1. UMANO
  Learners can enhance their listening competence by selecting the articles of their own interest. They can also listen the articles they choose with the sound of native English speakers. All of these functions is offered by Umano. Umano is very useful tool to provide various articles and web pages by offering native voices. It is usually not easy for busy people to check and watch everyday newspapers or news. But Umano ceaselessly updates enormous articles and information everyday. Learners make the most of this applications with their smart phone everywhere and every moment. It is really impossible to listen every information updated everyday.

2. English Restart Reading
  As mentioned above, Umano is such a good application. However, it is so difficult in that it is targeted to native speaker. It provides script but it is too fast and the content is not easy for learners to understand. So Umano is not appropriate for beginners, and the easier version of listening app, English Restart Reading is highly recommended for the 1st level leaners. Although this is an application for reading, it is actually useful to practice listening. There are 15 kinds of stories, which is not so much nor too little. The length and level of the materials provided by English Restart Reading is proper for most of learners in Korea who are intermediate. The content is interesting, containing common sense useful not only for students but also for adult learners as well. There are also a variety of vocabulary and expression, which helps learners improve their listening skills. Moreover, English Restart Reading is convenient to use. Learners just listen, and the script is on the screen with automatic highlighting of what is read.

3. TED+SUB: TED Talks with Subtitles
  TED+SUB(TED Talks with Subtitles) shows learners the lectures of famous people with clear video clip. Without any membership, anyone can use this application to watch the video of TED web site with subtitles. Learners can select subtitle language, usually English. Learners can play video directly or download the one into their mobile phone. Above all, the content is very good and informative, providing diverse topics and contents from various backgrounds of speakers with powerful deliverance.

4. Bee VOA
  VOA(Voice of America) is one of the news sites which provides overall news about U.S. since 1942 with Korean service as well. It has informed outside the world of news inside Korea such as Japanese colonial era, liberation of Korea and the Korean war. Bee VOA is android application of VOA. They are many functions of Bee VOA, which helps learners improve their listening skills. One of them, VOA Special English, reads the articles to promote better listening. Especially, it is effective for beginners to enhance their listening competence. Not only does it update articles of various categories like U.S., World, Economy, Society and Education, but it also read them by real native voices accurately and slowly. For the intermediate and advanced learners, it is useful and challenging to listen VOA News, the news themselves and native voice for them. Also, learners can approach the bookmarked articles whenever they want and even download the voice file of the articles.

5. CNN Student New
  Actually, VOA and CNN is difficult for beginners or students to listen because news generally treat with professional sphere and contents with specific vocabulary. So CNN Student News, adapted version of previous CNN news, could be alternative. It is on air during the semester of student and stops when the vacation begins. It provides recent CNN news with relatively easy vocabulary for student level. Learners use this application for practicing English or listening world wide news. This application makes people listen CNN students news.

Narrow Reapeated Reading2(Justification and practical interests on dispatching Korean troops to Iraq)

1. Already in question, President George W. Bush's justification for war in Iraq has suffered another major setback. An independent commission threw cold water on the administration's interest claims of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. It said there was no evidence Iraq and al-Qaida has a collaborative relationship. That comes on top of the administration's failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Both ideas had been central ingredients of Bush's rationale for invading.

2. Recent events suggest that the United States and South Korea are acting more like allies again, reflecting in their decisions a greater sensitivity for their partner's interests. The United States welcomes Korea's support in coping with the reconstruction needs of a beleaguered Iraq; South Korean authorities are equally pleased to see a more accommodating U.s. diplomatic posture toward North Korea. These decisions do not appear to have been linked in any kind of formal *quid pro quo. However, there does seem to have been an implicit tradeoff reflecting the spirit of reciprocity.[*quid pro quo: 'something that is given or done in exchange for something else']
 
3. The reason has to do with the price a country must pay as it moves from being a "developing country" to a "developed country." The responsibilities are greater. One of those responsibilities is to be an integrated part fo the world community. This means not only providing supplies to needy countries, but also sending a statement of support for the U.S. decision to enter Iraq. Our goal is to help rebuild the country and maintain peace by preventing terrorists and other radical groups from taking control of the country and creating a new oppressive totalitarian regime.

Narrow Reapeated Reading1(Three Paradoxes of competition)

1. Competition is the selfish pursuit of happiness; through competition individual selfishness leads to universal happiness. For example, a selfish shopkeeper gives a better service than the next one to attract customers. If all shopkeepers are equally selfish, then the shopper will get the best of all possible deals.


2. Competition simultaneously creates wealth and poverty. It has made possible the enormous material progress of the past 200 years by unlocking the energies of society, yet it has spelt misery for tens of millions of workers involved in the creation of that wealth.


3. Competition means that you as a person can have more but be less. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world yet suffers the loss of his soul? In any competition, winners are rewarded with prizes. In the contemporary society everyday status attaches to the external trappings of wealth-the house, the car, etc. We are all to often judged by what we own rather than by what we are.

Bilingual Education

Does Bilingual Education Really Work? Literally hundreds of scientific studies over the past half century have shown that bilingual education – when well designed and well implemented – is an effective approach for teaching second language learners. These findings have been consistent across numerous national borders and languages of instruction, all pointing to the conclusion that bilingual education "works." To cite just one example, a major longitudinal study released in 1991 by the U.S. Department of Education found that the more schools developed children's native-language skills, the higher they scored academically over the long term in English. Students also benefited from acquiring fluency and literacy in two languages. Of course, simply using two languages in the classroom is no panacea. Bad teaching is bad teaching in any language. What matters is how the languages are used – simply to provide translations or to stimulate students' cognitive and academic growth. What are the program's goals – a "quick exit" to the mainstream or the development of fluent bilingualism and biliteracy? Are teachers well trained to meet the needs of English language learners (ELLs)? Does the school provide adequate resources, materials, and support services? Are parents involved in their children's education? Is the program supported by the local school board and district administrators? It is important to know that not all programs labeled "bilingual" are the same. Some feature only limited use of children's native language, often provided by teacher aides with limited training. Others set arbitrary limits on the length of time that children can spend in bilingual classrooms, transferring them to regular, all-English classrooms before they are ready. An increasing number of schools, under pressure from the No Child Left Behind Act, have narrowed the curriculum to focus exclusively on test preparation in language arts and math. By and large, such programs have fared poorly in research studies as compared with programs that stress children's cognitive growth and bilingual abilities. Nevertheless, all these approaches are often lumped together in research designed to compare the effectiveness of bilingual education with all-English instruction for ELLs. In such cases, when good programs and bad programs are averaged together, the results are typically mediocre. By contrast, when research is designed to test the theories underlying bilingual education, the programs have shown to be quite effective. Here are three recent examples: Ramirez et al. (1991). This federally funded study traced the progress of more than 2,000 Spanish-speaking ELLs in nine school districts in five states over a four-year period. It found that students in developmental bilingual programs – which featured a gradual transition to English – significantly outperformed their counterparts in quick-exit, transitional bilingual programs and in all-English immersion programs when all three groups were tested in English. Oller and Eilers (2000). The researchers compared 952 students in Dade County, Florida, enrolled in bilingual and English immersion programs. It reported that bilingual children scored higher in English literacy by 2nd grade – a gap that widened significantly by 5th grade. Thomas and Collier (2002). Another federally funded study, this research confirmed the patterns reported by Ramirez et al. ELLs in Houston did better academically in programs that stressed native-language development. They fared best in two-way – a.k.a. dual immersion – programs in which English-speaking children learned Spanish alongside ELLs learning English. Why Is Bilingual Education Controversial? For many Americans, bilingual education seems to defy common sense – not to mention the Melting Pot tradition. They ask: If non-English-speaking students are isolated in foreign-language classrooms, how are they ever going to learn English, the key to upward mobility? What was wrong with the old "sink or swim" method that worked for generations of earlier immigrants?  Isn't bilingual education just another example of "political correctness" run amok – the inability to say no to a vociferous ethnic lobby? Some English Only advocates go further, arguing that even if bilingual education is effective – which they doubt – it's still a bad idea for the country because bilingualism threatens to sap our sense of national identity and divide us along ethnic lines. They fear that any government recognition of minority languages "sends the wrong message" to immigrants, encouraging them to believe they can live in the U.S.A. without learning English or conforming to "American" ways. Such complaints have made bilingual education a target of political attacks. Among the most serious to date are ballot initiatives in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts mandating all-English instruction for most children until they become fully proficient in English. These arbitrary restrictions on bilingual education have dismantled effective programs and made it harder for educators to serve English language learners. No doubt many of the objections to bilingual education are lodged in good faith. Others reflect ethnic stereotypes or class biases. Sad to say, they all reflect a pervasive ignorance about how bilingual education works, how second languages are acquired, and how the nation has responded to non-English-speaking groups in the past. Facts vs. Fallacies Like many scientific findings, the research supporting bilingual education is often counterintuitive. That is, it contradicts what seems obvious to laypersons. Using Spanish-language instruction as part of a program to teach English sounds a bit like: "Go West to arrive in the East." These ideas make more sense when one realizes that the world is round, not flat. Or that proficiency in a second language does not develop separately in the brain, but builds on proficiency in the first language. Here are a few facts that everyone should know about bilingual education: Teaching English is among the chief goals of every bilingual program in the United States, along with promoting long-term academic achievement in English and – in some cases – enabling children to develop fluent bilingualism and biliteracy. The effectiveness of bilingual education in meeting these goals has been well established by research over the past three decades – not only for English language learners but also for native-English speakers acquiring another language. The English-only, "sink or swim" method was a cruel failure for generations of immigrant and Native American children, leading to low academic achievement and high dropout rates. That's why the Bilingual Education Act was passed – with overwhelming bipartisan support – in 1968. Bilingual education is closely associated with the civil-rights movement of that period. But it has a long history in this country dating back to the Colonial Period. During the 19th and early 20th centuries native-language instruction was at least as widespread as it is today – except that German, not Spanish, was most commonly used. English was not "threatened" then or now. In two or three generations immigrants and indigenous minorities learned English and often lost their native languages. Linguistic assimilation is, if anything, more rapid today than at any time in U.S. history. The trend is evident in the latest Census reports, and it's nothing to be applauded. Today, more than ever, we need multilingual skills to enhance national security and prosper in a global economy.

What is Bilingual Ed.?  Why Bilingual Ed.?  Is it Effective?   Politics of Bilingual Ed?   Success Stories What Is Bilingual Education? Bilingual education has been practiced in many forms, in many countries, for thousands of years. Defined broadly, it can mean any use of two languages in school – by teachers or students or both – for a variety of social and pedagogical purposes. In today’s context, a period of demographic transformation in United States, bilingual education means something more specific. It refers to approaches in the classroom that use the native languages of English language learners (ELLs) for instruction. Goals include: • teaching English, • fostering academic achievement, • acculturating immigrants to a new society, • preserving a minority group’s linguistic and cultural heritage, • enabling English speakers to learn a second language, • developing national language resources, or • any combination of the above. How does bilingual education work?In different ways, because numerous program models are used. These are often classified as transitional, developmental, or two-way bilingual education, depending on the program’s methods and goals. But within these short-hand categories there are significant variations: Sometimes the transition to the all-English mainstream is rapid (one to three years), sometimes gradual (five to six years). Classrooms may be composed entirely of ELLs, or they may include native English speakers who are learning Spanish, Chinese, Navajo, or some other language. Students are sometimes taught a full curriculum in their native language and in English. Elsewhere ELLs may receive only native-language support – periodic translations or tutoring – with lessons conducted primarily in English. Why Bilingual Education?ERIC Digest by Stephen Krashen Bilingual education continues to receive criticism in the national media. This Digest examines some of the criticism, and its effect on public opinion, which often is based on misconceptions about bilingual education's goals and practice. The Digest explains the rationale underlying good bilingual education programs and summarizes research findings about their effectiveness. When schools provide children quality education in their primary language, they give them two things: knowledge and literacy. The knowledge that children get through their first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read by reading – that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994) – it is easier to learn to read in a language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general. The combination of first language subject matter teaching and literacy development that characterizes good bilingual programs indirectly but powerfully aids students as they strive for a third factor essential to their success: English proficiency. Of course, we also want to teach in English directly, via high quality English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) classes, and through sheltered subject matter teaching, where intermediate-level English language acquirers learn subject matter taught in English. Putting It All Together The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream. In advanced levels, the only subjects done in the first language are those demanding the most abstract use of language (social studies and language arts). Once full mainstreaming is complete, advanced first language development is available as an option. Gradual exit plans, such as these, avoid problems associated with exiting children too early (before the English they encounter is comprehensible) and provide instruction in the first language where it is most needed. These plans also allow children to have the advantages of advanced first language development. Success Without Bilingual Education? A common argument against bilingual education is the observation that many people have succeeded without it. This has certainly happened. In these cases, however, the successful person got plenty of comprehensible input in the second language, and in many cases had a de facto bilingual education program. For example, Rodriguez (1982) and de la Pena (1991) are often cited as counter-evidence to bilingual education. Rodriguez (1982) tells us that he succeeded in school without a special program and acquired a very high level of English literacy. He had two crucial advantages, however, that most limited-English-proficient (LEP) children do not have. First, he grew up in an English-speaking neighborhood in Sacramento, California, and thus got a great deal of informal comprehensible input from classmates. Many LEP children today encounter English only at school; they live in neighborhoods where Spanish prevails. In addition, Rodriguez became a voracious reader, which helped him acquire academic language. Most LEP children have little access to books. De la Pena (1991) reports that he came to the United States at age nine with no English competence and claims that he succeeded without bilingual education. He reports that he acquired English rapidly, and "by the end of my first school year, I was among the top students." De la Pena, however, had the advantages of bilingual education: In Mexico, he was in the fifth grade, and was thus literate in Spanish and knew subject matter. In addition, when he started school in the United States he was put back two grades. His superior knowledge of subject matter helped make the English input he heard more comprehensible. Children who arrive with a good education in their primary language have already gained two of the three objectives of a good bilingual education program – literacy and subject matter knowledge. Their success is good evidence for bilingual education. What About Languages Other Than Spanish? Porter (1990) states that "even if there were a demonstrable advantage for Spanish-speakers learning to read first in their home language, it does not follow that the same holds true for speakers of languages that do not use the Roman alphabet" (p. 65). But it does. The ability to read transfers across languages, even when the writing systems are different. There is evidence that reading ability transfers from Chinese to English (Hoover, 1982), from Vietnamese to English (Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, Green, & Tran, 1984), from Japanese to English (Cummins et al.), and from Turkish to Dutch (Verhoeven, 1991). In other words, those who read well in one language, read well in the second language (as long as length of residence in the country is taken into account because of the first language loss that is common). Bilingual Education and Public Opinion Opponents of bilingual education tell us that the public is against bilingual education. This impression is a result of the way the question is asked. One can easily get a near-100-percent rejection of bilingual education when the question is biased. Porter (1990), for example, states that "Many parents are not committed to having the schools maintain the mother tongue if it is at the expense of gaining a sound education and the English-language skills needed for obtaining jobs or pursuing higher education" (p. 8). Who would support mother tongue education at such a price? However, when respondents are simply asked whether or not they support bilingual education, the degree of support is quite strong: From 60-99 percent of samples of parents and teachers say they support bilingual education (Krashen, 1996). In a series of studies, Shin (Shin, 1994; Shin & Gribbons, 1996) examined attitudes toward the principles underlying bilingual education. Shin found that many respondents agree with the idea that the first language can be helpful in providing background knowledge, most agree that literacy transfers across languages, and most support the principles underlying continuing bilingual education (economic and cognitive advantages). The number of people opposed to bilingual education is probably even less than these results suggest; many people who say they are opposed to bilingual education are actually opposed to certain practices (e.g., inappropriate placement of children) or are opposed to regulations connected to bilingual education (e.g., forcing teachers to acquire another language to keep their jobs). Despite what is presented to the public in the national media, research has revealed much support for bilingual education. McQuillan and Tse (1996) reviewed publications appearing between 1984 and 1994, and reported that 87 percent of academic publications supported bilingual education, but newspaper and magazine opinion articles tended to be antibilingual education, with only 45 percent supporting bilingual education. One wonders what public support would look like if bilingual education were more clearly defined in such articles and editorials. The Research Debate It is sometimes claimed that research does not support the efficacy of bilingual education. Its harshest critics, however (e.g., Rossell & Baker, 1996), do not claim that bilingual education does not work; instead, they claim there is little evidence that it is superior to all-English programs. Nevertheless, the evidence used against bilingual education is not convincing. One major problem is in labeling. Several critics, for example, have claimed that English immersion programs in El Paso and McAllen, Texas, were shown to be superior to bilingual education. In each case, however, programs labeled immersion were really bilingual education, with a substantial part of the day taught in the primary language. In another study, Gersten (1985) claimed that all-English immersion was better than bilingual education. However, the sample size was small and the duration of the study was short; also, no description of "bilingual education" was provided. For a detailed discussion, see Krashen (1996). On the other hand, a vast number of other studies have shown that bilingual education is effective, with children in well-designed programs acquiring academic English at least as well and often better than children in all-English programs (Cummins, 1989; Krashen, 1996; Willig, 1985). Willig concluded that the better the experimental design of the study, the more positive were the effects of bilingual education. Improving Bilingual Education Bilingual education has done well, but it can do much better. The biggest problem, in this author's view, is the absence of books – in both the first and second languages – in the lives of students in these programs. Free voluntary reading can help all components of bilingual education: It can be a source of comprehensible input in English or a means for developing knowledge and literacy through the first language, and for continuing first language development. Limited-English-proficient Spanish-speaking children have little access to books at home (about 22 books per home for the entire family according to Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991) or at school (an average of one book in Spanish per Spanish-speaking child in some school libraries in schools with bilingual programs, according to Pucci, 1994). A book flood in both languages is clearly called for. Good bilingual programs have brought students to the 50th percentile on standardized tests of English reading by grade five (Burnham-Massey & Pina, 1990). But with a good supply of books in both first and second languages, students can go far beyond the 50th percentile. It is possible that we might then have the Lake Wobegon effect, where all of the children are above average, and we can finally do away with the tests (and put the money saved to much better use). References Burnham-Massey, L., & Pina, M. (1990). Effects of bilingual instruction on English academic achievement of LEP students. Reading Improvement, 27(2), 129-132. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application, pp. 60-81. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. De la Pena, F. (1991). Democracy or Babel? The case for official English in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. English. Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language-minority students: Results of a longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-196. Hoover, W. (1982). Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminary report. Cantonese site analytic study. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. McQuillan, J., & Tse, L. (1996). Does research matter? An analysis of media opinion on bilingual education, 1984-1994. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(1), 1-27. Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books. Pucci, S. L. (1994). Supporting Spanish language literacy: Latino children and free reading resources in schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1-2), 67-82. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., & Pasta, D. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language-minority children (Final Report, Vols. 1 & 2). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. An autobiography. Boston: D. R. Godine. Rossell, C., & Baker, R. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74. Shin, F. (1994). Attitudes of Korean parents toward bilingual education. BEOutreach Newsletter, California State Department of Education, 5(2), pp. 47-48. Shin, F., & Gribbons, B. (1996). Hispanic parents' perceptions and attitudes of bilingual education. Journal of Mexican-American Educators, 16-22. Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum. Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of literacy. Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (AILA) Review, 8, 61-74. Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-316. Stephen Krashen is professor of education (emeritus) at the University of Southern California and author ofCondemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual Education (1999). He wrote this Digest for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools in Charleston, WV, in 1997. The publication was prepared with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Success Stories To view examples and learn about the specifics of effective bilingual education programs, visit Portraits of Success. The project is part of an ongoing partnership between NABE, Boston College, and the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University. Portraits of Success is supported by a wide range of experts who are working to develop a database on exemplary practices in bilingual education.

Opinion: Korean English Education

Despite an "education first" approach in South Korea, where children supplement public school classes with additional coursework at private academies, the system has failed its students and society in many areas. One such area is English education.

According Swiss-based Education First (WSJ), the average South Korean students receives about 20,000 hours of ESL education, 10,000 more than what many say is needed to master the subject. The nation pumps almost $18 billion (US) in the ESL industry each year. In fact, there's one private language academy for every 650 students. If that's the case, then why, in a survey of 60 nations, did South Korea rank 24th?

The answer is simple, the resolution; however, it not.

No matter what the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology does with assets in the classroom, Korea's ranking on this list will change little. No amount of money or reduction in overhead will change things. Hiring better trained teachers or curriculum won't resolve the issue either. The only way for Korea to improve its adoption of English and increase fluency among students is to better teach why it's important to learn and master the language.

When I ask students why they are learning English, I typically get three answers: 1) because it's required, 2) they want to speak to a foreigner, and 3) they want to watch a movie or television program.

These are "hobby" related answers, meaning you can do it any time and once your interests move into a different area, you'll stop the activity. Non-English speaking countries that have mastered the language have done so because they see value in it. They know that for economic development and growth, they must have mastery of English. It's a pathway to a better life via international communication.

That drive does not exist in Korea, despite the enormous pressure of academic success. Unless a long-term benefit is demonstrated, English education will always be nothing more than a money pit. South Korea has achieved economic success without widespread adoption of English. Those in the classroom today don't see English as a pathway to financial success. They don't see a need for it. It's the same reason why foreign language adoption in the United States is low, Americans just don't see a need to learn it.

What's needed is a paradigm shift in Korea, and sadly, I don't see it happening.

Article: http://www.qiranger.com/2013/11/17/en...

-= WEB SITES =-
G+: http://google.com/+SteveMiller_QiRanger
Twitter: http://twitter.com/qiranger
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/qiranger
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/qirangeradven...
Instagram: http://instagr.am/qiranger
Blog: http://qiranger.com
The Travel and News Channel: http://youtube.com/qiranger
The Vlog Channel: http://youtube.com/theqirangervlog
Podcast: http://qiranger.com/tqrap

TAGS: English Education,Teaching in Korea,Opinion,Editorial,South Korea,Korea,ESL

Beliefs about Social Justice in English Education

• last edited 4 years, 5 months ago
• content history

Conference on English Education, December 2009

Preamble

The United States’s first belief statement, the Declaration of Independence, asserts that all men [sic] are created equal; however, this promised ideal has failed. All people are not treated fairly, nor are they afforded the equality of opportunity that the Declaration implies. Instead, misues of power and privilege have oppressed and marginalized people based on differences of ethnicity, age, gender, ability, social class, political beliefs, marital status, size [height and /or weight], sexual orientation, gender expression, spiritual beliefs, language, and national origin. While the American educational system is supposed to mediate differences and provide equal opportunities for ALL students, schools often reinforce and reproduce injustice.

Through a sustained commitment to social justice in all its forms, English education can contribute to disrupting these inequitable hierarchies of power and privilege. This document outlines specific beliefs and recommendations toward this end.

Structure and Scope of the Document

This document is designed to provide policy makers, K-12 English teacher educators and their students, and those impacted by them, with meta-perspectives for understanding the importance of social justice both in and out of school contexts. We provide our seven beliefs about social justice and unpack them to explain each in more detail. With each belief, we enumerate with K-12 activities and assignments (that can be adapted to meet grade level needs and standards), provide an appendix with teacher educator activities and assignments that scaffold social justice into methods, provide considerations for research, and offer relevant resources for teachers to use in their classroom practice. Although not comprehensive, we recognize this as a work in progress that can be expanded over time and into future contexts. A goal of this document and its related research is to prime and move social justice into policy in English education.

Seven Beliefs about Social Justice in Schools

We believe that social justice is:

1. A goal that evades easy definition 
2. A grounded theory
3. A stance/position 
4. A pedagogy   
5. A process 
6. A framework for research  
7. A promise

The Beliefs Expanded

Belief 1: Definition of Social Justice

Social justice is definitionally complex; it ignites controversy, is not neutral, and varies by person, culture, social class, gender, context, space and time. In fact, when definitions are consensus bound, a consensus definition of social justice is not likely to satisfy the most open-minded of thinkers. Furthermore, social justice cannot be reified nor can it be traced to any one particular location because the definition localizes in the individual or in a collective, not in any governmental policy (Miller, forthcoming 2010). We recognize that many people committed to social justice live a life that extends the following beliefs to outside of school contexts and that we cannot write a belief statement that encompasses every person’s experiences. We further recognize that a commitment to enacting social justice in schools is activist-oriented. This definition is, therefore, bound to the K-12 Language Arts and English teacher education classroom contexts. We believe that a disposition committed to enacting social justice enables teachers to teach all students more fairly and equitably. For social justice to exist in our schools means that each student in our classrooms is entitled to the same opportunities for academic achievement regardless of background or acquired privilege.

Although such a disposition will prompt various pedagogical responses depending on the context, we believe that social justice must be a central part of the rhetoric we educators use to conceptualize and carry out our work. Thus, it means that in schools and university classrooms, we educators must teach about injustice and discrimination in all its forms with regard to differences in: race, ethnicity, gender, gender expression, age, appearance, ability, national origin, language, spiritual belief, size [height and/or weight], sexual orientation, social class, economic circumstance, environment, ecology, culture, and the treatment of animals. Again, although we recognize that while we cannot predict with certainty what kinds of teaching materials and methods might promote social justice across contexts, we believe that the following activities/assignments are a useful point of departure for students and teachers to explore what might be definitions and measures of justice in a given time and place:

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Ask students what social justice means.
• Have students discuss examples of social justice or injustice in their lives.
• Ask students why social justice is important.
• Have students do research about issues relating to manifestations of power and privilege and how these have influenced their lives in their neighborhoods, counties, and states.
• Have students do reports on political rulings that have impacted human rights locally, nationally and abroad.
• Reflect on possible outcomes of living a life that dismisses justice as a priority
• Analyze language related to social justice: power, privilege oppression, myth, hatred, violence, peace, equity, inequity, access, academic standardization, and the language embedded within the definition of social justice.

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

It is highly likely that students come to us at varying levels of awareness about issues relating  to social justice. In this descriptive, non-prescriptive developmental model for scaffolding social justice into English methods courses, the model accounts for a continuum of understanding of awareness. The model is nonlinear as people are likely to move back and forth quickly between stages. Therefore some activities can include various levels at once. Instructors would need to assess when students are ready to be pushed on to different levels. It is up to the instructor and student to select activities based on student need, to select the place at which begin the work. In fact, the developmental identity model for social justice can be individualized based on a student’s awareness around social justice and her commitment to it.

As we work within this model, the curriculum we teach and how we construct our lessons will support and facilitate the cognitive, emotional and corporeal growth of our students. The first model, which is referred to as the meta-framework, comes from Nieto and Bode (2008) who provide a framework for supporting individuals through developmental stages in becoming multiculturally sensitive: (1) tolerance [critical reflection], (2) acceptance, (3) respect, and, (4), affirmation, solidarity, and critique. Instead of naming the first stage as “tolerance,” which means to “put up” with something even though one’s principles may malign with it, it will be called “critical reflection.” The second model comes from a non-empirical model as described in Narratives of Social Justice Teaching (Miller, 2008), where the once called, 5 “re-s” but now referred to as the 6 “re-s,” are introduced as what happens during the “critical pause time” when the preservice teacher can quickly reflect, reconsider, refuse, reconceptualize, rejuvenate and reengage in a manner of seconds.

The 6 “re-s”, reflect, reconsider, refuse, reconceptualize, rejuvenate and reengage can be applied to the lessons and become practice for the possible social justice and injustice issues faced by preservice teachers in the field (Miller, forthcoming). This process can support preservice and student teachers develop these skills whereby they move from a potentially destabilizing moment into a restabilizing stance and articulate a response to the best of their ability. Such movement, albeit unseen to the audience, is a strategy to preserve and enhance social justice and other kinds of teaching in the classroom. The 6 “re-s” can exist with any of the four meta-framework stages. Building upon the amalgam of these two models, these proposed strategies can be appropriated into methods courses as we work toward scaffolding a social justice identity. Reflection can support a teacher to make a transition when something isn’t going well or even when extensions can be made to other topics. Reconsider references that something might need to be changed to make a situation flow more effectively. Refuse allows for a preservice teacher to negotiate against ideas, to not actively participate, to disagree or even refuse and reject altogether. Reconceptualize enables students to understand that there is more than one way to do or respond to something. Rejuvenatebecomes a sense of “My principles about social justice matter in the context of this classroom and I will not abandon them.” In other words, the practice students have in methods classes should work toward stabilizing students’ belief systems especially if they are not supported by the school environment. Reengage helps students stay present and involved in their teaching for social justice even when they may feel that the school system seems to be unsupportive of equity for all. Although the structure provided is a sample for how to scaffold social justice identity, it will have efficacy in the context of students’ teaching lives.

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• How do we prepare preservice English teachers to meet the challenges that social justice will bring in schools?
• How do we foster a commitment to social justice?
• How can we support preservice English teachers to maintain a social justice disposition when schools in which they teach do not support teaching for social justice?
• Can a definition of social justice be neutral?
• How can social justice research benefit from assessing the effectiveness of the non-empirical model offered in this document.

Relevant Resources

Apple, M. (2006). Interrupting the right: On doing critical educational work in conservative times. In G. Ladson-Billings, & W.F. Tate (Eds.), Educational research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy, (pp. 27-45). New York: Teachers College Press.

Applebaum, B. (2004). Social justice education, moral agency, and the subject of resistance.Educational Theory, 54(1), 59-72.

Ayers, W. (1998). Popular education: Teaching for social justice (xvi-xxv). In W. Ayers, J.A. Hunt, & T. Quinn (Eds.), Teaching for social justice. New York: The New Press.

Boutte, G. (2008). Beyond the Illusion of Diversity: How Early Childhood Teachers Can Promote Social Justice. Social Studies, 99(4), 165-173.

Clark, J. (2006). Social justice, education and schooling: Some philosophical issues. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 272-287.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1999). Learning to teach for social justice. In G.A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers (pp. 114-144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity and social justice in teacher education.  New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., et al. (2009). Teacher education for social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn,  & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). New York:  Routledge.

Cribb, A., & Gerwitz, S. (2003). Towards a sociology of just practices: An analysis of plural  conceptions of justice. In C. Vincent (Ed.), Social justice, education, and identity (pp. 15-29).  London: RoutledgeFalmer.

DeStigter, T. (2008). Lifting the veil of ignorance: Thoughts on the future of social justice teaching. In s. Miller, L. Beliveau, T. DeStigter, D. Kirkland, & P. Rice, Narratives of social justice teaching: How English teachers negotiate theory and practice between preservice and inservice spaces (pp.121-144). New York: Peter Lang.

Dewey, J. (1915, May 5). The New Republic, 3, 40.

———. (1987). Democracy and educational administration. In J.A. Boydson (Ed.), John Dewey: Later works, 1925-1953. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1937)

Duncan-Andrade, J. (2004). Toward Teacher Development for the Urban in Urban Teaching.Teaching Education, 15(4): 339 – 350.

Fish, S. (1999).  The trouble with principle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.

Ladosn-Billings, G. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86-87). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Miller, s., & Norris, L. (2007). Unpacking the loaded teacher matrix: Negotiating space and time between university and secondary English classrooms. New York: Peter Lang.

Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford: Clarendnon press.

Wiedeman, C. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity:  A review of the literature. Equity & Excellence in Education 35, (3), 200-211.

Belief 2: A Grounded Theory

A grounded theory for social justice presupposes that all students should be treated with human dignity, that all are worthy of the same educational opportunities, and that the contract they enter into with schools must honor their sociocultural advantages and disadvantages. It must seek to offer the same educational, sociocultural, and psycho-emotional opportunities to them in order to help them meet and obtain a [determined] basic threshold that is mutually beneficial to students and educators. Our theory also recognizes that students have different moral, physical and intellectual capabilities due to the historical inheritance of oppression and class status.

A grounded theory for social justice related to K-12 Language Arts and the preservice English teacher classroom translates and demonstrates theory into direct classroom practice as it accounts for inequitable histories, specifies them, and not only brings students up to their [determined] capability thresholds to meet minimums, but also prepares them to sustain and take on challenges in the future beyond. If any student is left behind, the system has failed, no matter how well some may have succeeded. Such a theory for social justice is not parsimonious nor does it leave any student behind, rather it extends altruism to all. A system for all, is implicit in its inception, it is a system for all (Miller, forthcoming, 2010).

Just as Nussbaum (2006) identifies her work as having moralistic implications, we, too, identify a commitment to enacting social justice in schools that is highly moral and ethically evaluative. We do want to create systemic change in education and we want to stop oppressive attitudes and political rulings from interfering with students’ opportunities for success in schools. A belief about social justice as grounded theory recognizes and honors the relationships among language, knowledge, and power both in the teaching of English and in the preparation of English teachers, particularly recognizing those relationships that help foster and maintain uneven social and educational outcomes (Commission for Social Justice Mission Statement, 2009). We ground our work in the belief that English teaching and English teacher preparation are political activities that mediate relationships of power and privilege in social interactions, institutions, and meaning-making processes. Such relationships, we believe, have direct implications for how we achieve equity and access outcomes in English classrooms. We feel it is impossible to prepare English teachers or to engage in serious English study and scholarship without meeting these goals. The challenge for our research is to sustain the critical dialogue, necessary for developing and uncovering theories and practices in the teaching of English that foreground and promote respect across multiple social categories, including race, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, ethnicity, language, national origin, spiritual belief, socioeconomic status, culture, size [height/and or weight], and ability. These subjectivities, or ways that individuals imagine themselves and their possibilities for action, function together to determine how teachers in English language arts position themselves and others in everyday interactions, in institutions such as schools, and in society. Further, the act of positioning delineates individual and collective opportunities for growth and social activism in the profession of English language arts—opportunities we feel can have a transformative impact on society. To reiterate, such a theory must stay committed to being translated into direct classroom practice.

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Have students reflect on the question where does oppression comes from?
• Ask students if there are any oppressive rules in school and unpack their impact on students’ lives.
• Ask students what kind of changes might make schools more equitable for ALL students.
• Have students research the impact of First Amendment Speech rights while in school.
• Discuss with students whether they perceive some students are exempted from oppression and why.
• Discuss the meaning of being proactive and how social justice actions can manifest in their lives.
• Reflect on the social constructions of language, culture, economics, and binary relationships and how they inform policy.

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• Should a theory for social justice embrace oppressive views?
• Through a theory for social justice, how can we, and do we, need to differentiate between oppressive actions and generative language (Freire, 1970)?
• How do we determine what is socially injust?
• What other fields of study do we need to continue to draw from to help inform a theory for social justice in English education?
• How can a theory for social justice stay committed to being translated into direct classroom practice?

Relevant Resources

Ayers, W. (1998). Popular education: Teaching for social justice (xvi-xxv). In W. Ayers, J.A.  Hunt, & T. Quinn (Eds.), Teaching for social justice. New York: The New Press.

Christensen, C., & Dorn, S. (1997). Competing notions of social justice and contradictions in  special education reform. Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 181.

Cribb, A., & Gerwitz, S. (2003). Towards a sociology of just practices: An analysis of plural  conceptions of justice. In C. Vincent (Ed.), Social justice, education, and identity (pp. 15- 29). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘postsocialist’ condition. London:  Routledge.

Fraser, N. (2006). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from  http:///www.newschool.edu/GF/polsci/faculty/fraser.

Fraser, N. (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution: recognition, and  participation. In N. Fraser and A. Honneth (Eds.), Redistribution, or recognition? A  political- philosophical exchange. London: verso.

———.   (2005). Reframing justice in globalizing world. New Left Review, 36. Retrieved
 December 24, 2008, from  http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=2589.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.

Gerwitz, S. (2002). The managerial school. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hursh, D. (2009). Beyond the justice of the market: Combating neoliberal educational  discourse and promoting deliberative democracy and economic equality. In W. Ayers, T.  Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 152-170). New York:  Routledge.

Ladosn-Billings, G. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86-87). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Miller, s., (Forthcoming, 2010). Introduction: Teaching social justice. In s. Miller & D. Kirkland Eds.),Change Matters. Qualitative Research Ideas for Moving Social Justice Theory to Policy (pp.xx-xx). New York: Peter Lang.

Miller, s., & Norris, L. (2007). Unpacking the loaded teacher matrix: Negotiating space and time  between university and secondary English classrooms. New York: Peter Lang.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford: Clarendnon press.

Walker, M. (2006). Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy-  making.Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 163-185.

Wiedeman, C. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity:  A review of the literature. Equity & Excellence in Education 35, (3), 200-211.

Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Belief 3: A Stance/Position

The hierarchy of educational inheritance does not spare any of its K-12 and higher education constituents. Education-based policies are handed down from the government that impale universities to enact (with expectations for accreditation) and demand academics, to comply lest their students of education be “ill-prepared” for the demands of national and state standards. The education students then inherit whatever time-based policy is relevant during a given spacetime, pass on those values and expectations to their secondary or elementary classrooms. Consequently, a critical issue we face with employing social justice in teacher education is that ironically “promoting social justice in teacher education is anathema to the mission and traditions of the modern university, which is intended to foster an open intellectual atmosphere of free thought and speech” (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2009, p. 633). Social justice threatens the hegemonic pillars that have sustained national institutions. Social justice, which itnends to be about equality, access and redress, has motivated the moral majority and the testing community to create disjunctive and culturally insensitive tests, and disharmonious agendas that block access to equitable schooling practices. Social justice ceases to be extant relating to educational policy; instead we see educational policy in the United States exclusively dominated by accountability issues at the national, state, and local levels (Linn, 2000; Olson, 1999; Popkewitz, 2000).

Teachers have inherited from this politic of hegemony, albeit sometimes unconsciously, an intentionally socially constructed system of duality: that of the socially, economically, and culturally disadvantaged and that of the privileged. Because the “system” as we know it is dependent on a “language we never made” (Butler, 1997, p. 26) and the power (Foucault, 1980) that came before, the preservice teacher is vulnerable to repositioning (or even subordinating) the self, as a coordinate, at the center of this dichotomy. Preservice teachers’ subjectivities are especially vulnerable to perpetuating social and educational inequalities if they aren’t made aware of or are actively involved in recognizing the power they hold in co-constructing students’ identities (Miller & Norris, 2007). However, if preservice teachers were made aware of the sociopolitical context of history and the concomitant inequitable schooling practices that have ensued, perhaps they would be more likely to address it in the classroom. However, social justice pedagogy alone cannot address the insurmountable depth of inequalities that will still linger in spite of changes in teacher education;—no policy must do that. (Miller, forthcoming)

Research on student achievement confirms that classroom teachers are directly relational to the “quality and equitable delivery of education and student academic achievement” (Ayers, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Flores-Gonzalez, 2002; Kozol, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Nieto, 2000) (Ukpokodu, 2007, p. 8). Fewer than 10% of teachers are non-white while over 40% of public school students are African-American, Latino, Asian, and Native American (Epstein, 2005) and the diversity of student languages, ethnicities, religions, and racial and cultural make-up continues to grow (Banks, 2004). Yet, teachers in the classrooms are predominantly white, middle class, and monolingual (Futrell, 2000; Kailin, 1999) and lack the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to work within schools that have a predominantly urban population. Alarmingly still, Kathleen Brown (2005) tells us: “the evidence is clear that various segments of our public school population experiences negative and inequitable treatment on a daily basis” (p. 155) (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sheurich & Laible, 1995; Valenzuela, 1999). Still, students of color and white students from low socioeconomic backgrounds experience lower standardized test scores, teacher expectations, and access to resources (Brown, 2005). In fact, over 4.4 million second language learners are enrolled in the United States public schooling system and are expected to take the same standardized tests and that are typically evaluated similarly to students whose first language is English (Arce, Luna, Borjian & Conrad, 2005).

Even more alarming, these trends carry over into teacher preparatory programs where, in a review of statistics from 2000, the RATE study revealed that teacher educators are predominantly white and fewer than 20% of all professors are non-white (Zimpher, 1989). The system is failing its students plain and simply. We need a democratic system that is more balanced around student needs.

We believe that English education can disrupt such inequitable hierarchies of power and privilege. As a field of process, practice, and research, we are committed to interrupting current practices that reproduce social, cultural, moral, economic, gendered, intellectual, and physical injustices.

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Have students address a social cause that is important to them and consider ways to contribute or affect change.
• Have students research social, cultural, gender movements and unpack how they brought about change.
• Have a mock trial about an issue relating to social justice.
• Attend community events and forums.
• Invite students to have a social justice forum or school-wide event.

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• How we can attract, draw and recruit more non-white educators and teacher educators to the English teaching profession?
• How do we create teacher activists and what would that look like?
• What does teaching for social justice look like in the methods classroom?
• How can teacher activists be supported in their schools when more traditional models of teaching and learning are in place?
• Social justice research will benefit from assessing the effectiveness of the non-empirical model offered in this document.

Relevant Resources

Arce, J., Luna, D., Borjian, A., & Conrad, M. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Who Wins? Who Loses?Social Justice, 32(3), 56-71.

Ayers, W. (1998). Popular education: Teaching for social justice (xvi-xxv). In W. Ayers, J.A. Hunt, & T. Quinn (Eds.), Teaching for social justice. New York: The New Press.

Banks, J. (2004). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, K. (2005). Social Justice Education for Preservice Leaders: Evaluating  Transformative Learning Strategies. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(2), 155-167.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.

Cochran-Smith, M., et al. (2009). Teacher education for social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). New York: Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters in schools: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America.

Epstein, K. (2005). The Whitening of the American Teaching Force: A Problem of Recruitment or a Problem of Racism? Social Justice, 32(3), 89-102.

Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids, street kids: Identity and high school completion among Latinos. New York: Teachers College Press.

Futrell, M. (2000). The challenge of the 21st century: Developing a highly qualified cadre of teachers to teach our nation’s diverse students. Journal of Negro Education, 68(3), 318-334.

Kailin, J. (1999). How White teachers perceive the problem of racism in the schools: A case study in “liberal Lakeview.” Teachers College Record, 100, 724-750.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Crown Publishing.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Ladosn-Billings, G. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher 29(2), 16.

Miller, s., (Forthcoming, 2010). Introduction: Teaching social justice. In s. Miller & D.  Kirkland (Eds.),Change Matters. Qualitative Research Ideas for Moving Social Justice Theory to  Policy (pp.xx-xx). New York: Peter Lang.

Miller, s., & Norris, L. (2007). Unpacking the loaded teacher matrix: Negotiating space and time  between university and secondary English classrooms. New York: Peter Lang.

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180-187.

Olson, L. (1999). Shining a spotlight on results. Educational Week, 17, 8-10.

Popkewitz, T.S. (2000). The denial of change in educational change: Systems in the construction of national policy and evaluation. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 17-29.

Scheurich, J.J., & Laible, J. (1995). The buck stops here- in our preparation programs: Educational leadership for all children (no exceptions allowed). Educational Administration Quarterly, 31 (2), 313-322.

Ukpokodu, O. (2007). Preparing socially conscious teachers: A Social Justice-Oriented Teacher Education. Multicultural Education, 15(1), 8-15.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Zimpher, N. (1989). The RATE project: A profile of teacher education students. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 27-30.

Electronic Resources

ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org/
Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/
Disability Rights: http://www.dralegal.org/
Human Rights Campaign (GLBTQ Rights) : http://www.hrc.org/
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF-for GLBTQ Rights): http://www.transgenderlaw.org/
Native American Rights: http://www.narf.org
Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/

Belief 4: A Pedagogy

Social Justice Pedagogy presupposes that all students are worthy of human dignity, that all are worthy of the same opportunities in an education, that the contract they enter into in schools must honor their sociocultural advantages and disadvantages, that it must seek to offer the same educational, sociocultural, and psycho-emotional opportunities to each student in order to help them meet and obtain a [determined] basic threshold that is mutually beneficial to each party who enters into the school space. Social justice pedagogy strives for equity for all students, supports the affective, corporeal, and emotional growth of individuals in relation to a descriptive and fluid definition of social justice, can become an embodied identity (through coursework), has efficacy in multiple contexts, and recognizes that students bring inequitable histories. And, in spite of inequitable histories, a social justice pedagogy strives to bring each student up to their capability threshold. Social justice as pedagogy embraces the paradox of its conflicting principles, that there is a simultaneous need to make a firm decision about how to promote justice while at the same time to critically interrogate (i.e. doubt or even refuse) those decisions—or at least leave open the possibility that we might be wrong. Social justice must also recognize that social justice to one person may not be social justice to another.

Applebaum (2004) reveals that, when we consider the political nature of social justice teaching, we cannot separate it from a moral position or an ethical stance. Research indicates that social justice (Miller, in press) is highly political because of its inherent ability to challenge the status quo and its potential to dismantle of hierarchy of privilege that largely goes unchecked—and which is further sustained by erecting politicized barriers that make it difficult to move social justice into policy. It behooves us to explore this idea of moral agency because it threatens to reposition our own morality as the “right morality” and privileges us over those with whom we might find oppressive. By eliding this struggle, we perpetuate inequities that we want to dismantle and reposition not only whiteness, but us as moral authority. Our research should not come across as moralistic but we must also understand how to draw a boundary between what is and isn’t socially just as we relate it to the spacetime of the rotating morals under any governing democracy. Therefore, there is a paradox inherent in social justice research.

In careful consideration of how to address moral agency with preservice teachers English educators must not exude a proselytizing stance. Applebaum (2004) says that, “moral agency must avoid assumptions of certainty” (p. 70) and moral angecy must be a voluntary, non-forced or coercive act. She also explains that classroom teachers should encourage in their own students how their own moral motivations reposition whiteness. DeVoss, Cushman, and Grabrill (2005) concur the difficulty of such an undertaking not only has to do with governing principles but that it is also well-entrenched in the infrastructure of schools. These infrastructures are dependent on the inside and outside of other social structures, social arrangements, and technologies; on efforts which are far reaching; on a learned as part of the membership to the space; on a dependence of “human” inertia; on its spacetime genesis and exodus; and on linked conventions of practice. In other words, schools reinforce psychological, emotional, spiritual, educational and moral beliefs of whatever moral authority governs during a specific democracy. Unless teacher preparatory programs challenge these infrastructures, the same type of moral authority is likely to have long-standing efficacy.

*We also recognize that research on the constitution of a preservice teacher identity helps strengthen an argument about the validity of social justice as policy. A matrix of preservice English teacher research by Alsup (2006), Britzman (1991), Danielewicz (2001), Miller (2006), and Vinz (2006), each illuminate that belief systems impact identity. These studies articulate that belief impacts behavior and that behavior shapes identity formation. Such studies provide a foundation for reconceptualizing how we might consider teaching about social justice methodology and pedagogy which can facilitate the co-construction of a social justice English teacher identity through our methods courses. 

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Invite in guest speakers who can address issues related to social justice.
• Attend community events and forums.
• Have students conduct research about different social justice related- issues in their communities and then debate perspectives.
• Encourage students to read about current events from Amnesty International, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign, etc. and write, discuss or debate about them.

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• How can we practice social justice pedagogy in our teacher preparation programs and what does that look like?
• How can we measure the enactment of social justice pedagogy in a K-12 classroom?
• How can a long term commitment to social justice pedagogy be measured and then moved toward policy?
• How can we demystify the importance of teaching for social justice?
• How can we generate socially just assessment tools for the English language arts?
• How can social justice research benefit from assessing the effectiveness of the non-empirical model offered in this document?

Relevant Resources

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice. Albany: State University of New York.

Brown, E. (2006). The place of race in teacher identity: Self-narratives and curricular intervention as the practice of freedom. Teacher Education & Practice, 19(2), 257-279.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Cacioppo, J.T., & Gardner, W.L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 193-214.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy and teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Foucault, M. (1986). Of other spaces (J. Miskowiec, Trans.). Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.

———. (1980). Power-knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). New York: Falmer Press.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers’ College Record, 103(6), 1056-1080.

———. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835-854.

———. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of the interactions with students.  Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 811-826.

Jaggar, A. (1989). Emotion and feminist epistemology. In A. Jaggar & S. Bordo (Eds.), Gen-der/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Lazarus, R.S., (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.

Leander, K. (2002). Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37, 198-250.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lingard, B., & Mills, M. (2007). Pedagogies making a difference: issues of social justice and inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 233-244.

Lingard, B. (2005). Socially Just Pedagogies in Changing Times. International Studies in  Sociology  of Education, 15(2), 165-186.

McCarthey, S., & Moje, E. (2002). Identity matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 228–238.

McDonald, M. (2008). The Pedagogy of Assignments in Social Justice Teacher Education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(2), 151-167.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Miller, s. (2006). Foregrounding preservice teacher identity in teacher education. Teacher Education and Practice, 19 (2), 164-185.

Miller, s. (2008). Fourthspace- revisiting social justice in teacher education. In s. Miller, L.  Beliveau, T. DeStigter, D. Kirkland, & P. Rice, Narratives of social justice teaching: How  English teachers negotiate theory and practice between preservice and inservice spaces (pp. 1-21).  New York: Peter Lang.

Miller, s., & Norris, L. (2007). Unpacking the loaded teacher matrix: Negotiating space and time between university and secondary English classrooms. New York: Peter Lang.

Mottet, T., & Beebe, S. A. (2000, November). Emotional contagion in the classroom: An  examination of how teacher and student emotions are related. Paper Presented at the Annual  meeting of the national Communication Association. Seattle.

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity. Boston: Pearson Press.

Russell, J.A., & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach-avoidance and affiliation as functions of the  emotion-eliciting quality of an environment. Environment and Behavior, 10(3), 355-387.

Vinz, R. (1996). Composing a teaching life. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Zembylas, M. (2003). Caring for teacher emotion: Reflections on teacher self-development.  Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22(2), 103-125.

Belief 5: A Process

When we talk about social justice as process, we liken it to a journey, which is neither about arrival nor finality, but it is constructed by inventive strategies that can generate movement towards enacting social justice all around us in school contexts. This process recognizes that while students have inequitable and/or privileged histories, a classroom process committed to social justice, seeks to create equity within the class context that can have efficacy in the out-of-school context of students’ lives. We recognize that our definitions of and projects in pursuit of social justice must be context-dependent, responsive, open to direction from the “victims” of injustice (so that they’re not victims, but agents), dedicated both to results and to just (and humble) processes of deliberation and reflection. In our pursuit therefore, process infers action, reflection and momentum (praxis), and patience, and that while our intended outcome is that ALL students experience social justice around them in schools, this will take time and necessitate a call to action. Therefore, we must recognize that while results may come, they are likely to morph as different democracies emerge, and as political rulings are handed down.

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Have student invent a (board and or other) game with rules and discuss the importance of the process.
• Ask students to write out directions for making Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches for everyone in a classroom and then follow what they wrote, verbatim. Make a farce of the directions (emphasis on process). 
• Have lengthy discussions with students on rules and laws and ask them how they enable or disable people from experiencing safety and protection.
• Ask students to reflect on school rules and consider what is/isn’t working. Turn this into a “Dear Editor” moment and write the school paper or make a flyer.
• Ask students to reflect on your classroom and its resources to see if there are any items that cause discomfort (from lack of books, to posters, to desk arrangements, to resources...)

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• How do we measure or understand if pedagogy, process/praxis is effective in literacy instruction?
• How can we determine what pedagogical change is necessary in the classroom?
• What observable moments or artifacts do we look for in the process of enacting social justice?
• How do we qualify an individual’s right to object in the process of social justice, i.e., when a student or teacher perpetuates oppressive actions in the classroom context?
• How does process affect a student’s understanding of social justice?
• How do we reflect on the symbiotic nature of student-teacher when examining process?
• How do we identify and the political, social, and moral obstacles that affect our teaching for social justice? How do we work with or around the obstacles? (e.g., NCATE, lack of equal rights for the GLBTQ community, the religious right, textbook companies, tracking practice, elitist attitudes about honors courses, scientifically driven data that determines school funding…).

Relevant Resources

Au, K.H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Ball, A.  (2000).  Empowering pedagogies that enhance the learning of multicultural students. Teachers College Press, 102(6), 1006-34.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M.  (2000). Literacy practices.  In D. Barton.  M. Hamilton,  & R. Ivanic (Eds.),Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). New York: Routledge.

Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Freire, P., &  Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word & the world. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). New York: Falmer Press.

Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 6(4), 286-303.

Kymlicka, W.  (2001). Multicultural citizenship.  In S. Seidman and J. Alexander (Eds),
The new social theory reader (pp. 212-222).  London:  Routledge Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (199a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995).  Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy.  In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 747-759). New York: Macmillan.

Lee, C.D., & Slaughter-Defoe, D.T. (1995). Historical and sociocultural influences on African American education. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 348-371). New York: Macmillan.

Mitchell, T.  (1998). Historical perspectives on class and race in education; The case of school reform in the new south, 1890-1910.  In C. Torres & T.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Sociology of education (pp. 225-246).  New York: State University Press.

Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White Plains: Longman.

Perez, B. (Ed).  (2004). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (5th ed).  Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Pewewardy, C.D. (1994). Culturally responsive pedagogy in action: An American Indian magnet school. In E.R. Hollins, J.E. King, & W.C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching Diverse Populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base (pp. 77-92). Albany: State University of New York Press.

McDonald, M. (2008). The Pedagogy of Assignments in Social Justice Teacher Education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(2), 151-167.

Reed, J., & Black, D. (2006). Toward a pedagogy of transformative teacher education: World educational links. Multicultural Education, 14(2), 34-39.

Rogers, T., & Soter, A. O. (1997). Reading across cultures: Teaching literature in a diverse society. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (2003). Literary theory. In J. Flood, D, Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.),Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 67-73). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text and the poem. Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois Press.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tierney, R.  (1998).  Literacy assessment reform: Shifting beliefs, principles possibilities, and emerging practices.  The reading teacher, 51(5), 374-390.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Wiedeman, C. (2002, September). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: A review of the literature. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 200-211.

Belief 6: A Framework for Research

Research about social justice or injustice in schools should follow a similar but not necessarily identical trajectory to the qualitative and/or quantitative design of research in education. Unique to its design however, would be both its story and the purpose of the study. We advocate for social justice research in education to be grounded within a theoretical framework that has a historical understanding of the origin of the determined oppression in said story and how, through its narrative, the possible moments for change are revealed, and how agency and/or emancipation emerge. In other words, unique to social justice research in education is: (1) its ability to identify historical causality of an oppression, (2) to reveal its oppressive mark or impact on an individual, group, or context, and (3) to generate potential outcomes for change.

A framework for social justice research is thus predicated in a grounded theory. which as we see it, is threefold: (1). Reflection, (2) Change, and (3) Participation. Reflection refers to unpacking personal truths from people, ideologies, and contexts to help explain how hegemonic hierarchies are oppressive. Change refers to becoming more socially aware of how power and privilege that arises from within institutions in relation to social class, ethnicity, culture, gender, religion, national origin, language, ability, sexual orientation, gender expression, political beliefs, marital status and/or education, can be oppressive. Participation teaches how action, agency, and empowerment can be used to transform ideas, contexts, and may even lead to systemic change. Based on our understanding of English education, Social Justice Theory (re) conceptualizes a critical review of literature that supports social justice methodologically both in the classroom and through research methodologies. It includes creating new and drawing from, current methodologies that speak to the literature and its juxtaposition with the counter-narratives of participants. It includes (re) conceptualizing data within a framework that draws from this literature and its’ methods. It includes (re) representing data that values its constituents’ perspectives as they challenge master narratives. And lastly, it includes the possibility of its efficacy becoming drafted as social justice policy for students. (Miller, forthcoming, 2010)

This brings us to a “crisis of representation,”-i.e., how (any) qualitative studies about social justice can qualify as valid research that informs policy. As we know, for any qualitative research results in education to be considered valid, there are norms that must be in place. The process of determining and setting up a study is anything but simple, for it is in the very set-up, that it can be misleading and faulty and attacked for its lack of veracity. For instance, if research examines power dynamics in schools, then the frame for the research must carefully reflect and show that the research is grounded within studies of dynamics of power and related theoretical studies in social spaces. Relating to social justice, the researcher must carefully and masterfully articulate the purpose of the research, design research questions and sub-questions, set delimiters, identify the type of qualitative research, reflect on prior research, establish a theoretical framework in order to determine possible contributions to the current research (noting its uniqueness), consider the characteristics of a pool of participants and the reasoning for it, determine the kinds of instruments that will be used to collect the data, determine the type and layers of analysis for the data, consider the mode of expression for the data, and discuss the data and then consider its implications and transferability for other studies (Merriam, 2001). There are also ethical considerations that must factor into the design of the study so that it is considered valid and reliable. To ensure the research(er) is trustworthy, s/he must lay out the mechanisms that guarantee its internal validity through triangulation, member checks, long-term observation, peer examination, collaborative modes of research, and by revealing his/her positionality (Merriam, 2001). To determine its external validity, the researcher must discuss the study’s generalizability and transferability to other research contexts through rich, think description, typicality, or multisite design. Lastly, the researcher must also consider the ethics involved in the study. Stake (1994) reminds us that, “Qualitative researchers are guests in private spaces of the world. Their manners should be good and their code of ethics strict” (p. 244). Researchers must therefore consider if they are honoring or breaking cultural barriers, reflect on how a story may make a participant vulnerable, or consider if transgressions might have occurred that could impact the outcome of the research. Ultimately, researchers must be careful to not recreate hierarchies of power.  Social justice research must therefore be carefully considered, revisited, and negotiated with its interactants, throughout its entire tenure.

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Challenge students to think about language and how it affects people.
• Invite students to dialogue about ideas that oppress people and role-play scenarios.
• Provide diverse perspectives of issues relating to social justice in the media and share ideas on an ongoing basis.
• Explore career pathways with students relating to social justice.
• Have students investigate their own family backgrounds to observe if they have experienced oppression or privilege to discover whether  how they have either benefited or been held back from experiencing a life of human dignity.
• Reflect on the social constructions of language, culture, economics, and binary relationships and on whether these constructions inform policy.

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• How can we amass the unique studies, methodologies, data analyses, and representations for data that address social justice issues?
• What makes a methodology appropriate in framing social justice and what does that look like?
• How can a research framework for social justice have efficacy over space and time, moving from the university classroom into the K-12 classroom?
• How can a research for social justice inform policy?
• What do policy makers need to know that we know about the importance of a policy about social justice in K-12 schools?
• How do we prepare ourselves to confront oppositional perspectives while enacting social justice in schools?

Relevant Resources

Apple, M. (2006). Interrupting the right: On doing critical educational work in conservative times. In G. Ladson-Billings, & W.F. Tate (Eds.), Educational research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy, (pp. 27-45). New York: Teachers College Press.

Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local:  Expanding perspectives on literacy as  a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337–356.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity and social justice in teacher education.  New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., et al. (2009). Teacher education for social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn,  & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). New York:  Routledge.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Derrida, J. (2001). The future of the profession or the unconditional university. In P. Kamuf  (Trans.) and L. Simmons and H. Worth (Eds.), Derrida downunder (pp.11-34)  Palmerston North: Dunmore.

Giroux, H. (2008-09). Academic unfreedom in America. Rethinking the university as a  democratic public sphere. Works and Days, 51-54(26/27), 45-71.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W.F. (2006). Educational research in the public interest: Social justice,  action, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity (G. Bowker, Trans.). Mind, culture, and activity: An  international journal, 3, 228–245.

Mathison, S. (2009). Public good and private interest in educational evaluation. In W. Ayers,  T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 5-14). New  York:  Routledge. 

McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Social justice teacher education. In W. Ayers, T.  Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 595-610). New  York: Routledge.

Mclaren, P. (2000). Che Guevera, Paulo Freire, and the politics of hope: Reclaiming critical pedagogy.  Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield.

McLaren, P. (2008). This fist called my heart: Public pedagogy in the belly of the beast.  Antipode40(3), 472-181.

McLaren, P., & Fischman, G. (1998). Reclaiming hope: Teacher education and social justice  in the age of globalization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25, 125-153.

McLaren, P., & Mayo, P. (1999). Value commitment, social change, and personal  narrative.International Journal of Educational Reform, 8 (4), 397-408.

Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:  Jossey Bass.

Miller, s. (2008). Fourthspace- revisiting social justice in teacher education. In s. Miller, L.  Beliveau, T. DeStigter, D. Kirkland, & P. Rice, Narratives of social justice teaching: How  English teachers negotiate theory and practice between preservice and inservice spaces (pp. 1-21).  New York: Peter Lang.

Mortensen, P., & Kirsch, G.E. (1996). Ethics and representation in qualitative studies of literacy.  Urbana: NCTE.

Smithmeir, A. (1996, June). The “double bind” of re-representation in qualitative research methods.  Paper presented at the Qualitative Research in Education Conference, St. Paul,  MN.

Seddon, T. (2003). Framing justice: challenges for research. Journal of Education Policy, 18(3),  229.

Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of  qualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

St. John, E. (2007). Finding social justice in education policy: Rethinking theory and  approaches in policy research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 67-80.

Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in 'new times': using critical dis- course analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433-451.

Belief 7: A Promise

A promise to embody and enact social justice in schooling is a lifelong promise that commits to upholding and honoring human dignity of ALL individuals impacted by the educational context. Through our thoughts, actions, ‘pro-actions,’ beliefs, and building of current and future alliances, ALL students will have equal opportunity for academic success. Revisiting Belief 1, we inscribe a promise that:

Each student in our classrooms is entitled to the same opportunities of academic  achievement regardless of background or acquired privilege. It means that when in  schools or in our university classrooms, we stand up for and teach about injustice  and discrimination in all forms with regard to differences in: race, ethnicity, gender,  gender  expression, age, appearance, ability, national origin, language, spiritual  belief, weight  [height  and/or weight], sexual orientation, social class, economic  circumstance,  environment, ecology, culture, and animal.

Our promise presupposes that no student should be privileged over another and that our pedagogy, curricular choices, texts, spatial make-up of the classroom, posters, discourse, and our dialogues with others in the school environment (and even in out-of-school contexts) is intended to honor ALL students, ALL of the time. Even though we occasionally fail in this promise, recognizing that there is much to be learned about social justice and injustice, we must continue to be relentless in our efforts to collectively move forward and recommit to the longevity of honoring social justice in schools.

K-12 Activities/Assignments

• Ask students to discuss groups, causes, or beliefs that they are committed to.
• Reflect on what commitment looks like, feels like, and could be like.
• Have students role-play various scenes where peers do and don’t come to the aid of an oppressed peer. Discuss consequences of action and inaction.
• Research the work and role of freedom fighters from multiple cultural lenses. Discuss what they were fighting for, what oppression they experienced and the results of their actions.
• Have students write a list of what’s most important to them in the world. Ask them to write short stories, based on their lists about what would happen, if what was important was no longer there or accessible.

Teacher Education Activities/Assignments

See Appendix A (PDF)

Researcher Stance and Research Questions

• How do we unpack inadvertent (teacher to student) oppression in the context of the classroom?
• How can we help teachers understand the manifestations and consequences of inaction?
• Can we measure the moment of enacting something socially injust and how can it be remediated?
• How do we measure the impact of social justice pedagogy on students in the context of a classroom?

Relevant Resources

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands: The new mestiza = La frontera. San Francisco:
 Aunt Lute Books.

Apple, M. (2002). Official knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Bernasconi, R., & Lott, T. (2000). The idea of race. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Bolgatz, J. (2005). Talking race in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bomer, R., & Bomer, K. (1999). Reading and writing for social action. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice. Albany: State University of New York.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy and teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dehyle, D. (1998). From break-dancing to heavy metal- Navajo youth, resistance and identity. Youth and Society, 30(1), 3-31.

Dehyle, D.  (1995).  Navajo youth and anglo racism: Cultural integrity and resistance. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 403-444.

Foucault, M. (2001). Power/knowledge.  In S. Seidman & J. Alexander (Eds), The New Social Theory Reader (pp. 69-75).  London: Routledge Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.

Howard, G. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaren, P. (2001).  Che Guevra, Paulo Freire and the politics of hope: Reclaiming critical pedagogy.  Critical Methodologies, 1(1), 108-131.

Miller, s. (2006). Foregrounding preservice teacher identity in teacher education. Teacher  Education and Practice, 19 (2), 164-185.

Moje, E. (2004). Powerful spaces: Tracing the out-of-school literacy spaces of Latino/a  youth. In K. Leander, & M. Sheehy (Eds.), Spatializing Literacy Research and Practice (pp. 15- 38). New York: Peter Lang.

Moje, E.  (2002). Reframing adolescent literacy research for new times: Studying youth as a  resource. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(3), 211-227.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:  Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31,  132-141.

Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2005). Why we teach. New York: Teachers College Press.

Parmer, P. (2007). The courage to teach. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Perez, B. (Ed).  (2004). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (5th ed).  Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Rothenberg, P. (2002). White privilege. New York: Worth.

Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vantage.

Shor, I., & Freire. P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergen.

Spring, J.  (2001) The great civil rights movement and the new culture wars. In The American Schools 1642-2000 (pp. 388-418).  Boston: McGraw Hill.

Vinz, R. (1996). Composing a teaching life. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Wells, A. & Oakes, J.  (1998).  Tracking, detracking and the politics of educational reform: A sociological perspective. In C. Torres, & T.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Sociology of Education (pp.155-180). New York: State University Press.

Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States. Harper Perennial: New York.

Notes

1 In a related commitment to teaching social justice The Association for Teacher  Educators, who generates standards for all teacher educators has created a  standard related to social justice which reads:

 STANDARD 2 Cultural Competence
 Apply cultural competence and promote social justice in teacher education

One of the charges to teacher education is to prepare teachers to connect and  communicate with diverse learners (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). To  develop capacity among culturally, socially, and linguistically diverse students,  teachers first need to know their own cultures. They also need to hold high  expectations for all students, understand developmental levels and what is common  and unique  among different groups, reach out to families and communities to learn  about their cultures, select  curriculum materials that are inclusive, use a range of  assessment methods, and be proficient in a variety  of pedagogical methods that  facilitate the acquisition of content knowledge for all learners. Establishing a  closer  fit between pedagogy and culturally different learning styles positively impacts  students both  socially and academically (Gay, 2002). Culturally relevant pedagogy  “not only addresses student achievement but also helps students to accept and  affirm their cultural identity while developing critical  perspectives that challenge  inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate” (Ladson-Billings,  1995, p.  469).

 Teacher educators share the responsibility of helping pre-service and in-service  teachers to understand these concepts and to apply them successfully in their  classrooms. They do not merely understand the concepts underlying the definitions  of cultural competency but clearly demonstrate how those concepts are applied in  their own teaching and in that of their students. (ATE)

This document was created as part of the CEE Policy Summit, Fast Forward in English Education: Policy into Practice by the participants in the strand “Belief about Social Justice in English Education, from June 19-21, 2009, Elmhurst College.

References

Applebaum, B. (2004). Social justice education, moral agency, and the subject of resistance.  Educational Theory, 54(1), 59-72.

Association for Teacher Educators. (1996). Standards for teacher educators. Manassas: ATE.

Commission for Social Justice. (2009). CEE Commission for social justice, mission statement. New  York: NCTE.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:  What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  

DeStigter, T. (2008). Lifting the veil of ignorance: Thoughts on the future of social justice  teaching. In s. Miller, L. Beliveau, T. DeStigter, D. Kirkland, & P. Rice, Narratives of  social justice teaching: How English teachers negotiate theory and practice between preservice and  inservice spaces (pp.121-144). New York: Peter Lang.

DeVoss, D.N., Cushman, E., & Grabill, J.T. (2005). Infrastructure and composing: The  when of new-media writing. College Composition and Communication, 57 (1), 14-44.

Gay, G. (2005). A synthesis of scholarship in multicultural education. Naperville: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational  Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Miller, s., (Forthcoming, 2010). Introduction: Teaching social justice. In s. Miller & D.  Kirkland (Eds.), Change Matters. Qualitative Research Ideas for Moving Social Justice Theory to  Policy (pp.xx-xx). New York: Peter Lang.

Miller, s. (2008). Fourthspace- revisiting social justice in teacher education. In s. Miller, L.  Beliveau, T. DeStigter, D. Kirkland, & P. Rice, Narratives of social justice teaching: How English teachers negotiate theory and practice between preservice and inservice spaces (pp. 1-21). New York:  Peter Lang.

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity. Boston: Pearson Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of  qualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wiedeman, C. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity:  A review of the  literature. Equity & Excellence in Education 35, (3), 200-211.

Strand 7 Participants included:

• Strand Chair, sj Miller, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
• Deborah Bieler, University of Delaware
• Laura Bolf-Beliveau, University of Central Oklahoma
• Janice Carello
• Dianne Chambers, Elmhurst College
• Brian Charest, University of Illinois, Chicago
• Todd DeStigter, University of Illinois, Chicago
• Barbara Duszak, University of Delaware
• Jason Evans, Prairie State College
• Tara Star Johnson, Purdue University
• Marshall George, Fordham University
• Linda Miller-Cleary, University of Minnesota
• Thomas Philion, Roosevelt University
• Paula Ressler, Illinois State University
• Sarah Rutter, University of Illinois, Chicago
• Tyson Sims, Vincennes University
• Anna Smunt, National-Louis University
• Melissa Tedrowe, University of Wisconsin, Madison
• Peter Williamson, University of San Francisco