. In the second section of this chapter, I
concentrate on critical literacy elements that Elizabeth constructed in the
classroom that pushed against the current moving the classroom in traditional
ways. The section begins with a discussion about the opportunities Ms. Darcy
created for students to act as authorities in the classroom. Next, I explore how
Elizabeth used activist authors to bring critical voices into the classroom and I
consider ways she connected education to social change. Chapter Seven
intends to look across the data to provide a broad understanding of the various
currents creating this teaching practice. By including traditional elements in her
teaching practice, Elizabeth met her own needs, as well as those of her school
and students. Ironically, these traditional elements helped make it possible for

critical literacy to thrive while they simultaneously limited its promise.

Challenges to Critical Literacy Teaching

Critical literacy aims to help learners author their own worlds by taking an
active role in creating and examining their views of their realities, potentially
leading to them make concrete changes to those realities. Thus, the ultimate
goal of critical literacy is to help students become authors of the Male contexts
in which they exist and to be authors of yet to be imagined worlds. But as this
study highlights, they are learning critical literacy in one specific context: school.
In this section, I investigate the multiple forces in the classroom that propel the

classroom in traditional directions. My own data collection occurred almost

215

exclusively in room 0132, as l traipsed through the building to the classroom and
then back out to my car each day. However, in reality the teaching practice
obviously was not so contained. It was affected by a myriad of forces, both inside
and outside of Elizabeth’s control. For example, society, the school district and
building influenced the classroom practices. The classroom was also influenced
by the beliefs, desires and expectations that Ms. Darcy and her students brought
with them when they walked in the door. The context Elizabeth Darcy worked in
did not foster critical literacy teaching; in fact, many aspects of her situation both
advertently and inadvertently pushed the class in traditional directions. In this
section, I examine several challenges to critical literacy practices, including the
conformist nature of teachers and schools, and the authority bestowed upon

standard knowledge.

The Conformist Nature of Teachers and Schools

Traditionally, teachers have been conformists. During the beginning of
universal schooling and the common school movement, many people “saw
teachers as similar to factory hands - as agents charged with implementing
detailed specifications developed in central headquarters” (Lortie, 1975, p. 5).
This perception works against the notion of teachers as change-agents. Instead,
throughout history teachers have been conceptualized as workers who
compliantly implement others’ ideas and decisions. In our current educational
system, teachers continue to receive detailed instructions about what and how
they are supposed to teach from their districts. We see this hierarchical design in

the case of North Central Public School District. Jackson (1990) also remarked

216

on the conformist nature of both teachers and teaching, noting how conformity
reifies within a reoccurring cycle. The work of teaching inherently encourages a
conformist manner and people who enter the profession often bring to it a
conformist nature.

While there are both real and romanticized examples of revolutionary
teachers, these individuals are remarkable, in our own educational histories as
well as in popular culture, because they are exceptions.9 While teachers are
counted upon to work hard, be creative and do a good job, they are rarely
encouraged to be truly radical. In our current culture, people often see teachers
as advocates for mainstream ideology, not critics of its practices. For example,
the chair of the history department at a high school on the East Coast attempted
to bar a student teacher from being hired because he remained silent during the
school’s daily Pledge of Allegiance. The department chair, who had the support
of a majority of teachers in the department, believed that the prospective teacher
did not hold the patriotic values crucial to the profession (personal conversation).
This example reveals deeply held beliefs about teachers acting in accordance
with mainstream America.

This conception of teachers as conformists influences the culture of North
Central Public School District and Elk Middle School in concrete ways. For
instance, Ms. Darcy was actively discouraged from stepping out of the role of
conformist. At a team meeting, she raised objections to a school plan calling for
teachers to dedicate what she considered to be excessive time to standardized

test practice. She suggested that the team propose an alternative plan to the

 

9 Examples of popular culture that highlight revolutionary teachers include: the movie Dead Poet’s
Society starring Robin Williams and the movie Mona Lisa Smile starring Julia Roberts.

217

administration. Though several other team members agreed with her objections,
they were not willing to approach the administration. Further, they urged her to
follow the plan rather than challenge it in any way (field notes, 3l12/02). In
addition, after another teacher observed books on Elizabeth’s book shelves that
were not on the district approved book list, she warned Ms. Darcy to remove
those books and emphasized the importance of sticking to the list. Elizabeth was
repeatedly discouraged from stepping out of perceived boundaries.

In addition, Elizabeth did not work in an environment that visibly welcomed
critical literacy. In an interview, I asked Elizabeth what she thought other
teachers at her school would think about her desire to “engage students in a
critique of inequality in society.” Her response reveals her impression that her
colleagues were not supportive of it:

It would depend, some people would be like give me a break, these kids

don’t know shit, and people would joke or make real cynical remarks.

Then I could see a couple people being like woah. But I can’t see many

people saying I try to do this. It would definitely help if more people would

have these same goals. I think sometimes my kids think my class is like
lala land, it would be easier [if other teachers tried to do this] (interview,

6l24l03).

In Elizabeth’s estimation, at worst teachers would think students could not or
should not be taught in this manner, and at best they might find it interesting.
Critical literacy illuminates issues rarely included in typical classrooms; these
practices often make teachers outsiders in the buildings in which they work. As
Elizabeth’s response reveals, she did not believe she had collegial
encouragement or support to engage in critical literacy teaching.

In addition to forces that work against teachers being too radical, other

factors also diminish the possibilities for schools to be very revolutionary places.

218 ‘

For all students, maybe especially middle school students, school is one aspect
of their lives - and not the most influential or important one. There are other
significant influences, like television, video games, and commercials that often
reinforce mainstream societal messages. Though students indicated in
interviews and on their final class surveys that they enjoyed Ms. Darcy’s class, it
was but one class in their daily schedule. It was a small part of school, which is a
small part of their lives.

On a day to day basis school is typically conceived of as a place one has
to go - not as a life-altering experience. By being part of the system, Elizabeth’s
classroom embodied this conception. The students were scheduled to be in her
class and to be there at certain times; they had no choice or negotiation within
those bounds. Ms. Darcy was required to give students grades at certain times
which can work against more revolutionary teaching (Wolk, 1998). Ms. Darcy
also chose to enforce a variety of school rules. As is customary at the school,
students waited in a straight line before entering her room and exited in the same
manner. She enforced the school rule about appropriate clothing and monitored
what the students wore. She arranged the desks in various configurations of
rows, as teachers typically do in their classrooms. Finally, Ms. Darcy repeatedly
ordered students to spit out their gum. As Tonya noted, “every school I went to
the rules are basically the same” (interview, 5l16/02). In other words, the rules in
Elizabeth’s classroom looked like ordinary school - which is not typically thought
of as particularly revolutionary.

The students themselves expected the classroom to be a typical class in

their school day. They believed what they needed from school were the

219

traditional notions of reading and writing. The students did not walk into class
and ask Ms. Darcy to delve into injustices in society or transform the way they
thought about themselves or their communities. Even when they enjoyed
lessons drawn from a critical view of literacy, they fundamentally considered the
core aspects of critical literacy as an extra or not even appropriate for school.
For example, Alexia often offered sophisticated responses to questions about
race, class and power, particularly in writing, and she reported how much she
enjoyed critical discussions and specifically Socratic Seminars. But Alexia also
revealed after one particular discussion that though she enjoyed it, she thought of
it as “an extra because you come to school to Ieam reading and writing and race
is just your opinion, you could talk with your friends about that” (interview,
4l12l02). Her statement highlights the fact that the traditional notions students
have of school are firmly established and deeply entrenched.

Similarly, Tonya, another student who provided keen insights into critical
literacy topics and acknowledged how Ms. Darcy’s lessons often got her thinking
differently from ways she thought before (interview, 5l16l02). But she also
questioned critical Iiteracy’s place in the classroom. She recognized the
potentially controversial nature of many critical literacy topics and concluded that
if she were a teacher, “I wouldn’t talk about it that much. I think it’s important but
you don’t want to start nothing” (interview, 5l16l02). She recognized that not only
are these topics typically avoided in school, but they have the potential to cause
trouble as well. The strong push to remain in neutral territory and the possible
trouble embedded in “starting something” outweighed the importance of the

lessons in her mind.

220

Finally, Andre raised another factor dissuading deviation from what is
considered to be school as usual. The typical subject matter taught in a
Language Arts class (reading, writing, grammar etc.) is conceived of as public or
neutral bodies of knowledge and very appropriate for instruction. However,

if a teacher asks you about status, like if you are rich or poor, I don’t think

that’s right because that’s private, it’s just to you and your family, it’s

nobody’s business but yours (interview, 6l7/02).

Society and school often position issues of status or class within the private
realm. In this way, these topics can easily be viewed as inappropriate for the
seemingly neutral space of a public school classroom. Ms. Darcy faced students’
conceptions of many of the topics central to critical literacy as “extra,” “trouble” or
“private” and inappropriate. As I have shown throughout this section, Elizabeth
Darcy’s teaching practice existed within societal, school, and students’
conventional conceptions of teachers and school. These conceptions point
toward a more traditional notion of Language Arts, one that does not overtly

challenge the status quo and does not genuinely implicate learners, education, or

the school as a community.

The Authority of Standard Knowledge and the Achievement Ideology

The previous section highlighted the conformist nature of teachers and
schools. In this section, I delve into other currents working against the tides of
change vital in critical literacy. Specifically, I argue that multiple forces, both
inside and outside of room 0132, gave standard knowledge and Discourse
unquestioned authority within the context of the classroom. Further, this

unquestioned authority both sustained and was sustained by the achievement

221

ideology. The achievement ideology is based on the notion that if you behave
yourself, work hard, and earn good grades, you get a good job, and make a lot of
money (MacLeod, 1995, p. 97). This ideology, “the reigning social perspective
that sees American society as open and fair and full of opportunity” (ibid, p. 3)
underlies the School district’s purpose for education - if students learn the
necessary knowledge they will be successful in society. This ideology
perpetuates a meritocratic view of our current educational system and keeps
people working inside of this system in order to achieve their purposes. While a
persuasive argument insists that by teaching non-mainstream students this
standard knowledge, they will be able to change society by accessing otherwise
unattainable positions within society (Delpit, 1995; Hirsch, 1996), it is my intent
here to demonstrate that standard knowledge and Discourse in room 0132
pushed against critical Iiteracy’s attempts to move outside of the system in order
to change it.

The pressure to remain inside the system and to work exclusively toward
preparing students for success _w_itLin_ society came from the district, the students,
and Elizabeth herself. While Ms. Darcy was not closely monitored to ensure her
lessons precisely followed the district curriculum, she did feel pressure to stay
within the general confines of the documents. This pressure resulted in part from
messages she received from her school, at team meetings, during professional
development, and in conversations with colleagues. She explained, “I more or
less stick to the curriculum but I do change it. They take it pretty seriously. We
had many professional development (seminars) about it as new teachers. And

even now there is one team member who really refers to it” (interview, 6l24l03).

222

Her commitment to teaching the standard knowledge prioritized in the district
curriculum also came from her own beliefs that this is important. “I take it as my
responsibility to teach them what they will need to be successful in high school
and beyond” (interview, 7l15/03).

Significantly, Ieaming the standard Discourse and standard knowledge
was most important to the students. In fact, the students’ conceptions of a
Language Arts class closely matched the school district’s conception. In my first
round of interviews, when I interviewed groups of students, I asked them to
define a Language Arts class, not Ms. Darcy’s class in particular, but a Language
Arts class in general. OvenNhelmineg, group members answered “reading,
writing, spelling, and grammar.” Not only was that what students thought a
Language Arts class was and what they expected, it was also what they wanted it
to be. As I noted in Chapter Six, the students wanted the class to prepare them
to be successful in the current educational system - in high school and college -
and in our current society in order to get a job. The students believed that they
needed this knowledge and that when/if they had it they would succeed in
society. In particular, their faith in the achievement ideology created a strong
force in terms of what they expected and wanted from Ms. Darcy and the

Language Arts class.

Using the Standard Discourse
In particular, though the content of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice often
moved outside of a traditional conception of Language Arts, standard Discourse

still held unquestioned authority in the classroom. Standard Discourse,

223

specifically regarding a Language Arts class, as outlined in the school district
documents, involved the intricacies of reading and writing in standard English. It
included standard grammar, writing conventions and vocabulary. In addition, the
district curriculum emphasized standard ways of writing essays, organizing
arguments, and reading texts. Though there were times when students used
other Discourses, as noted especially in their poetry, standard Discourse was the
primary language of instruction. Further, though students questioned societal
assumptions and structures in Ms. Darcy’s classroom, they did not question the
way in which they were engaging in these discussions. Specifically, (standard)
Discourse itself was left outside of critical analysis

In room 0132, many lessons reified standard Discourse. For example,
during the debate in The Outsiders unit, Ms. Darcy structured the introductory
essay students wrote in ways that match the school district’s traditional
conception of Language Arts. Specifically, the lesson followed two standards:

Standard 1.8.5.2: Draw conclusions about text and support

them with textual evidence. .

Standard 3.8.1.4: support all statements and claims with relevant

...facts and/or specific examples.
As Elizabeth modeled essay writing and circulated the room helping individual
students, she used and encouraged standard English and standard writing
conventions. Ms. Darcy asked the students to organize their essays in a
standard way, with a beginning, middle and end, and she required them to
include main points and supporting textual evidence. This standard format
continued the next day as Ms. Darcy arranged students into two sides and

instructed them to work in groups to prepare materials for a short debate on the

224

topic of what a family means in the novel and in our society. Again, as Ms.
Darcy modeled and helped students write their opening and closing arguments,
she used and encouraged standard English. Also, students were to prepare for
the debate by finding specific textual evidence from the novel to support their
position.

Further, the debate itself ran according to a formal, academic format. Ms.
Darcy told each side to present their arguments in a “matter-of-fact manner,
without too much emotion” (field notes, 2/26/02). The students spoke entirely in
standard English; each side presented an introduction, body and conclusion to
their argument and used text to support their ideas. Historically, this format is
recognized as the standard, traditional way to have a debate.

Similar to the debate, the structure of the Socratic Seminars, as the name
states, relies upon an ancient Greek, Western structure for discussion. This type
of discussion resembles the Discourse embraced in the school district’s
curriculum and is closely related to white, middle class norms of dialogue (Au,
1986). For example, students are required to speak one at a time, retain a clear
line of argument, connect their ideas to the ones before and refrain from speaking
off-topic. Ms. Darcy asked her students to make explicit connections to the
previous speaker’s comments before sharing their own ideas.

Ms. D'arcy has very specific reasons for wanting her students to learn the
standard Discourse she promotes in the debate and Socratic Seminar. When I
asked her why she included these formats, she answered:

For economic reasons it is very important for them to know how to
write in standard English and speak in academic ways so they will

225

be taken seriously by the dominant power in the culture (interview,
2l10/02).

Many other critical literacy scholars agree with this notion. Delpit (1995) argues
that explicitly teaching students the rules of power is a necessary step toward an
equitable education. In addition, Christensen (1994) acknowledges “We must
teach our students standard English because they are the ones without power
and have to use the language of the powerful to be heard” (144). Similarly,
Macedo (2003) acknowledges that it is unjust to deny minority students mastery
of the dominant discourse. However, Macedo, Christensen and Delpit are clear
about the context in which they believe the dominant Discourse should be taught.
Christensen (1994) states:
Asking my students to memorize the rules without asking who makes the
rules, who enforces the rules, who benefits from the rules, who loses from
the rules, who uses the rules to keep some in and keep others out,
Iegitimates a social system that devalues my students’ knowledge and
language. Teaching without reflection also underscores that it’s OK for
others to dictate something as fundamental and personal as the way we
speak(145)
Delpit (1995) too believes that “even while students are assisted in learning the
culture of power, they must also be helped to Ieam about the arbitrary nature of
those codes and about the power relationships they represent" (45). The vital
critical examination Christensen and Delpit call for was not an explicit part of
these lessons or of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice. I asked Ms. Darcy her
personal opinion about the importance of teaching the standard Discourse, she
answered
I kind of feel it doesn’t matter if I think it’s a good way or not, it’s the
accepted way in this country. So, I want them to learn how to say stuff in

socially acceptable ways and in language to speak and be heard
(interview, 6l24l03).

226

As Ms. Darcy herself viewed the standard Discourse as the “accepted way in this
country,” she similarly asked her students to accept its value without overtly
questioning or reflecting on its power.

Macedo (2003) expresses the notion that mastery of dominant discourse
should be understood as a weapon for subordinate students to ultimately change
their position in terms of literacy in society. The classroom did not contain open
conversations about the exclusiveness or injustice embedded in the authority of
the dominant Discourse or how what they were Ieaming could be viewed as a
weapon. Furthermore, they did not explicitly reflect upon the other Discourses
they speak outside of school or the relationship between these Discourses. They
did not question their own conceptions of standard English, which many of them
valued and wanted to learn (even exclusively) in Language Arts class. In this
way, students were implicitly asked to accept (or continue to accept) the authority
of a Discourse without necessarily understanding the consequences, without
realizing that one Discourse is not inherently better than another, and without

understanding how Discourses could be used as weapons of transformation.

The Achievement Ideology

In this section, I analyze data collected during a lesson about Langston
Hughes poem “Mother to Son”, students’ group and individual interviews, and
students' survey responses to show that the unquestioned authority of standard
Discourse both sustained and was sustained by the achievement ideology. The

achievement ideology rests on two assumptions - the key to success is academic

227

performance and there are equal opportunities in society. My data analysis
demonstrates that Elizabeth’s students believed in the achievement ideology and
that this belief led to their desire to learn standard knowledge and Discourse in
this Language Arts class.

As the students read “Mother to Son, Elizabeth guided them to note the
metaphors, and to use their experiences to make sense of the text. First, several
students read the first stanza of the poem aloud.

Well, son, I’ll tell you:

Life for me ain’t been no crystal stair.

It’s had tacks in it,

And splinters,

And boards torn up,

And places with no carpet on the floor -

Bare.

After reading the stanza, Ms. Darcy asked the students what they thought Mother
might have experienced in her life. Marquita thought she might have lost a job,
Tyrrell stated that she had no money to pay rent. Andre noted “she probably got
evicted and that would be a tack because it stays with you” and Tonya added that
her husband could have left her and she had no money for food (field notes,
3l13l02). Later in the discussion, Elizabeth asked the students where they
thought Mother was climbing to and Marquita quickly responded, “I think the
middle class”; other students nodded and vocalized agreement.

After working through the poem, Ms. Darcy connected this poem to the
novel The Outsiders. She asked them what group Mother would belong to, the

Socs or the Greasers. The students answered that it would be the Greasers

because she did not have a lot of money and she had a life of hard times

228

(3l13l02). Ms. Darcy ended the lesson by asking students to respond to the
following prompt:
Read the quote from Randy [a Soc]: “You can’t win, even if you whip us.
You’ll still be where you were - at the bottom. And we’ll still be the lucky
ones with all the breaks. So it doesn’t do any good, the fighting and the
killing. It doesn’t prove a thing. We’ll forget it if you win, or if you don’t.
Greasers will still be Greasers and Socs will still be Socs.” Who do you
believe more - Randy or Mother?
Every single student believed Mother more than Randy. Juan observed, “I hear
that a lot of parents say it [what Mother said] to their kids. When they get a little
older it starts to become true.” Crystal, too, believed Mother more because “it’s
true you can be whoever you want to be when you grow up because you’ve set
your mind to it. Anything is possible if you believe enough and work hard.
Alexia’s response most clearly shows perceived connections between school
success and “making it” in society:
I believe Mother more because when I said Randy was right I believed
what he said that there will always be Greasers and there will always be
Socs and I do believe there will always be the poor and the rich but like
mother said if you don’t want to be in the poor class you can always get
out if you are young enough and go to school and try hard to become what
you want.
Students believed that if one works hard, particularly in school, one will be
successful in society, in spite of what they Ieamed in this class otherwise.
Follow-up interviews further reveal the students’ belief in the achievement
ideology. They think that academic success is essential to and further
guarantees life success. As Nhat said, “You try your hardest in school so not to

be a failure in life” (interview, 6l12lOZ). In their responses, they defined life

success exclusively in financial terms, stating that making it meant having

229

money, being rich. Throughout the group and independent interviews, students
expressed the belief that they would be successful in life if they did well in school.
Though at other times in their school work and in interviews they mentioned
discrimination, they fervently expressed their belief in the possibilities for success
in American society. As Nhat stated, “everyone starts out clean and they have a
chance to build” (interview, 6/12l02).

The students believed that a person (such as themselves) from the lower
class could make it to middle class. This was true even though this is not what
they saw around them. As the following excerpts from interviews (6l6/02; 6l7/02)
with Alexia and Andre show, they had very limited experiences with anyone who
had “made it.”

Alexia: I know people who come from poor neighborhoods and then they

go to college and they get good jobs like lawyers.

Rachel: Who do you know that this has happened to?

Alexia: My cousin’s friend, he’s from a poor neighborhood and he’s in

college right now and he wants to be a lawyer.

Rachel: Do you know anyone else in this situation?

Alexia: [After a moment of silence] No.

Andre: I seen people in the world that come from nothing, from the

projects, and made something of it.

Rachel: Can you give me an example of such a person?

Andre: [Pauses for over a minute] I have one neighbor, he kept his mind

focused and stayed in school, friends around him were always like doing

drugs or cutting school and he just stayed away from that crowd.
These students fervently believed, central to the achievement ideology, if a person
really tries hard, he or she can succeed in society, making it to the middle class.

Yet, they have very few real examples in their lives, as Alexia can only think of a

“cousin’s friend” and Andre mentions “one neighbor.” Further, around them, in their

230

families and neighborhoods, there are multiple examples of people who are in the
lower economic classes.

Therefore, how do the students explain why a person did not succeed
financially? In interview after interview, students attributed people’s lack of making
it in society, not to societal structures or discrimination, but to their own personal
failures. Marquita told me about her troubled older sister and claimed it was her
sister’s own choices that caused her failures (interview, 6/5/02). Similarly, Andre
stated that the people he saw not making it were “lazy, they don’t really focus on
what they want to do with life, they don’t take the time to see that their future is
really important to them” (interview, 6l7l02). Nhat told me about his grandmother
who “worked very hard when she came to the United States for her children to be
very successful, but they weren’t that successful [because] they didn’t understand
English that much, so they were kind of stupid, they didn’t even know anything
about this country” (interview, 6/12/02). Finally, Alexia described her mother,
saying “She didn’t work hard. She didn’t even go to high school. She had me”
(interview, 6l6l02). ~

Just as the students judged their family members’ or neighbors’ failures

based solely on their individual actions, they also thought the only thing that
would hold them back from succeeding financially would be their own lack of
effort in school. Andre thought if he was not successful, it would be because he
was in the wrong crowd (interview, 6l7l02), and Nhat worried that “some subjects
in school are hard for me and if I get a bad grade they might not let me get a good

job .. I play too much games. I could work harder” (interview, 6/12/02).

231

Their belief in the achievement ideology translated into what the students
wanted to Ieam in Language Arts class. They consistently stated that what they
wanted to Ieam was the knowledge that would prepare them for their future;
specifically, they wanted to be prepared to do well in high school, in college, and
in their careers. Even when students complained in interviews about the
grammar mini-lessons they saw the lessons as valuable. For example, Alexia
commented that “the mini-lessons are boring when she is talking at you but they
are important” (interview, 4l12l02) and Trisha noted that, “we need to learn that
stufl” (interview, 4/8/02).

Ultimately, the students wanted to Ieam the standard knowledge and
Discourse in Language Arts class because they believed that was what they
needed to be successful in the current educational system and society. Further,
they believed that once they had this knowledge they would find success within
this system. Elizabeth too, at least at some level, believed these ideas to be true.
Though she had a sophisticated understanding of issues of race and power and
concretely “believed that people in power will do what they have to do to stay
there, they’ll not always treat those under them fairly” (interview, 7l15l03) she
also believed that “students need these skills in order to succeed” (ibid).

The achievement ideology is often critiqued because it downplays a reality
of injustice embedded within our educational system and our society. However,
to not accept it, particularly within the context of schooling, can equal a situation
devoid of hope. Christensen (1994) writes, “we must teach our students how to
match subjects and verbs [and standard English] because they are the ones

without power and, for the moment, have to use the language of the powerful to

232

be heard. But, in addition, we need to equip them to question an educational
system that doesn’t values their life and their knowledge” (145). These
sentences fit neatly together on the page but they do not translate nearly as
easily into an 8th grade classroom. This conception sets up a dual role for
teachers: teach standard Discourse and teach students to question it.
Christensen’s writing suggests that these goals are worked toward
simultaneously. But the reality of these dual goals can be complicated, confusing
and even unproductive for students and for teachers. Since the beginning of
universal public education, school has been built, in part, on the notion that
education can be the great equalizer. Though this conception of schooling is
problematic, it also has its place in today’s classrooms. It provides purpose for
teachers and Students on a daily basis. It gives teachers an institutional
authority. As Ms. Darcy recognized, “my authority as a knowledgeable guide has
to be trusted by my students, they have to buy and believe that in order for it to
work” (interview, 6l24l02).

Throughout this section, I have focused on the societal, district, teacher
and students’ beliefs about the importance of teaching standard knowledge in
Language Arts class. These beliefs pushed for a teaching practice that
overwhelmingly prioritized standard knowledge. Throughout Section One, I
emphasized various challenges to critical literacy that existed in this classroom.
These challenges came from the context surrounding the class as well as from
the participants within it. They influenced what class members expected from the
class and how they acted during class. Together, these challenges created

currents within the classroom that pushed it to be a more traditional Language

233

Arts class. In the next section of this chapter, I focus on elements that Ms. Darcy
constructed that pushed against these traditional currents and for a more critical

literacy practice.

Currents of Critical Literacy Teaching

As I described in Section One, Ms. Darcy faced multiple challenges to
critical literacy teaching. These barriers came from society, the school and
district, her students, and even some of her own notions. A variety of factors
pushed the classroom in traditional directions. However, Ms. Darcy strongly
believed in the value and importance of critical literacy. As she explains, “I see
literacy and knowledge as linked to power so part of my long-term goal is that
they become empowered to question and look critically at their world” (interview,
7/8/03). In Section Two, I highlight important elements that Ms. Darcy created in
the class to reach these goals and propel it in critical directions. As I illustrate
throughout this section, though the students held many traditional views about

the class, they positively participated in the critical literacy features of the class.

Students Shan’ng Authority

As the teacher in the classroom, Ms. Darcy acted as the authority in many
ways. She also created significant opportunities for the students to be authorities
in the classroom, both in terms of what they Ieamed and how they acted. Ms.
Darcy allowed her students to be Subjects in room 0132, making it possible for
them to become active agents in their own learning. Ms. Darcy explained, “I also

share authority with the students because I do give time for them to be the

234

authority” (interview, 6/5/02). She gave students opportunities to hold authority in
a variety of ways: by positioning the knowledge they brought with them in the
center of the instruction, by giving them “the floor,” and by allowing their
questions and opinions to drive classroom instruction.

Students occupied positions of authority as Elizabeth repeatedly asked
them to place their experiences in a central role in the classroom. In poetry
lessons such as “Where I’m From,” “Thirteen Ways,” and the protest poems, Ms.
Darcy asked students to focus on their own lives. In “Where I’m From” poems
students wrote about their backgrounds and in “Thirteen Ways” Ms. Darcy asked
students specifically to write about objects from their daily lives. In the protest
poems, students described and commented on powerful occurrences in their
lives. For example, Chris and Andre depicted incidents of racial profiling and
Crystal wrote about an occurrence of sexual harassment.

This component, having students draw on their own lives, existed in
numerous other poetry lessons as well. For example, the students wrote poems
about who they used to be compared to who they are now, their wishes and
dreams, and what they hope to experience in their future. Further, drawing on
their lives was not only done in poetry lessons; it was also common theme in
many of their assignments, even in more traditionally academic ones. During a
writing assignment that focused on composing a five paragraph essay, the
students practiced this skill by writing about a hero in their lives. Further, when
they learned the intricacies of writing short stories, they wrote about an important

event in their lives. Many teachers ask students to write about themselves,

235

especially in personal narratives; for Ms. Darcy, basing writing assignments
around students’ experiences was a central theme.

The students recognized that their own experiences played a central role
in the class and that this component differed from other Language Arts classes.
In the first round of group interviews, I asked students to compare Ms. Darcy’s
class to their past Language Arts classes. The students noted how in other
Language Arts classes in 6"1 and 7‘“ grade, they wrote reports about topics the
teacher gave them, while in Ms. Darcy’s class they often wrote about their lives.
As Crystal put it, “In here, not like there [in other classes], we write about things in
the heart, that matter” (interview, 5l14l02). Students’ lives were an authority as
they authored texts in Ms. Darcy’s class.

Ms. Darcy relied on students’ experiences and knowledge when designing
lessons. This was highlighted in the neighborhood improvement project.- In the
first part of the lesson, Ms. Darcy asked students to use their knowledge of their
community to map out the various neighborhoods around the school. She then
used the students’ maps to create groups according to geographic areas to which
the students belonged. Also, students’ own knowledge of the strengths and
weaknesses of their community, as well as the resources available, were the
central factors in completing the assignment. During the neighborhood
improvement project, she told students that she had learned a lot about their
community in the time she had been teaching there and wanted to learn more
from them (field notes, 4l5l02). In another assignment, students were called on

to write a speech about their dreams for the world in the future. When Ms. Darcy

introduced this assignment, she told the students that the future was up to them,

236

that they were the ones who had a lot of ideas about how the world should be,
and they were going to stand up and express what they knew (field notes,
2/7/02).

Ms. Darcy also placed students’ experiences in the center of instruction by
asking them to draw on their experiences to make connections to subject matter.
For example, during the unit about the novel The Outsiders, she told students
that in order to fully understand the book they had to think about their lives in
connection to the book. Specifically, she asked students to answer a variety of
writing prompts about social groups and gangs in their own lives: “What social
group do you belong to? How would you define your group of friends? Do
different groups at Elk Middle School make fun of each other? What are your
feelings about gangs?” She also asked them to name the characters with whom
they most identified, and to think about the social status of the groups in the book
and the society as they see it today. Another time Ms. Darcy asked students to
draw on their own experience was during a Socratic Seminar about the poem
“Mother to Son.” As the students worked through the poem’s stanzas, she asked
them to use their own lives to imagine what “Mother” might have gone through.
(field notes, 2/28/02; 3113/02)

In addition to drawing on their own experiences, students also acted as
authorities in room 0132 when they took center stage, or owned the floor in the
classroom. This practice was a regular occurrence throughout the semester.
Students gave speeches about their dreams for the future and they read their
“Where I’m From” and protest poems. During many of these performances, Ms.

Darcy sat down in the audience to listen and gave the students the spotlight.

237

This spotlight was an important place for students to gain confidence, invest in
reading and writing, and share their work. In an interview, Tonya recalled her
experience reading a poem she wrote called “Chat line.” “Dede stood up and
said that was tight and it made me feel good, like I wrote something important
that people actually liked” (interview, 4/25/02). Tonya’s classmates’ response
gave her an experience she could not have had without the opportunity to take
center stage in the classroom. Similarly, reflecting on reading his protest poem,
Andre stated that he felt “powerful to read it” to his peers (interview, 4l22/02).
Students participated as authors in the classroom, as they wrote their pieces, and
also as they stood up and read them to the class. The students also took a more
active role during Socratic Seminars and The Outsiders debate.

Finally, Ms. Darcy placed students in positions of authority in the
classroom by having their opinions and questions drive instruction. This aspect
was most salient during the l-Search paper assignment. The I-Search paper was
built on students’ own questions. Crystal articulated the essential ingredient
embedded in putting students in the driver's seat: effort. She explained
(interview, 6/13/02):

Crystal: I’m stating my own opinion and I’m getting my own question,

something that I want to know, and I think I’ll do a better job cause, cause

it’s something that I want to know, I’ll do it

Rachel: If you got assigned something, you might not do it?

Crystal: I would probably still do it, but I wouldn’t be that into it, I wouldn't

put all of my effort into it.

Crystal differentiated the type of work that often happens when assignments are

teacher-directed from the learning that can happen when students take on

legitimate and authentic roles. When students’ work satisfies their own desire for

238

knowledge, the learning process is qualitatively different than when it is
completed to answer the questions of and for others. It is the process itself and
the position of the student that shifts substantially during assignments like the I-
Search paper. Instead of going through the motions, distancing one’s passion
and personal investment from school, these types of assignments allow students
to pour their effort into school.

This connection to school and these relationships between a genuine
search for knowledge and the classroom are the key to being a Subject in one’s
own Ieaming. Tonya added to the difference between work teachers assign and
work that is “important for you.” She stated (interview, 6l13l02):

Tonya: When you write about something that’s important for you, it’s

always on your mind and I start thinking about it and I get going and I write

stuff down. But when I write about something that I don’t want to, that a

teacher just assigns me to, I don’t even think about it until the last minute

and then I just rush and do it and then it don’t be that good.
Her quote further illustrates the connections made possible between in school
and out of school literacy when students drive instruction.

Freire’s initial ideas about critical literacy stemmed from his belief that
“education is suffering from narration sickness” (Freire, 1997, p. 52), specifically
teachers constant narration to/at students. His central aim was to move students
from sideline positions as spectators in educational terrain to starring roles. Ms.
Darcy, by valuing students’ knowledge, allowing them to take center stage, and
having them guide their own Ieaming, moved her students into the driver’s seat.

Students’ positioning transcended traditional classroom boundaries and created

more transformative spaces.

239

Critical Voices in the Classroom

In addition to providing opportunities for students to act as authorities in
the learning process, Ms. Darcy also created currents of critical literacy by
bringing critical voices into the classroom. In Section One of this chapter, I
commented on the prevalent conformist nature of schools and throughout this
dissertation l have painted Elizabeth’s school in this same conventional light. To
put it mildly, advocates for revolution were not in abundance at Elk Middle
School. In addition, throughout the previous chapters, I have demonstrated ways
Elizabeth was implicitly and explicitly discouraged from moving outside of the
school’s traditional bounds. Further, I have shown that in addition to it not being
in her best interest to be too radical, it also was not in her character. However,
Ms. Darcy found ways to bring critical voices and activist messages into her
classroom.

Specifically, I focus on two teaching practices Ms Darcy used to bring
these alternative, potentially controversial, ideas into room 0132. First, Elizabeth
based her writing pedagogy around activist writers who critiqued society, wrote in
multiple Discourses, and connected literacy and “rising up” (Christensen, 2000).
Second, Ms. Darcy implemented a series of one-day lessons built around
national commemorations that allowed her to link education and social change.
Ms. Darcy created avenues to bring voices of protest into the classroom in ways
that were benign enough to fit with her school, students and character but
powerful enough to carry messages about injustice, dissent and change. In

these ways, her teaching practice was not solely about preparing students for the

240

current society but also about “encouraging the play of imagination, encouraging
inventiveness, [and] opening up alternative possibilities” (Greene, 2000, p. 11).

Imagination, inventiveness and alternative possibilities were welcomed
into the classroom by the inclusion of a variety of activist writers. These writers
brought multiple Discourses into the classroom, they critiqued society and they
modeled activism. When I asked Ms. Darcy to describe her teaching, she began
by talking about the writers as models she brought into the class. Many of her
first comments centered on the importance of these authors’ voices. For
example, she explained that, “I base a lot of the writing we do around models of
great writers. The models set the tone and bring into our classroom powerful and
diverse voices” (interview, 6/5/02). This element of her class, bringing in outside
writers as models, was forefront in her mind because they played a large role in
the classroom.

Like the majority of Language Arts teachers, Ms. Darcy wanted her
students to access models of good writing. “I think students need a model
because language is so complicated and I want them to use that model as a
stepping stool and then be creative in their own ways with the model. The model
is the starting point” (interview, 3l13l02). Ms. Darcy wanted her students to go
beyond reading the authors’ words; she wanted them “to see the writers around
them, hear their voices over their shoulder [Ms. Darcy] want[ed] to fill the
classroom with the body, spirit and languages of model writers” (interview,
3l13l02). Lessons about these model authors usually included activities typical in

a Language Arts class. Ms. Darcy introduced the writers” background to the

241

students, discussed the text with the class, and asked students to write
responses to the pieces of writing.

What was unique about this approach was that Ms. Darcy drew primarily
on activist authors. She focused lessons around the writings of activists often
read in school, such as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Anne Frank.
She also included protesters who are read less frequently in K-12 classrooms,
such as June Jordan, Langston Hughes, and Richard Wright. Activist authors
played a prominent role in bringing critical literacy components into the
classroom. Raising issues about race, power and social change can be viewed
as controversial in school, regardless of how they are broached. However, I
believe that by using outsiders to bring up these issues, rather than bringing them
up herself, and by embedding these radical voices within reading and writing
activities routinely done in school, Ms. Darcy normalized these critical literacy
activities and made them less contentious than they would have been otherwise.

Ms. Darcy’s teaching of June Jordan’s, “I Must Become a Menace to My
Enemies” characterized her use of activist writers. The students approached the
poem in a manner typical in Language Arts classes. They did a little research on
the poet and her life. In this pre-reading stage, though, Ms. Darcy included a
critical discussion about the treatment of African Americans currently and
historically and highlighted Jordan’s explicit decision to use writing to speak out
against injustice. The poem too was addressed in ways often used in Language
Arts classes. The students looked for metaphors in the text and paraphrased
each stanza. However, the content of the poem veered the discussion from a

traditional course. The students engaged in conversations about race and

242

confrontation and they debated the best way to stay up for your rights (field notes,
3l22). Throughout the lesson, traditional teaching structures were used to raise
dissenting perspectives.

The authors Ms. Darcy included also brought multiple Discourses in the
classroom. “I want to bring in voices that will speak to the students” (interview,
6/5l02). These authors were meaningfully chosen to reflect the Discourse and
experience of the student as well as to ensure that a variety of cultures
participated in the classroom. The multicultural collection of writers reinforced
the notion that valuable writing is composed by people of various backgrounds,
races, and Discourses. For instance, when teaching about haikus Elizabeth
introduced students to pieces by Japanese poets, both historical and modern, as
well as to haikus written by Richard Wright.

These activist authors, in addition, demonstrated that connections could
and should exist between writing and protest. Many of the activist authors spoke
out against injustices, and used reading and writing to evoke their passions and
positions. For example, the protest poem lesson began with students reading
and Ieaming about activists such as Nelson Mandela and Langston Hughes. She
pushed students to “listen to their voices, imagine their struggles and their own
circumstances as they wrote these words” (interview, 6/5/02). Similarly, a speech
students wrote about their dreams for the future was drawn from Martin Luther
Kings “I Have a Dream” speech. During this lesson, too, Ms. Darcy impressed
upon students the need to “see, hear, and feel Martin Luther King” in the words of
his speech. She wanted his membry, life and words “to sit next to the students as

they composed their own work” (field notes, 2/7/02).

243

In addition to bringing in activist authors to conceptualize literacy as
protest, Ms. Darcy found ways to connect literacy and social change by
celebrating a variety of nationally proclaimed, yet not always widely
acknowledged commemorations. For example, the students in Ms. Darcy’s
classroom celebrated Peace Week, Mother’s Day, Earth Day, and National
Peace Corps Day. The celebrations included a plethora of reading and writing
activities. Just as she did with activist writers’ ideas, Ms. Darcy normalized
messages of protest by discussing them through the lens of ordinary
commemorations. She approached these lessons very matter-of-factly. Rather
than stating the importance of talking about women’s rights, the environment, or
poverty, Ms. Darcy introduced the lessons by informing students, “It is Peace
Week” or “It’s Mother’s Day.” The inclusion of these events on the seemingly
neutral calendar gave them the perception as the norm for any classroom
context. While these commemorative days and their celebrations in room C132
were not starting mass revolutions, students were consistently getting message
about societal problems and engaging in the work of imagining and implementing
solutions.

The examination of peace moved beyond a surface level. During Peace
Week, Ms. Darcy had the students read a piece by Thich Nhat Hanh called
“Peace.“ Students read about Hanh’s life, his anti-violence work during the
Vietnam war and his exile from Vietnam. They talked about possible causes for
violence, both globally and locally. Ms. Darcy asked students to think about
violence in their own lives, as well as violence in the United States and the world.

She raised questions about violence, such as “Is it always physical?” and “How

244

can it be stopped.” Ms. Darcy asked the students to imagine how a man who
experienced so much hardship could still speak so eloquently for peace. “What
drives such a person? What qualities must he have” she asked. (field notes,
2/11/02). The students grappled with the complexities of violence and peace and
were introduced to a worldwide spiritual leader and exiled protester. Finally, she
asked them to respond to the poem and “write about their own thoughts of peace,
the need for peace in the world and in your life.” Ms. Darcy used this
commemoration to bring in another message about the need and possibilities for
change, to introduce the class to a revolutionary leader, and to ask them to

imagine alternatives in their own lives.

Conclusion

This chapter began with the question: Is room C132 a traditional
classroom with critical tendencies or a critical classroom with traditional
constraints? Throughout the chapter, I demonstrated the currents pushing Ms.
Darcy’s teaching practice toward traditional conceptions of Language Arts and
described counter-currents pushing for more critical notions of literacy. On the
surface, the classroom in many ways resembled school as usual. Standard
knowledge and traditional purposes of education were high priorities. At the
same time, radical voices and messages emanated from activist writers, during
celebratory commemorations and through students’ writing and discussions.

The traditional boundaries may have limited critical literacy’s impact. The
critical examination of texts such as “I Must Become a Menace to My Enemies" or

The Outsiders did not extend to standard English grammar exercises or students’

245

“Where I’m From” poems. The definition of text could have been opened to
include more literal and figurative pieces of work. In addition, the authority of
standard Discourse was not rigorously critiqued and injustice embedded within
the American Dream not consistently exposed. At the same time though these
traditional conventions aided critical literacy. Ms. Darcy’s students poured
themselves into critical literacy lessons without the resistance often reported as
part of critical literacy practices (Cervetti, 2004; Shor, 1992). This engagement
was partly the result of the trust the students had of Ms. Darcy to be a
“knowledgeable guide.” Incorporating critical notions of literacy into familiar
structures of schooling both limited their impact and also made them possible.
Critical literacy was not an add-on in this classroom; it was woven into the
threads of the teaching practice throughout the school year. Nor was it the
stance from which every lesson was built exclusively. This classroom existed in
the gray areas between a traditional approach to education and a critical one. In

Chapter Eight, I consider what we might learn from Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice.

246

Chapter Eight
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONVERSATIONS

This final chapter considers how Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching practice might
productively inform educators about issues of critical literacy teaching. What
might others Ieam from my research in this classroom? Typically, a dissertation’s
final chapter includes conclusive statements to sum up the work and concrete
suggestions for what should be done based on what the study found. As Segall
(1999) noted, “a conclusion, by definition, is meant to end, close, halt, and
terminate what has preceded" (313). An alternative way of ending is “to sustain a
critical conversation with the situation, to highlight the politics of knowing, to re-
discover that which we believe we have already discovered, to unlearn that which
we have already Ieamed, and thus Ieam further by Ieaming again” (ibid). In this
chapter, I incorporate both typical components and alternative processes.
Specifically, I both discuss implications resulting from what I Ieamed and also
attempt to explore some dilemmas and complexities of critical literacy embedded
within my dissertation.

As I stated in Chapter One, this dissertation is the story of Elizabeth
Darcy’s teaching practice during the 2001-2002 school year and also
simultaneously the story of my growing and developing theories about critical
literacy. At the beginning of my graduate school education, my passion

manifested itself in what could be considered extreme positions. I resonated with

247

Smith’s (1995) pronouncement, “let’s declare [the] education [system] a disaster
and get on with our lives” and Gee’s (2001) notion that schools won’t be able to
make substantial reforms toward equity unless the larger society changes. While
I ultimately still feel affinity toward these views, I have become more invested in
the possibilities and connections between the current system and an imagined
ideal. In this chapter I grapple with the spaces between traditional and critical
approaches to literacy education. To this end, I further develop the shades of
gray I introduced earlier in the dissertation and ask what is gained and lost by

basking in the in-between.

Chapter Overview

In the first section of the chapter, I discuss what the research data
presented in this dissertation suggests as implications for critical literacy, teacher
education, and professional development. I began with the image of critical
literacy teaching as a balancing act, “keeping one foot inside the system and the
other foot outside” (Freire, 1985, p. 178). In this chapter, I use my analysis of Ms.
Darcy’s teaching practice to discuss the types of support that help pre-service
and practicing teachers enact this balance. I first discuss steps teacher
education programs might take to prepare and support prospective teaches,
particularly focusing on the importance of creating a critical stance. I also address
the support practicing teachers need to continue developing critical practices,
specifically highlighting the value of local and national networks.

After suggesting possible implications resulting from the study, I turn my

attention to opening up dialogue about issues and complexities that came to light

248

during the data collection, analysis and textualization. Here, I revisit the notion of
shades of gray to problematize the ground between traditional and critical
teaching by playing out a conversation with my own different voices. I end by
suggesting ideas for further research and reflecting on my current work and how

this research transformed my ideas and beliefs.

Implications for Teacher Education

A Critical Teaching Stance

Teaching is a profession of uncertainty; on a daily basis, teachers are
confronted with countless decisions (Jackson, 1990) and multiple dilemmas
(Lampert, 1985). Critical teaching, with its reliance on students’ input and
dynamic topics, can raise even more ambiguity (Shor, 1992, 1996). As we see
throughout the data, Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice was filled with this uncertainty.

One incident illustrating this uncertainty occurred during Ms. Darcy’s
teaching of the poem, “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird” by Wallace
Stevens, discussed in Chapter Four. In particular, when Ms. Darcy asked the
students to emulate Steven’s style of writing while focusing on an item from their
everyday lives, students wrote about a wide variety of topics, many which were
not typical to mainstream curriculum or to Ms. Darcy’s realm of life experience.
For example, Andre and Marquita both wrote about hair weaves, Jenetha wrote
about bandanas, and Luis wrote about a religious symbol. Ms. Darcy described
the feelings of uncertainty she experienced when Andre read his poem about hair
weaves. “It shocked me because coming from a white culture it was an unusual

thing to write about and it was a glimpse into an African-American growing up

249

culture, this is as usual for African Americans as brushes and curling irons”
(interview, 7/15/03). In this instance, Ms. Darcy’s reliance on student input
brought into class topics she wasn’t expecting.

Another interaction with Andre also raised uncertainty for Ms. Darcy.
During The Outsiders debate preparations, Andre failed to follow the clear
expectations Ms. Darcy laid out for the students. After Ms. Darcy read my
interpretation of the events in this dissertation, she noted that “reading this
reminds me of conflict in teaching critically [combining] inquiry-based Ieaming
[and] other goals like personal responsibility, cooperation and respect.” In this
situation, Ms. Darcy dealt with the uncertain response of a student within the
complex moments of teaching. Responding to my reaction of this events, she
noted the “potential [of critical literacy teachers] to ‘shake things up’ a bit" and the
tenuousness this can cause.

A final example of the uncertainty Ms. Darcy faced on a day-to-day basis
involved a displeased parent. As I described in Chapter Four, when one
particular parent came to school to complain about her child’s grade, Elizabeth
was pulled from her classroom to meet with the parent with no prior warning. She
was left alone in the assistant principal’s office with the parent who screamed at
her without allowing space for discussion. As I noted in my field notes (4/26/02),
this episode really affected Ms. Darcy. “Elizabeth is really on edge today. She
seems very unsettled by the parent situation. Another teacher advised her to
document ‘everything' and she is now starting to keep a documentation log.”
Looking back, this situation was resolved after this one incident, but in the

moment, it seemed to weigh heavily on Ms. Darcy.

250

This dissertation illustrates the uncertainty Ms. Darcy faced throughout the
school year. This affected her in a range of ways, from positive surprise to
negative emotion. Britzman (2003) and Segall (2002) assert that teachers, and
especially new teachers, inevitably face such uncertainty. Ms. Darcy, like all
teachers and especially new teachers, understandably looked for certainty to
guide her through the unsteady terrain (Britzman, 2003). She reflected (interview
7l8/03), “the best thing was for me was to sit down after my first year and really
come up with the backbone and of course I keep meddling with that. I had to
learn to really listen to myself and think about what I wanted to see my classroom
look like.” While teachers will always “meddle with that,” especially taking into
account their specific contexts, in this section I advocate for teacher education to
help pre-service teachers create a teaching stance, and more specifically, a
critical teaching stance.

Elizabeth gained strength from thinking through her own “backbone” or as
l term it teaching stance, as she commented that thinking it through was “the best
thing for me.” A teaching stance is a “philosophy, an attitude, a bearing, a way of
encountering students based on a set of core values about kids and their Ieaming
potentials” (Fried, 1995, p. 139). This research supports the idea that this type of
teaching stance can help teachers gain the steadiness they need to face the
uncertainty of classroom life. However, while Ms. Darcy took significant time on
her own - outside of a community of educators, mentors, or colleagues - to create
this stance, I propose that teacher educators explicitly help their students create

this teaching stance. While these notions are often implicit in teachers, it is

251

productive for them to make their teaching stance explicit to themselves and .
others.

Researchers often make recommendations about what needs to be done
that is not being done. However, as a teacher educator, I know from experience
the reality that teacher education courses are already packed too tight.
Fortunately, my implications do not involve fitting anything else in, but rather
suggest highlighting the critical issues that already exist in (teacher) education.
Helping pre-service teachers create a critical teaching stance is not something
that must be added, but rather to be embedded into existing teacher education
programs. A critical teaching stance entails seeing everything as text that can be
interpreted dynamically (Birch,1989) and viewing issues of race, equity, culture
and justice as central to the work of teaching. In this section, I detail four
implications for teacher education programs to facilitate prospective teachers
developing a critical teaching stance: structuring teacher education programs to
incorporate critical issues throughout the curriculum, connecting critical teaching
and good teaching, expanding notions of text, and preparing for the realities of

schools.

Structuring Teacher Education Programs

Ms. Darcy, as a white woman, fit the typical profile of a prospective
teacher (Cochran-Smith, 1995). However, she also brought uncommon
experiences with, and commitment to, diversity (Chisholm, 1994). Specifically,

Ms. Darcy lived for several years in a large, diverse city and she also participated

252

in the Peace Corps in Africa. Further, she explicitly expressed her goal,
“teaching for me is part of my way of bringing about social change” (interview,
4/23/02). Though she entered teaching with a commitment to social change, her
teacher education program did not embed these ideas thoroughly throughout the
program. Ms. Darcy recalled, “I learned about Freire through a professor but it
was recommended, actually to another student, outside of the regular course
work .. Those ideas were not raised as a real part of any of the classes”
(interview, 4/23/02). Ms. Darcy was forced to make connections for herself
between critical literacy and education. As I wrote throughout this dissertation,
Ms. Darcy successfully incorporated components of critical literacy throughout
her teaching practice. However, I also noted ways in which a critical perspective
was left out of her teaching, such as during grammar instruction. This research
supports the notion that critical literacy should be embedded throughout teacher
education programs in order to prepare people to truly infuse their own teaching
practices with critical thought.

It is particularly important to embed such issues of diversity and equity
throughout teacher education programs taking into account many prospective
teachers’ backgrounds and preconceived notions (Chisholm, 1994). Prospective
teachers do not necessarily enter teacher education programs intending to
develop a critical teaching stance. Teacher education candidates continue to fit a
white, middle class demographic profile while schools grow increasingly more
diverse (Cochran-Smith, 1995) and many prospective teachers do not see issues
of culture, diversity and racial or economic equity as central to teaching and

Ieaming (Lazar, 2004). Therefore, a teacher education program must embrace a

253

unified mission of presenting these issues as integral to teaching. While teacher
educators themselves will and should hold different definitions of equity and
diversity, what must be consistent is their belief that consideration and discussion
of these ideas is central to the work of creating teachers.

In terms of the structure of a teacher education program, while an initial
course in issues of diversity and equity can play a role in a prospective teacher’s
education, it is important to integrate these ideas throughout the program. To
genuinely influence prospective teachers’ beliefs about and enactments of
teaching, they must see the connections between critical issues of race and
equity fld issues of classroom management, Ieaming, and assessment. When
issues of diversity or multiculturalism are separated out into an isolated course, it
can inadvertently send the message that such issues can be dealt with
separately from the real work of teaching, that which is learned in methods and
related courses. (Zeichner, 1995)

lmportantly, this critical teaching stance is not limited to, or based on, a
particular grade level, teaching population/context, or subject matter. In this
dissertation, I focused on critical literacy in Ms. Darcy’s specific situation, a
middle school Language Arts classroom. However, the fundamental nature of
critical teaching permeates all settings, albeit in different ways depending on
context. As evidenced in Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice, it involves connecting
subject matter and students’ lives, incorporating diverse topics and language,
engaging in interpretation as multiple, and “creat[ing] situations alive with activity
and reflection, encouraging the play of imagination, encouraging inventiveness,

opening up alternative possibilities” (Greene, 2000, p. 11). The aim for teacher

254

educators is to influence their students so that the critical fabric of education
plays a central role in the way teachers teach. It isn’t necessarily most important
to prepare teachers to plan units that specifically focus on racism or classism;
instead what is crucial is helping prospective teachers view teaching, learning,
schools and students with a critical stance that recognizes the influence and
importance of equity, culture and diversity. It isn’t about all students or all faculty
seeing race, equity, culture or justice in the same way but instead about making
these aspects part of the work of teaching and recognizing that they have
consequences for designing a seating chart in a 3'‘1 grade classroom, teaching a
science lab lesson in high school biology, or planning a parent-teacher

conference.

Expanding Notions of Text

This dissertation focused on critical literacy in Ms. Darcy’s teaching
practice. In particular, I noted the way she and her students “read” texts critically.
For example, Ms. Darcy viewed The Outsiders as a text that contained issues of
race and class, as well as assumptions and connections still relevant today. This
stance was evident in the way she taught this book, engaging students in a
debate over the definition of a family and facilitating a Socratic Seminar about
class in our current society. This stance influenced students, as Tonya reflected
on the debate and described how Ms. Darcy “makes me get thinking because I
have been thinking a certain way all my life, like a family is this, but then Ms. D. is
bringing something different into my life and I’m like wait a minute” (interview,

5l16l02).

255

However, there were other aspects of Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice that
she did not view as texts and that she did open up for dynamic interpretation to
herself or her students. For example, in her teaching practice Ms. Darcy
approached grammar as an entity to passively accept and Ieam. Whereas she
surrounded students’ Ieaming of novels with activities geared to help them
examine diverse interpretations as part of comprehending the books, grammar
was outside of this analysis. It was not presented as something'to be questioned,
discussed or analyzed but simply something to consume. This approach toward
grammar limited students, as well as Ms. Darcy’s, engagement and learning.

By approaching everything as text, prospective teachers would be more
likely to [and help their students to] open up more aspects of teaching to this type
of analysis. However, preservice teachers often enter into education programs
without considering this type of analysis a central priority (Lazar, 2004). Teacher
education programs could play a valuable role preparing their students to
embody a critical teaching stance by centralizing the notion that everything is a
text that can be interpreted dynamically (Birch,1989). This notion encompasses
two connected steps. First, it expands the definition of text to include a wide
variety of things, including people, building, photographs, governments, maps,
flags, advertisements (Shannon, 1992; Willinsky 2001). Second, it opens up
interpretation to include a myriad of factors including the reader’s own history,
culture, language, and experience ((Rosenblatt, 1978) and emphasizes meaning
as raced, classed, and gendered (Greene, 1988).

Centralizing the notion that everything is a text that can be interpreted

dynamically opens up conversations and reflections that could help pre-service

256

teachers think about consequences, origins, possibilities and alternative options
available in many facets of teaching. The act of interpreting texts dynamically
prioritizes how a text means more than what a text means (Birch, 1989).
Because “your language, your background, biases ideas, beliefs, politics,
education, etc. determine your understanding [and because] they are not
invented by you [but] are socially determined by the institutions and discursive
practices that constitute the social networks you are involved in” (Birch, 1989. p.
24) these constructs and institutions must be delved into as part of the reading of
texts. In a teacher education program this approach would involve prospective
teachers reading all types of texts, including textbooks, poems, standards, report
cards, novels, classroom management decisions, parent-teacher conferences.
Dynamic textual interpretation entails considering how who we are influences
how we read and interpret texts. I

The goal would be for prospective teachers to recognize that there are no
absolute meanings, or absolute rights and wrongs in any of these texts or
interpretation. Further, prospective teachers would recognize that “the ‘rightness’
of a decision of an idea about the world is relative not to some inherent
correct order for the world ordained somehow in nature, but to a theory, a
position, a set of ideas, institutionally created and constructed” (ibid, p. 25). This
stance would open up for consideration the way prospective teachers interpret all
types of decisions, information, actions and ideas within a teaching practice. It
would also open up for dialogue the variety of consequences and possibilities for

students that are embedded within every facets of teaching.

257

lmportantly, Segall (2002) noted that changing prospective teachers'
practices and conceptions of education involves more than teaching about these
ways of thinking, being and teaching. “For such theories to become a real, viable
option they have to be experienced and their experiences theorized. If we
believe in teachers who are thoughtful, critical, and reflective, we ought to provide
them meaningful opportunities to be so as learners. In other words, teacher
education should be a place where student teachers don’t only learn about
education but where they actively and publicly engage their own education as
students Ieaming to teach” (167). Several teacher educators write about their
efforts incorporating this work into their courses. For example, when teaching
about assessment, Butin (2002) “conducted an experiential Ieaming activity in
order to make vivid the problematic: of norm-referenced classroom assessment”
(15). His students participated in various assessments in order to experience
them; Butin then asked his students to reflect on what they went through and
Ieamed. Lazar (2004) asked her students to create a profile on one elementary
school student by interviews the student, as well as the student's parents and
teacher. In addition, the prospective teachers tutored this elementary school
student for a semester and recorded their own conceptions. Creating a profile
from all of these different sources allowed these prospective teachers to see the
students from a variety of perspectives. Overall, while it is impossible and
undesirable to practice this type of textual interpretation (at every single
opportunity, teacher education students must experience reading a variety of

texts in their pre-service education.

258

Connecting Critical Teaching and Good Teaching

Ms. Darcy viewed critical literacy as good teaching; “critical literacy to me
is just good teaching and I really believe that“ (interview, 7/15/03). Ms. Darcy's
teaching practice provides a powerful example of critical teaching as good
teaching. While there were times I was disappointed that the classroom didn’t
take on a more radical stance, my analysis concluded that room C132 contained
a productive illustration of critical teaching. Ms. Darcy herself lauded, “I can
fulfill an activist role while being an ordinary teacher" (interview, 4/23/02). In
addition, as I concluded in Chapter Seven, the fact that her students saw Ms.
Darcy as a “good teacher“ propelled the critical work in the classroom. Ladson-
Billings (1995) similarly focused on connections between critical teaching and
good teaching. She reported a common response from administrators, teachers,
and teacher educators after hearing about culturally relevant pedagogy (which
shares many attributes of critical teaching): “that’s just good teaching.”

This dissertation focused on the connections between good teaching and
critical teaching. These connections are important for teacher education students
more broadly. For even teacher education students drawn to the ideals of critical
teaching often ask “this sounds great, but what does it look like” (Glazier et. al.,
2003). Making explicit connections between good teaching and critical teaching
would not aim to provide teachers with recipes to follow, but instead aspire to
give them a picture of what it might look like and to help them wrestle with
challenges likely to surface as they try these practices themselves. As I argue in

this section, focusing on such connections is good teacher education practice.

259

It is possible to introduce a critical teaching stance by reading about its
theoretical definitions or by focusing specifically on differences in race, class, or
gender. However, these approaches can be viewed as radical or irrelevant.
Therefore, it is more productive to begin by making connections between
components of a critical teaching stance and ideas/beliefs prospective teachers
may already hold. For example, teacher educators can build on notions of good
teaching such as: teaching all students without marginalizing anyone, connecting
to and valuing students’ prior knowledge, and viewing students as problem
solvers and question askers.

As Oakes and Lipton (1999) argue, the curriculum in many teacher
education courses, including such issues as Ieaming theories, curriculum, subject
matter and assessment are necessarily within a context of “teaching to change
the world.” For teaching is inherently about crafting the future and therefore
necessitates consideration of the kind of future we want to create. Creating a
teaching stance ls best initiated when it is built into the work of teaching. For
example, when teacher educators in methods classes discuss how to have a
discussion or how to teach “basic” skills, they can push their students to think
about who might have the easiest time participating and succeeding and why.
When talking about parental involvement, teacher educators can help their
students think about the cultural notions embedded in communication.

Kohl (2000) writes about the connection between good teaching and
critical (or social justice) teaching in a slightly different way, offering “pedagogical

and personal suggestions learned over 30 years’ experience”:

260

Hone your craft as a teacher. When I first began teaching, I jumped into
struggles for social justice. During one of my efforts a community person
asked: ‘So, what's going on in your classroom that's different than what
you're fighting against? Can your students read and do math?’ I had to
examine my work, which was full of passion and effort but deficient in craft.
I realized that I needed to take the time to learn how to teach well before
I extended myself with authority and confidence in organizing efforts. This
is essential for caring teachers. We have to get it right for our own students
before presuming to take on larger systems, no matter how terrible those
larger systems are. As educators, we need to root our struggles for social
justice in the work we do every day, in a particular community, with a
particular group of students.
While Oakes and Lipton (1999) detail ways to bring social justice teaching into
good teaching practices, Kohl is writing about the importance of embedding good
teaching practices into social justice teaching. Teacher educators also need to
realize, and help their students realize, that “learning how to teach [subject

matter] well” is an integral part of teaching their students.

Preparing for me Realities of Schools

In the previous sections, l detailed several steps teacher education
programs could take to help their students develop a critical teaching stance.
However, this research study illustrated the reality that schools are not always
hospitable to critical conceptions of teaching. Ms. Darcy noted her perception of
her colleagues’ response to critical teaching, “some people would be like give me
a break, these kids don’t know shit, and people would joke or make real cynical
remarks. Then I could see a couple people being like woah. But I can’t see
many people saying I try to do this” (interview, 6/24/03). Similarly, I illustrated
throughout this dissertation the lack of support Ms. Darcy received from her

administration or school district. In addition, during her first year of teaching, Ms.

261

Darcy faced difficult challenges to classroom productivity, noting, “I was surprised
at how out of control [the students] could be. I didn’t know what my role was,
what I needed to establish and when I could let them go and l have Ieamed a lot
about that” (interview, 6/5/02). Such “control” issues are important for every
teacher; they can be particularly complex for critical teachers who already tend
[as Ms. Darcy expressed in her text of this dissertation] “to shake things up a bit.”

Oakes and Lipton (1999) and Cervetti (2004) also found that for a variety
of reasons schools are not always hospitable to critical conceptions of teaching.
In this section, I argue that in order to prepare prospective teachers to hold onto a
critical teaching stance, they must prepare students to deal with the myriad of
potential challenges to critical teaching illustrated throughout this study. Nieto
(2000) notes the benefits of using case studies because of their ability to
illuminate thoughts and insights into particular settings, thus opening up
possibilities for discussion. Video case studies that pay particular attention to
issues of equity and diversity would offer an optimal way to allow students to see
these classrooms in action as a starting point for dialogue.

In addition, it is important that teacher education courses explicitly confront
disconnects between critical teaching and possible school contexts. As
Featherstone noted (1995), even student teachers aware of the traditional forces
in many schools had an incredibly hard resisting their power. It will help
prospective teachers if they are equipped with a toolbox to deal with these
difficulties. Using case studies, prospective teachers could discuss possible
challenges such as how to productively deal with student resistance of how to

connect to students’ prior knowledge when it differs from the teacher’s. The

262

toolbox should also include resources to help new teachers search out
colleagues with similar teaching philosophies and also equip them to productively
connect to others even with differences. Dealing with these possible disconnects

directly will help prepare teachers to cope as they begin their teaching careers.

Beyond Pre-service Education

Above, I discussed what teacher education programs can do to help
teachers create a critical teaching stance. However, Elizabeth’s experience
clearly demonstrates that developing this stance does not stop once teachers
enter their own classrooms. Ms. Darcy needed guidance as she struggled to
implement and further develop her critical teaching practice. Ms. Darcy
continued to grow in her teaching practice, but it was often done on her own, as
she “sat down [alone] after [her] first year and really [came] up with the backbone”
of her teaching (interview 7I8/03). Ms. Darcy herself stated the importance of
other critical colleagues, explaining “it would be easier if other teachers tried [to
implement critical Iiteracyl” (interview, 6/24/03). Further, she valued my ideas
about her teaching, commenting in this text after my suggestions about her
dealings with Andre during The Outsiders debate: “These ideas of using the
students as problem-solvers are great suggestions and ways I would like to
explore further in my teaching.” There are many possible avenues for this type of
reflection and continued Ieaming. Though Ms. Darcy entered teaching through
an alternative program and had already completed her master's education during

her first year of teaching, many teachers do continue on with their master’s

263

education. The implications discussed above for pre-service teachers would
benefit practicing teachers.

Feiman-Nemser, Parker & Zeichner, (1992) argue that a_ll teachers need
professional development to continue growing as they begin teaching.
Specifically, teachers need professional development that offers extensive
opportunities for learning and allows teachers to invest in and control their own
Ieaming (Stein, Smith 8 Silver, 1999). Ideally it would be best if teachers
received this type of support through district-level professional development.
However, that may not be realistic considering the multiple pressures and
directions in many school districts. Instead, I concentrate here on existing
successful networks that offer such opportunities and focus on issues of equity
and justice. I detail a few specific organizations as examples of groups providing
the kinds of education and support that help teachers continue to develop a
critical teaching stance. These networks could be expanded and better
connected with school districts or teacher education programs.

The first organization, called Teaching For Change, focuses on improving
equity in Washington DC schools by responding to the needs of the teachers
there. In particular, it offers a year-long course for teachers examining the theory
and tools that promote an equity-centered approach to teaching reading and
writing. This year, the course is taught by renowned anti-racist educator Enid
Lee. With monthly session for the entire school year, classroom observations
and teacher-generated case studies the course will highlight ways to be
academically rigorous and committed to social justice and racial equity. Students

will delve into ways to draw on students’ prior knowledge, how to improve their

264

curriculum and how to engage others at their schools. Ongoing courses like
these allow teachers to continue their learning with an experienced educator,
network with other local colleagues, and analyze their own classroom practices.

Another possible approach to this type of professional development is
exemplified by Teachers 4 Social Justice, a grassroots non-profit organization
whose mission is to provide opportunities for self-transformation, leadership, and
community building to educators in order to affect meaningful change in the
classroom, school, community and society. The organization organizes small
study groups that meet tri-weekly to provide teachers with focused, peer-based
professional development opportunities that are tied to existing classroom
practice. Study group topics include “Curriculum Design as Social Justice
Action,” “Discipline from a Social Justice Perspective,” and “Justice and Access
through Math and Science.” The study groups are facilitated by classroom
teachers, who are trained to help members articulate their problems, connect
them to larger issues of social justice, and identify action plans. Solutions to
classroom and school-wide problems are arrived at through investigation and
reflection on issues through a social justice lens. In this set-up, teachers are
Ieaming with and from other teachers with equity playing a central and guiding
role.

One final example of a local group facilitating professional development is
the Bay Area Coalition for Equitable Schools (BayCES), a network of K-12 and
member of the National Coalition for Essential Schools. One component of this
nonprofit organization promotes equity through data-based inquiry and

collaboration. Specifically, participating schools are provided with “coaches” who

265

work extensively with teachers. The coaches train and support teachers as they
embark on action research in their own classrooms. The teachers receive one-
on-one support as well as partake in study teams with the other participating
teachers. All work is focused on issues of equity. This approach builds cadres of
teachers within schools who are intensely working for social change.

My purpose in detailing these groups is to highlight existing opportunities
for sustained, productive professional development that help teachers continue to
develop a critical teaching stance. These groups receive grants in order to work
both inside and outside the system to create social change. They offer intense,
long-term support and education for teachers trying to implement principles of
critical literacy practices. Such groups offer possibilities for teachers to network,
continually improve, and expand. These networks provide models that could be

expanded to affect more teachers and students.

Ending with Shades of Gray

In the previous section, I detailed some implications resulting from my
research. In a sense, these implications close my study. They wrap up my work
with clear ideas for possible steps to follow my research study. They intend to
leave the reader with a sense of finality, answering the question “so what?” and
providing what can be done based on what was written. At the same time though
there is another way to close this work. As I stated in my methodology, I tried to
connect what I was studying to how I was studying. I studied a critical way of
reading words and the world, a problematizing approach to thoughts, ideas and

texts. Though this journey took me to a place with some definite ideas about

266

what could come next, it also sent me rereading, questioning and pondering in
ways that lead to few definite answers but a greater knowledge of the subtleties.
In this next section, I attempt to probe some of the complexities embedded within
my study to leave some ideas at play as I conclude mydissertation.

As I stated in Chapter One, this dissertation’s intent is not to critique what
Elizabeth Darcy could have done better to reach the goals of critical literacy nor
was its purpose to reveal how Ms. Darcy’s intentions or articulations differed from
her practice. Instead, my main focus has been to show that critical literacy in
classrooms is messier than it is often conceptualized and described. In this
section, I aim to highlight this messiness by drawing on the concept of shades of
gray. Rather than seeing traditional literacy and critical literacy as binary
conceptions of teaching practice, I have analyzed throUghout this dissertation the
shades of gray between these two approaches. As I focused on Ms. Darcy’s
teaching of poetry, the novel 777e Outsides and an l-Search paper, I highlighted
the ways she included both traditional and more critical ways of looking at texts,
students, and society. While I think there are some negative outcomes of blurring
the lines between these two approaches (which I discuss below) I ultimately find
value in focusing on connections between these approaches.

As I mentioned in Chapter One, several authors have theorized about the
shades of gray in multicultural education, drawing out various phases,
approaches or stages. Nieto (2000) charted levels, moving from monocultural,
tolerance, acceptance, respect and finally affirmation, solidarity and critique. She
detailed what each level included in terms of (among other things) the existence

of antiracist education, the pervasiveness of multicultural education, and the

267

extent of critical pedagogy. The levels are clearly arranged from least to most
desirable. Sleeter (1988) similarly organized her conception of equitable
education in terms of approaches moving from least desirable, “teaching the
exceptional and the culturally different” to most desirable, “education that is
multicultural and socially reconstructionist.” Her book too details the goals and
practices of each approach. Another important conception of multiculturalism
originated with Banks (1999) who constructed stages of multicultural education,
moving from “Stage One” which offers no change from the Eurocentric, male-
centric standard to “Stage Five” which involves a structural reform completely
making over the curriculum with a multicultural perspective and also implements
social, race, sex, and class issues. These are valuable heuristics as they open up
the shades of gray between more traditional and more multicultural or critical
conceptions of education.

My own conception of shades of gray draws a similar spectrum, with
traditional conceptions of literacy on one side and critical conceptions of literacy
on the other. Rather than delineating levels or stages that move from one to the
other, Elizabeth Darcy’s teaching practice illuminated to me the messiness,
dilemmas, unanswerable questions and contradictions that exist in between. I
concluded that within the realities of schools there is no best approach, no
concrete set of definitives to stand on while teaching. Teaching “with one foot in
the system and the other outside” is indeed a daily balancing act where teachers
“build a work identity that is constructively ambiguous” (Lampert, 1985, p. 178),
where they “confront [the] difficult existential truth about education rarely

discussed and, more often than not, actively avoided: trying to teach is deeply

268

unsettling and conflictive because experience itself is a paradox, an
unanticipated social relation, and a problem of interpretation” (Britzman, 2003, p.
3). My attempt in my dissertation and in this final section is to conceptualize and
theorize critical literacy in “constructively ambiguous ways” as an “unsettling
problem [or act] of interpretation.” I wanted to use a writing style to help me
evoke this messiness, rather than just to describe it. I therefore draw on dialogue
as it allows room for overlap, contradictions, synthesis and synergy. This
dialogue is not meant to repeat what I have already said, but to recognize the
partiality of what I have [and therefore have not] said, and to open up gaps and
ambiguities by viewing ideas and conversing with different lenses (Kumashiro,
2002)

This dialogue takes place within the multiplicity of my own identities, as
two voices emerge. One voice, which begins the conversation, is devoted to the
theoretical possibilities of critical literacy. The other voice, which I put in italics in
order to differentiate it from the first voice, both esteems and raises questions
about critical Iiteracy’s practical realities. I anchor this discussion around central
questions (bolded below) drawn from my analysis of the curriculum documents in
Chapter Three and the grammar lessons and protest poems in Chapter Six: what
do you teach, how do you teach, and what are the roles of teacher and students
within the classroom. The conversation ends by considering, what is critical

literacy teaching?

269

What should critical literacy teachers teach? One of the tensions that continued
to arise when I was writing surrounded the role of mainstream knowledge, or the

standard Discourse, in school.

In this classroom, standard Discourse played a principal role. In addition to being
central in the curriculum, the standardized tests and the expectations and culture
of the school, it appeared to be very important to both the teacher and students.
Part of being critical too is trusting that students know what they need. 80, the
currents pushing the teacher to prioritize mainstream knowledge came not only

from factors surrounding the classroom but fiom the key players inside as well.

True, and remember that critical literacy is not an abandonment of traditional
literacy or mainstream knowledge but a critical and reflexive engagement with it
as well as a movement beyond. It is a reflexive endeavor that engages traditional

notions of literacy in ways that moves learners beyond them.

But I am not sure that that engagement is always going to look critical and that
seems to be the real Issue you are trying to get at. Put your question another
way - If we say that teaching this mainstream knowledge is embedded in the
history of public education and our mindsets, then (how) can teachers work both
against and for historical goals for public education and the achievement

ideology?

270

To answer your question, yes, I think teachers can work both against and for
historical goals for public education. Many critical educators address this issue.
Macedo (2003), Christensen (1994) and Delpit (1995) among others
acknowledge that students must be taught the standard Discourse within an

environment that acknowledges and question the culture of power.

Your notion of “acknowledging and questioning the culture of power” is a
theoretical view, the en vironment you describe is evasive. A teacher may be able
to keep this meoretical view in her mind as she teaches students how to match
subjects and verbs according to Me rules of standard English. But I don ’t think
middle school students necessarily can. When they are knee deep in the minute,
repetitive, encompassing type of practice it takes to really Ieam something like
mainstream Discourse, it is unrealistic to expect they will also be critical at every
moment. Are you going to finish every sentence teaching and correcting
matching subjects and verbs this is correct within standard English, or are you
going to say this is correct or incorrect. Is the teacher going to stop every five
minutes of the lesson and say, why again are we Ieaming this or who speaks
like this who does this benefit. While these questions should play a role in the
classroom, there wrll be times when the focus is on getting them to be able to

write a certain way.

But it isn’t about any individual moment of instruction but about developing a
stance in students to approach mainstream knowledge or standard English in a

critical way.

271

Teaching though is about the individual moments. Stance is dynamic, not static,
so students do not either have it or not have it. Even if students do dynamical/y
interpret (Birch, 7.98.9) grammar during a discussion about it, mey are not
necessarily going to see it this way when they are practicing it. And I am not so
sure / would want that questioning part of their brain at work all the times.
Sometimes, I want them to Ieam what is being taught. Delpit (19.95) is clear
about the priority. Thrs study deals with urban kids who don ’t already have the
mainstream Discourse they need. Ms. Darcy offers an important warning to
critical literacy teachers, ‘the transformative expen'ence that teachers are
searching for wim their students, one thing drey need to keep in mind is that they
have already gone through their education and they’re choosing to create a
transformational critical space and their students are not coming with the same
awareness about the importance of critical views on society, at least not
conscious ones, so you have to be really careful about how you inflrse that piece”

(interview, 7/15/03).

But Delpit (1995) is also clear about the importance of embedding this instruction
within the larger context of power. And furthermore, are you having enough faith
in students in particular students of color? Their experiences very well may

lead them to see the power and injustice embedded in standard Discourse.

There are a myriad of ways to experience the world from positions considered

outside of the mainstream. Students in general and students of color in particular

272

are not going to see standard English in just one way. Besides, students thinking
they need school to be successful is an important key in them doing well and
once that is questioned, even with the best of intentions, it can lead to failure
(Gates, 2003)]. The achievement ideology is problematic but it can also serve as
solid ground for students and teachers to propel them to in vest in school. In this
research, Ms. Darcy is [though not only] an agent of school, and sometimes she

relies on her class being “school as usual” to be productive.

But ..

I know, at the same h’me “school as usual” is absolutely the problem.

I continue to believe there are more enlightened ways to teach mainstream
knowledge. Particularly to teach standard Discourse, I think the new
literacy/whole language approach can help make learning more active for
students. Ms. Darcy did rely at times on the writing workshop approach and
during these times the students were Ieaming grammar as they wrote. It may

have helped her too to follow new literacy even further.

/ agree we writing workshop propelled the classroom in positive directions but
educators also talk about the need to be explicit, especially with struggling
learners (De/pit, 1995; Schoenbach et. al. 7999). And even within whole

language, while the theoretical position values all dialects, in terms of time,

273

grades, what you will get credit for, school still values one way of speaking and

writing over others.

But if students learn mainstream knowledge in a way that doesn’t help them
challenge inequities in their lives and society, they themselves may get more
opportunities, which is important, but this approach is not as closely connected to

overall societal change.

True.

I still think it is possible to teach standard Discourse in a context that interrogates
language, recognizes and questions the culture of power, and considers and

works toward other more equitable ways a society could operate.

And I think it is possible for students and teachers to work toward that stance but
that in daily ways in daily practice there are going to be moments when teaching
the mainstream Discourse looks just like it does in a more traditional class, with a
teacher who cares about the students and wants them to Ieam so each of them
can go to college. Okay, well, we already touched on this a little when you talked
about the new literacy, but specifically by are you expecting a criutal literacy

teacher to teach?

That question raises a central issue. A huge problem of school is that students

are positioned as consumers, rather than creators of knowledge. Critical

274

classrooms work against the notion that knowledge is something to be taken in
and instead connect knowledge to imagination (Berry, 1998; Freire, 1985). One
key is connecting established knowledge to students’ knowledge. For example,
Freire (1996) broke words down into syllables to teach students to match letters
and sounds, and as he did this he asked students to create new words and also

to analyze the meanings of words.

You need to keep in mind that were are some main differences between Freire
and current K- 12 classrooms, especially urban middle and high school ones, in
the U. S. He worked with adult students in new schools he created. He based his
cuniculum and texts on the students’ language, which he had time to investigate
before teaching. Here, teachers are routinely given 25- 700 students' names on
the first day they need to start teaching them. / do think there are times when this
type of dynamic Ieaming can and should happen. But I also mink there are times
when teachers need to break down the knowledge they want students to Ieam
into discrete bits and then teach it to the students - which is more or less
commodity/try knowledge. The typical lesson plan, recognized by national

teaching organizations, relies on measurable objectives.

This goes back to one of the questions pondered in the first chapter. The
“finished product” for critical literacy teachers includes students becoming
Subjects in the world: able to “critique issues which surround us as we live,
learn, and work - to help understand, comment on and ultimately control the

direction of our lives” (Fehring 8 Green, 2001, p. 10). In order for students to

275

take on these roles outside of the classroom, they need to take on these roles
inside of the classroom. This hinges on them being problem-posers, problem-

solvers, and question-askers in their own learning process.

lagree and I see that happening in class discussions, group activities, and even
in their own writing projects. But there are other discreet skills students need to
Ieam as part of school and I don’t think it is realistic that they will always learn
these skills in a dynamic way. Students and teachers are conditioned for a more
static type of Ieaming and both groups feel successful when they know what they
are supposed to Ieam. Schools genuine/y need measurable assessments. At its
base, knowledge is an unfurling of uncertainty. But sometimes classroom
lessons are built around certainty. Teachers need to know sometimes exactly
who is Ieaming what and this at times involves breaking knowledge down into
little measurable bits, teaching it to students, and assessing whether or not they

have it.

I do see how this raises the question of equity and vision both for the short term
and long term. It is important that critical literacy teachers recognize that
students who are often marginalized in society are also often marginalized in
school by not benefiting from instruction - and to work against this trend. Too,
Lubienski (1990) found that a new alternative more student-centered approach to
teaching math did not benefit the working class students as much as middle class
students. But as Willinsky (2001) admonishes: “we need to find ways of

beginning with the young the very rereading and rewriting of the world that falls to

276

each generation. This is our privilege and responsibility as teachers who are,
after all, working directly on the future” (9). If we want students to access and act

in the world differently, we have to create those differences in the classroom.

It goes back again to the notion of “school as usual. ” Butin (2002) writes that
“what is constraining is the departmentalr'zation of knowledge into disciplines, of
individuals into age-cohorts, and of time into 50-minute units” (75). Perhaps If
these constraints were lifted We seem to continue to go around this issue of
school as usual. One of me firings that seemed to homer you in the study was
that Ms. Darcy’s classroom was not more of “an oppositional space. ” Are critical

classrooms opposiu'onal spaces? How realrsfic is that? How optimal?

First and foremost critical literacy classrooms are oppositional spaces that center
around “people being able to read and understand [texts] alternatively or even
oppositional to the way they were intended to be read” (Alvarado, 1992, pg. 96).
This stance is similarly turned on pieces of society, such as how Ms. Darcy asked
her students to view and debate the definition of family. It is also applied to school
itself and what is taken for granted there as business as usual. “It utilizes
pedagogies that invite [learners] to read and write against the grain of unquestioned
tradition; a pedagogy that encourages students to read and write their own
environment critically, to make connections between how they learn and what they
learn, between the overt, the hidden, and the null curriculum of their own

experiences” (Segall, 1999, p. 306).

277

I do see how the classroom is an oppositional space in which students read
poems, certain aspects of society, and their own experiences. And I see how
components of the classroom could be read similarly, and firat Ms. Darcy could
have taken this on more in her practice. But I also think about middle school
students and order in fire classroom. While I see the value in differentiating this
space from school as usual, lalso see the value of doing “school as usual“ in the
day to day practice of a teacher. Tonya, a student in the classroom, said, “I don '1‘
really question fire rules cause every school/ went to the rules are basically the

same so it is easy for me just to follow them " (interview, 5/ 76/2002).

And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It is both. It is good because there are 25 students in the classroom and they are
all entering at very different points. 77rey are reacting to their past school
experiences and their lives outside of school. Many may welcome the act of
resisting but this may manifest itself as resisting fire teacher - whatever her
intentions. Critical literacy teachers, like all teachers, are day in, day out at a
grueling pace year afier year. It helps fire teacher to rely on fire “school as usual“
rules, for students to sit in their desks, not to throw spit wads across the room,

and not to talk when the teacher is talking.

But “school as usual” relies on students passively accepting what goes on around
them. Even if they have a particular experience critically analyzing a novel or

poem, something more fundamental must change to truly have a lasing effect, to

278

truly create a kid who participates in the world in ways that lead him to stand up
and say this is wrong and it could be different. Critical literacy isn’t something

students and teachers can occasionally do, but something they must breathe.

lagree with that and think it was well put. So, ultimately, what firen is or counw as a
critical literacy teaching practice? A prospective teacher approached me this
summer in fire midst of a teacher education course about critical literacy. He stated
that he did not agree with the ongins of critical literacy - such as fire Frankfort school
or Marxism, and didn ’t consider himself part of the political left. But there were pieces
of critical literacy that struck a cord with him and he thought could help him engage
his students in his aim toward improving fireir literacy; he wanted his students to
engage themselves in their worlds as problem-solvers. He wanted to know if critical
literacy was for him. Is critical literacy only something for teachers like Cissy Lack
who ultimately risk their jobs for to follow their teaching philosophies? Do you have
to be as Ms. Darcy stated, “a battering ram .7“ Can a teacher be critical if she does

not focus lessons on issues of race, class or gender?

I do think it is important to differentiate critical literacy from other approaches, to
draw at some point a line in the sand. If any type of connection to students’ lives or
active learning in the classroom becomes critical literacy, I think it will lose its value
and power. Critical literacy is not an add-on to a curriculum, it is not certain ways of

teaching that teachers can pick and choose from; it is a stance with a political vision.

279

But what is the point at which you say, your stance is critical and yours is not critical
enough. Or that part of your practice is critical but that part is not. ” Who decides and

does it matter ?

The local and networks you mentioned above, they need to start with some type of
shared understanding about what they are aiming toward, even if there are
complexities and differences within beliefs and enactments. I am not sure exactly
what the lines are and I don’t think it is productive to put energy into differentiating
who is critical and who is not. The shades of gray construct works to acknowledge
the spaces and possibilities between critical literacy teaching and traditional
teaching. Furthermore, the discussion here illuminates the fact that these distinctions
aren’t clear cut and absolute. I think it is valuable to blur the lines but I still think the

lines exist.

Final Words

Future Research

This dissertation has explored questions related to the messiness involved
in critical literacy teaching. The implications from this study raise possibilities for
future research. As I stated in the introduction, there are few studies detailing
critical literacy in action, especially with new teachers. Research aimed at
providing more pictures, and more analysis, of teachers engaging their students
in critical literacy would better inform the field. In particular, I would like to see
more studies investigating disconnects between critical endeavors and realities in

public schools that may attempt to thwart these efforts. In addition, while I

280

included Ms. Darcy’s voice at the very periphery of this research study, the field
would benefit from research that allowed teachers’ voices, as well as students’
voices, to play a larger role in studies. While this research study joins a few
others in closely investigating a small number of teachers (Cervetti, 2004;
Damico, 2003; Michel, 1999), it is also important for researchers to examine
critical literacy practices more broadly.

In addition, there are two areas of inquiry within critical literacy I think need
more particular attention. One area is assessment. Research could shed light
on a number of important questions: Should students be assessed on their
engagement with critical literacy and if so, how? How does critical literacy
pedagogy connect to more standard forms of assessment? lf critical literacy is
successful in a certain classroom, does this Ieaming stay with students as they
move on from this classroom - do they carry what they learned to other contexts?
I also think research studies should explicitly investigate connections between
reading the word and the world. Freire originally infused critical literacy into
programs to teach illiterate men to read. We need studies that examine critical
literacy in terms of engaging students in discussions about equity or in projects
within their communities; we also need studies that investigate critical literacy as
a way to improve students’ abilities to read and write written texts (defined more

traditionally).

Where Does This Leave Me
As I discussed in this dissertation, throughout this research study, my own

views changed as l Ieamed to theorize critical literacy in shades of gray. My

281

developing ideas did not change my commitment to and belief in critical literacy
as a powerful and important philosophy of literacy education. I still believe that
the practice of critically reading one’s own world can lead to transformation and
that by illuminating their positions in local and global contexts, examining the
origins of societal structures, and investigating their own lives as raced, classed,
and gendered (Greene, 1988), students can gain insights into who they are, how
they (and society) got to be this way, and what consequences are created by
their identities and actions. Ultimately, I think critical literacy can inspire students
to take “control over the direction of [their] lives,” (Fehring & Green, 2001, p. 10),
to make decisions about who they want to be and who they no longer want to be,
and ultimately to recreate both themselves and the contexts around them
(Giroux, 1988).

Ms. Darcy’s teaching practice, though, opened up my eyes to the
messiness of critical literacy as it interacts with more traditional conceptions of
schooling. Though I hesitate to accept it and still romanticize teachers (and
students) standing on desks and hollering, “we are changing things right here,
right now,” it also made me realize that “school as usual” has a place in
classrooms. In my current job, as I help student teachers use critical literacy to
engage high school readers, we rely on school rules and integrate traditional
notions of teaching and learning into our curriculum and pedagogy. l have come
to really value Kohl’s (2000) notion that “passion and effort” for critical literacy
must be integrated with “learning how to teach well,” which sometimes

necessitates acting within the system. Sometimes, the realities of “teaching with

282

one foot inside the system” means accepting thatthe shades of gray between

traditional and critical teaching are good places to be.

283

APPENDICES

284

APPENDIX A

THIRTEEN WAYS OF LOOKING AT A BLACKBIRD
BY WALLACE STEVENS

I

Among twenty snowy mountains,
The only moving thing

Was the eye of the blackbird.

II

I was of three minds,

Like a tree

In which there are three blackbirds.
Ill

The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds.
It was a small part of the pantomime.

IV

A man and a woman

Are one.

A man and a woman and a blackbird
Are one.

V

I do not know which to prefer,
The beauty of inflections

Or the beauty of innuendoes,
The blackbird whistling

Or just after.

VI

lcicles filled the long window
With barbaric glass.

The shadow of the blackbird
Crossed it, to and fro.

The mood

Traced in the shadow

An indecipherable cause.

Vll

O thin men of Haddam,

Why do you imagine golden birds?
Do you not see how the blackbird

285

Walks around the feet
Of the women about you?

Vlll

I know noble accents

And lucid, inescapable rhythms;
But I know, too,

That the blackbird is involved

In what I know.

IX

When the blackbird flew out of sight, .
It marked the edge

Of one of many circles.

X

At the sight of blackbirds
Flying in a green light,

Even the bawds of euphony
Would cry out sharply.

XI

He rode over Connecticut

In a glass coach.

Once, a fear pierced him,

In that he mistook

The shadow of his equipage
For blackbirds.

XII

The river is moving.

The blackbird must be flying.
XIII

It was evening all afternoon.
It was snowing

And it was going to snow.
The blackbird sat

In the cedar-limbs.

286

APPENDIX B

WHERE I’M FROM
BY GEORGE ELLA LYON

I am from clothespins,

from Clorox and carbon-tetrachloride

I am from the dirt under the back porch.
(Black, glistening

it tasted like beets.)

I am from the forsythia bush,

the Dutch elm

whose long gone limbs I remember

as if they were my own.

I am from fudge and eyeglasses,
from Imogene and Alafair.

I’m from the know-it—alls

and the pass-it-ons,

from perk up and pipe down.

I’m from He restoreth my soul
with a cottonball lamp

and ten verses I can say myself.

I’m from Artemus and Billie’s Branch,
fried corn and strong coffee.

From the finger my grandfather lost
to the auger

the eye my father shut to keep his sight.
Under my bed was a dress box
spilling old pictures,

a sift of lost faces

to drift beneath my dreams.

I am from those moments -

snapped before I budded -

leaf—fall from the family tree.

287

BIBLIOGRAPHY

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, N. (1995). What does it mean? Exploring the myths of multicultural
education. Urban Education, 30(1), 27-39.

Adler, M. (1982). The Paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York:
Macmillan.

All will succeed. (2000). North Central Public School District.

Allen, J . B. (1999). Class actions: Teaching for social justice in elementary and
middle school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Alvarado, M. (1983). The question of media studies. In M. Alvarado 8 O. Boyd-
Barrett (Eds.). (1992). Media education: An introduction (pp. 94-96). London:
The British Film Institute.

Alverman, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Executive
Summary and Paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference.
Chicago, Illinois: National Reading Conference.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1),
342.

Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Atkinson, P., 8 Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In
N. K. Denzin 8 Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
248-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading and
Ieaming. New York: BoyntonlCook Publishers. Reprint Edition.

Au, K. H., Mason, J.M., 8 Scheu, J. A. (1995). Literacy instruction for today. New
York: HarperCoIlins College Publishers.

Banks, J. (1999). Multicultural education in the new century. School
Administrator, 56(6), 8-10.

Barrera, R. (1992). The Cultural gap in literature-based literacy instruction.
Education and Urban Society, 24(2), 227-243.

Behar, R. 8 Gordon, D. A. (1995). Women writing culture. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Berry, J. (1998). Nurturing the imagination of resistance: Young adults as

289

creators of knowledge. In J. L. Kincheloe 8 S. R. Steinberg (Eds),
Unauthorized methods: Strategies for critical teaching. New York:
Routledge.

Bigelow, B., Christensen, L., Karp, S., Miner, B., 8 Peterson, B. (1994).
Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice. Milwaukee,
Wisconsin: Rethinking Schools.

Birch, D. (1989). Language, literature and critical practice. London: Routledge.

Bowles, S., 8 Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational
reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.

Britzman, D. (1995). The question of belief: Writing poststructural ethnography.
Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 229-238.

Britzman, D. (1997). The tangles of implication. Qualitative Studies in Education,
10(1), 31-37.

Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of Ieaming to teach.
Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Revised Edition.

Butin, D. W. (2002). This ain’t talk therapy: Problematizing and extending anti-
oppressive education. Educational Researcher, 31 (3), 14-16. ‘

Carson, T., 8 Sumara, D. (1997). Action research as aliving practice. New York:
Peter Lang.

Ca rs pecken, P. F. (1996). Critical efirnography in educational research: A
theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Cervetti, G. (2004). Critical literacy: Struggles over meaning. (Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University).

Chisholm, I.M. (1994). Preparing teachers for multicultural classrooms. Journal of
Educational Issues of Language-Minority Students, 14, 43-68.

Christensen, L. (1994). Whose standard? Teaching standard English in our
schools. In B. Bigelow, L. Christensen, S. Karp, B. Miner, 8 B. Peterson
(Eds.), Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice.
Milwaukee, Wisoncinsin: Rethinking Schools.

Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up : Teaching about social
justice and the power of the written word. Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
Rethinking Schools.

Christensen, L. (2003). Washington DC. Personal communication.

290

Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography,
literature, and art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Clough, P. T. (1998). Comments on setting criteria for experimental writing.
Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 278-291.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the
answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language
diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal,
32(3), 493-522.

Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ca change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),
Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and
practice (pp. 7-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.

Cohen, D. K., 8 Neufeld, B. (1981). The failure of high schools and the progress
of education. Daedalus (1 10), 69-89.

Comber, B. (1994). Critical literacy: An introduction to Australian debates and
perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 655-668.

Cu ban, L. (1 993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in Amerimn
classrooms 7880- 7990. New York: Teachers College.

Damico, J. (2003). Education as practices of freedom: Critical literacy in a 5’”
grade classroom. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University).

Delpit, L (1996). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: The New Press.

Delpit, L. (2001). The politics of teaching literate discourse. In E. Cushman, E. R.
Kintgen, B. Kroll, 8 M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy:A critical sourcebook. New
York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Denzin, N. K. (1995). The experiential text and the limits of visual understanding.
Educational Theory, 45(1), 7-18.

Denzin, N. K. (1998). The new ethnography. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 27(3), 405-415.

Denzin, N. K., 8 Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

291

Dixon, A. (2004). Washington DC. Personal communication.

Dudley-Marling, C., 8 Fine, E. (1997). Politics of whole language. Reading 8
Writing Quarterly, 13, 247-260.

Edelsky, C. (1996). With literacy and justice for all. London: Taylor and Francis.
Edelsky, C. (1999). Making justice our project. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the
repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 59(3),
297-324.

Featherstone. H. (1995). The scary part is that it happens without us knowing.
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (Craft Paper 95-6).
East Lansing, Michigan.

Fecho, B. (2000). Critical inquiries into language in an urban classroom.
Research in the Teaching of English, (34)3, 368-395.

F ehring, H., 8 Green, P. (2001). Critical literacy: A collection of articles from the
Australian literacy educators’ association. Newark, Delaware: International
Reading Association.

Feiman-Nemser, S., Parker, M. B., 8 Zeichner, K. (1992). Are mentor teachers
teacher educators? National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
(Issue Paper Number 92-11). East Lansing, Michigan.

Feiman-Nemser, S., 8 Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on Ieaming to teach.
National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (Issue Paper 95-3).
East Lansing, Michigan.

Finn, P.J. (1999). Literacy with an attitude. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Flinders, D. J., 8 Eisner, E. W. (1994). Educational criticism as a form of qualitative
inquiry. Research in the Teaching of English, 28 (4), 341-357.

Freire, P. (1985). fire politics of education : Culture, power, and liberation.
Hadley, Massachusetts: Bergin 8 Garvey.

F reire, P. (1996). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.
Reprint Edition.

Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Reprint
Edition.

292

Freire, P., 8 Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading fire word and the world.
Westport, Connecticut: Bergin 8 Garvey.

Gay, G. (1988). Redesigning relevant curricula for diverse learners. Education
and Urban Society, 2(4), 327-340.

Gee, J . P. (1992). fire social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New
York: Bergin 8 Garvey.

Gee, JP. (2000). Language and literacy: Reading Paolo Freire empirically.
Unpublished draft sent in personal communication.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Literacy, discourse and linguistics: Introduction and what is
literacy. In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. Kroll, 8 M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy:
A critical sourcebook. New York: BedfordlSt. Martin’s.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic
Books.

Giroux, H. A. (1987). Critical literacy and student empowerment: Donald Graves’
approach to literacy. Language Arts, 64(2), 175-1 81 .

Gi roux, H. A. (1 988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of
Ieaming. Granby, Massachusetts: Bergin 8 Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1997). Where have all the public intellectuals gone? Racial politics,
pedagogy and disposable youth. Journal ofAdvanced Composition, 17(2),
191-205.

Glazier, J., Shallard, S., 8 Brown, R. (2003). Developing critical literacy: Locating
self and other in the context of a professional development experience. In
J. Rausch (Ed.), Developing behavioral literacy. Washington DC: Institute
for Educational Policy Studies. (George Washington University).

Goodson, I. (1998). Towards an alternative pedagogy. In J. L. Kincheloe 8 S. R.
Steinberg (Eds.), Unauthon'zed methods: Strategies for critical teaching.
New York: Routledge.

Gore, J. M. (1998). On the limits to empowerment through critical and feminist
pedagogies. In D. Carlson 8 M. W. Apple (Eds), Power, knowledge,
pedagogy: 77re meaning of democratic education in unsettling times.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Greene, M. (1988). Research currents: What are the language arts for?
Language Arts, 65, 474-480.

Greene, M. (2000). The ambiguities of freedom. English Education, 33(1), 8-14.

293

Gruwell, E. (1999). The Freedom writers diary: How a teacher and 750 teens
used writing to change themselves and the world around them. New York:
Doubleday Main Street Books.

Hammersley, M., 8 Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New
York: Routledge.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words : Language, life, and work in communities
and classrooms. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (2001). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and
literate traditions. In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. Kroll, 8 M. Rose
(Eds.), Literacy:A critical sourcebook. New York: BedfordlSt. Martin’s.

Hinton, S. E. (1997). 7779 Outsiders. New York: Puffin Books. Reprint Edition.

Hirsch, E. D. (1996). fire schools we need: Why we don’t have firem. New York:
Doubleday.

Hollingswo rth, S. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy education:
Lessons and conversations in a feminist key. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Jackson, K. (1990). Life in Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Reprint edition.

Johnson, L. (1995). Dangerous minds: 77rey were the problem kids with one last
chance her. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Jones, A. (1989). The cultural production of classroom practice. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 10(1).

Jordan, J. (1995). Poetry for the people: A revolutionary blueprint. New York:
Routledge.

Kincheloe, J. (1997). Fiction formulas: Critical constructivism and the
representation of reality. In W. G.Tiemey 8 Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Representation and the text Reframing the narrative voice. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. 8 Steinberg, S. R. (1998). Unauthon'zed methods. Strategies for
critical teaching. New York: Routledge.

Kingsolver, B. (1998). The poisonwood bible. New York: HarperFlamingo.

294

Kohl, H. (1994). I won ’t Ieam from you: And ofirer thoughts on creative
maladjustments. New York: New Press.

Kohl, H. (2000). A veteran educator offers pedagogical and personal suggestions
learned over 30 years experience. Refirinking Schools, 15(2), 15-17.

Kumashiro, K. (2002). Against repetition: Addressing resistance to anti-

oppressive change in the practices of learning, teaching, supervising, and
researching. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 67-75.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. 77reory Into Practice, 34(2), 159-165.

Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on
problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-194.

Language arts guide. (2000). North Central Public School District.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Buckingham, Great Britain: Open
University Press.

La reau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in
elementary education. New York: The Falmer Press.

Lareau, A., 8 Shultz, J. J. (1996). Journeys through efirnography .' Realistic
accounts of fieldwork. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-
277.

Lather, P. (1991). Deconstructing/Deconstructive inquiry: The politics of knowing
and being known. Educational 777eory, 41(2), 153-167.

Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-
structural perspectives. Theory lnto Practice, 31 (2), 87-99.

Lazar, A. M. (2004). Learning to be literacy teachers in urban schools: Stories of
growth and change. Philadelphia: St. Joseph’s University.

Lee, E. (1985). Letters to Marcia: A teacher’s guide to anti-racist education.
Toronto, Ontario: Cross Cultural Communications Centre.

Le nsmire, T. (1994). When children write: Critical re- visions of the writing
workshop. New York: Teachers College Press. .

Little, J. (1995, March 2). Class act: Tale of the tape, crowd attends hearing
about besieged teacher. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 1A.

295

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lubienski, S. T. (1997). Successes and struggles of striving toward mathematics
for all: A closer look at socio-economic class. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(March).

Luke, A. (1991). Literacies as social practices. English Education, 131 -147.

Luke, A. (1995). When basic skills and information processing just aren’t enough:
Rethinking reading in new times. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 95-1 15. '

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448-461 .

Luke, A., O’Brien, J., 8 Comber, B. (2001). Making community texts objects of
study. In H. Fehring 8 P. Green (Eds.), Critical literacy:A collection of
articles from the Australian literacy educators ’ association. Newark,
Delaware: lntemational Reading Association.

Macedo, D. (2003). Literacy matters. Language Arts, 18(1), 12-20.

MacLeod, J. (1995). Airr ’t no makirr’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-
income neighborhood. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Macrorie, K. (1988). The l-Search Paper. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
BoyntonlCook Publishers.

Maher, F. A. (1999). Progressive educational theory today: Inclusiveness and
power. Teachers College Record, 101(1), 35-60.

Mandela, N. (1995). Long walk to freedom: The autobiography of Nelson
Mandela. New York: Back Bay Books.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge 8
Kegan Paul.

Marcus, G. E. (1994). What comes (just) after ”post”? The case of ethnography. In N.
K. Denzin 8 Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 563-
574). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

McLaren, P. (1992). Collisions with otherness: “Traveling” theory, post-colonial
criticism, and the politics of ethnographic practice - the mission of the
wounded ethnographer. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(1), 77-92.

296

McLa ren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. New York: Longman. Third edition.

McLaren, P. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: Reflecting upon Paolo Freire’s
politics of education. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 49-54.

McMillan, J. H., 8 Schumacher, S. (1984). Research in education. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.

McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school
knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Michaels, S. (1984). Listening and responding: Hearing the logic in children’s
classroom narratives, Theory into Practice, 23(3),.218-224.

Michell, M.(1999). Reading and writing their worlds : Portrayals of practice in
teaching for critical literacy. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State
University).

Nieto, S. (2000). Atfimring diversity. The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education. New York: Longman. Third edition.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of
constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24, 5-12.

Purcell-Gates, V. 8 Waterman, R. (2000). Now we read we see, we speak:
Portrait of literacy development in an adult Freirean-based class.
Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Oakes, J., 8 Lipton, M. (1999 ). Teaching to change the world. Boston: McGraw-
Hill Press.

Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary: 777e struggles and achievements of
America ’s underprepared. New York: Free Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem : The transactional theory
of the literary work. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Schoen bach, R. (1999). Reading for understanding : A guide to improving
reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco : Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Segall, A. (1999). Disturbing practice: Reading social studies teacher education
as text. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia).

Segall, A. (2002). Disturbing practice: Reading teacher education as text. New
York: Peter Lang.

297

 

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for Ieaming and the dangers of choosing just
one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

Shannon, P. (1992). Becoming political: Readings and writings in the politics of
literacy education. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Shor, l. (1996). When students have power: Negotiating aufirority in a critical
pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sleete r, C., 8 Grant, C. (1994). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company. Second edition.

Smith, F. (1995). Let's declare education a disaster and get on with our lives. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76(8), 584-590.

Spindler, G., 8 Spindler, L. (Eds.). (1987). Interpretive ethnography of education: At
home and abroad. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Standards for instructional content r'rr language arts. (2000). North Central
Public School District.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., 8 Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of
professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in
new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237-270.

Street, B. (2001). The new literacy studies. In E. Cushman, E. R.
Kintgen, B. Kroll, 8 M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy:A critical sourcebook. New
York: BedfordlSt. Martin’s.

Szwed, J. F. (2001). The ethnography of literacy. In E. Cushman, E. R.
Kintgen, B. Kroll, 8 M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy:A critical sourcebook. New
York: BedfordlSt. Martin’s.

Terhune, L. (1995, Feb. 21). Students need room to Ieam. 77re St. Louis Post-
Dispatch. p. 10B.

Tyler, S. A. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult
document. In J. Clifford 8 G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics
and politics of ethnography (pp. 122-140). Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

298

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago 8
London: University of Chicago Press.

White, H. (1973). Metahistory. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Willinsky, J. (1990). The New Literacy: Redefining reading and writing in the
schools. New York: Routledge.

Willinsky, J. (2001). After literacy. New York: Peter Lang.

Wilson, L. (2001). Critical literacy and pop music magazines. In Fehring, H. 8
Green, P. (Eds.). Critical literacy: A collection of articles from the
Australian literacy educators’ association. Newark, Delaware:
lntemational Reading Association.

Walk, 1998, A democratic Classroom. Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.

Zeichner, K. (1995a). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic
research. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 1 (2), 153-172.

Zeichner, KM. (1995). Educating teachers to close the achievement gap: Issues
of pedagogy, knowledge, and teacher preparation. In B. Williams (Ed.),
Closing the achievement gap: A vision to guide change in beliefs and
practice (pp. 39-52). Washington, DC: US. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

299

 

   

lljllll‘jljjl‘lflljljjjjllljljjlI