Our reading from Smeyers (2006) this week reminded me of a controversy with which I've struggled since I became a teacher. I've spoken to my peers in teacher's college about it, as well as my current colleagues. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, if you have time.
Implicit in Smeyer's (2006) discussion on education philosophy is where politics finds itself in pedagogy. There is the saying, "politics is in everything;" there is also the idea that schools should be free of politics. My fundamental question here is, is it possible to maintain a depoliticized identity as a teacher? If so, should this be the ideal?
This is what I know: the British Columbia Code of Ethics (BCTF, 2022) does not recognize that a teacher must maintain a depoliticized position; however, a degree of neutrality may be implied in code 3: "The member refrains from exploiting that relationship [with students] for... ideological, or other advantage" (n.p.). Forbes released an article this year (Greene, 2022) on politics in pedagogy, and they observed that schools used to once be neutral, but now are frequently political sites. A brief survey into our Queen's library resources points to benefits of politicizing the classroom, where it comes to representing minority voices and rights (Lane, 2018).
I think another facet of this conversation is to consider the ways in which politics may appear in one's pedagogy. One doesn't need to teach Social Studies and History to appear politicized; if philosophy is an undercurrent of our practice, can we not make the argument that politics may be, as well? I suppose what I mean is, take the net neutrality movement in the mid 2010's: there was a push to ensure equal access (and speed of access) online to content, regardless of ideologies and objectives. In the context of teaching, we have all experienced that pressure to make a year's worth of curriculum fit into our instructional minutes: so how do we divvy up the topics, the frameworks, the perspectives addressed? Is it fully equal representation? I can tell you that, in our rhetoric unit in New Media 10, we spend a lot more time analyzing the Churchills and Obamas of the world than we do the Hitlers and Mussolinis. This is not to say that the Hitlers of the world are poor orators; someone could say that this is a political act I have taken in deciding how I select resources and allocate class time.
I recognize this may be an uncomfortable or otherwise sticky topic, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts. If this public forum isn't a preferred space, feel free to comment in our Discussions section on OnQ.
Thanks in advance for your time.
References
British Columbia Teachers Federation. (2022). BCTF Code of Ethics. BCTF. https://www.bctf.ca/about-the-bctf/bctf-ethics
Greene, P. (2022). Education and the politicizing of everything. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2022/06/14/education-and-the-politicizing-of-everything/?sh=73c231bc5712
Lane. (2018). “For Real Love”: How Black Girls Benefit from a Politicized Ethic of Care. International Journal of Educational Reform, 27(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791802700303
Smeyers. (2006). What Philosophy can and cannot do for Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-006-6427-x
Hi Kaitlin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this post! I found it to be very interesting to read and thought provoking.
I do think it's possible to maintain a depoliticized identity as a teacher, but it depends on the context. As a primary teacher (Grade 1), I believe maintaining a depoliticized identity within my practice is easier simply because my students are so young. However, if someone were to be teaching upper elementary school or a high school course that involves discourse around politics in some way, shape or form, I imagine it would be extremely challenging (if not impossible).
To answer your second question about whether a depoliticized identity in teaching is ideal or not, that's a tricky one. If I had to lean one way or the other, I think I would argue in favour of letting teachers be their true authentic selves (even if that means expressing their political leanings). Students are going to encounter people with different political perspectives throughout their lives, and I think it is important for them to learn to respect other viewpoints even if they don't match their own. From my own experience, I remember when I was in Grade 5 and my teacher told our class that he was a member of the Conservative Party as part of our unit on government. I had not met many adults at the time that were that open with their political viewpoints, so I appreciated hearing his points of view on a variety of topics and his justifications for them. I didn't always agree, but I found that experience to be valuable for me.
Keep up the great work,
- Jordan
Hi Kaitlin,
ReplyDeleteYou ask an interesting question, and provide some very balanced possible answers. I agree that sometimes it's difficult to separate parts of one's identity from one's teaching. Is this always necessary? Yes, and no. For example, I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and a follower of the Bible. Can I separate this from who I am? No, because it IS who I am; that's inevitably going to affect how I live, and how I teach.
Do I tell students? Well, if they ask, sure. I might also connect it to things that we are learning about in class. For example, I might say, when we're learning about world religions in Social Studies, that "many members of the Christian religion do/believe x, y, or z. For example, I attend church on Sundays." I'm also probably firmer on my prohibition of profanity in my classroom due to my beliefs, though I don't link it directly to a personal belief.
I am also careful not to indoctrinate my students; that's now why I am there, and that's not why they are there. I try to ensure that whatever I cover in the classroom is linked to curriculum expectations, and if something comes up that is authentically connected, I might, very carefully, tread that road. However, I know that people are very sensitive to the separation of church and state, so I exercise prudence.
How does all of this relate to your question on politicization, you might ask? I think that there is a difference between referencing a belief, and proselytizing or influencing others in the direction of your political (or religious/social, etc.). Although I suppose the very fact that we are in a position of leadership and authority means we have to be even more careful.
One of the issues I have with the current trend or social reconstructionism in curricular philosophy is that it is the duty of teachers to create a generation of students to challenge the social structure. While this might sound exciting and romantic, the weakness I see is that it relies heavily on what the individual teacher believes to be matters of importance, and therefore reflect a teacher's bias. In many cases I'm sure there would be a focus on broad, justifiable social concerns. But I've seen teachers very clearly driven by their own social agendas. A few quotes might help demonstrate the tenets of social reconstructionism:
"The primary purpose of the social reconstructionist curriculum is to confront the learner with the many severe problems that humankind faces. Social reconstructionists believe that these problems are not the exclusive concern of "social studies" but of every discipline, including economics, aesthetics, chemistry, and mathematics" (McNeil, 2009, p.27).
"Reconceptualists are interested in curricula's interactions with political, economic, social, moral, and artistic forces." (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p.8)
"Social reconstructionists hold that all teachers are political persons who must choose either to serve whoever is in power (conservatives) or be opponents to those in power (social reconstructionists)." (McNeil, 2009, p.28).
"Social Reconstructionists assume that education is the social process through which society is reconstructed" (Schiro, 2013, p.6).
References:
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Read part of Chapter 1, pp. 1-8.
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.