SHIELDS M. Carolyn3.pdf
SHIELDS M. Carolyn3.pdf
SHIELDS M. Carolyn3.pdf
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
social position. They focus on the need to reduce deficit thinking (Valencia, 1997)<br />
and pathologizing discourses (Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005) and to adopt<br />
constructivist and empowering approaches (Cummins, 1989) and high standards<br />
and expectations for all children.<br />
Educators’ Responses<br />
At the outset, when educators encounter some of the language of critical<br />
theories that calls for activism (Lummis, 2001) or liberation from the oppression<br />
that may come from inequitable power distribution (Foucault, 1980), they may<br />
respond with resistance. The words “social justice” seem to evoke images of<br />
demonstrators marching with placards, memories of the violence associated with<br />
some civil rights’ demonstrations, or calls for courage associated with the radical<br />
political action or heroism represented by Nelson Mandela. Nevertheless, as<br />
educators reflect on some of the inequities and injustices they have encountered<br />
in their schools, the theory sometimes comes alive and they adopt more explicit<br />
“subversive” or “disobedient” stances.<br />
In this section, I provide, using three different story lines, some ways in<br />
which educators describe some of the challenges presented to them in their roles<br />
as educational leaders and how they have addressed them in their practice. I call<br />
these story-lines a) deficit thinking masquerading as social justice, b) islands of<br />
resistance and success, and c) school wide transformation and success. As I<br />
conclude each section, I make some comments and draw some inferences about<br />
the relationship of the story to the extant theoretical work on social justice and<br />
deep democracy.<br />
Deficits Masquerading as Social Justice<br />
In some instances, educators appear to have been so co-opted by the<br />
dominant discourse described above that their comments reflect the belief that<br />
the onus is on individual students to succeed. They express the belief that when<br />
schools institute practices that treat all students in the same ways, they are<br />
providing equitable conditions for learning. Such was the case in Randolph High<br />
School. The school has a relatively small (785) student population of which 70%<br />
is white and the rest are self described as African-American, Hispanic, Asian, or<br />
multi-ethnic. According to statistics provided by the state, the school has a low<br />
income population of 45%. According to the School Report Card published by the<br />
state, 40% of the students are meeting or exceeding grade level expectations in<br />
math and reading (compared to 65% statewide.)<br />
Teachers interviewed at this school talk about the changes in the town<br />
and school demographics since the closure of a military base a few years ago.<br />
One teacher explained, “Now we have a whole different sector of people ... like a<br />
little Chicago or something, a ghetto with a lower income.” He elaborated:<br />
You’ve got to understand we’re seeing a different type of kid. The<br />
value of the student or IQ of the students in this school is depleting,<br />
there’s no doubt in my mind. I say that because I see it; we’re<br />
teaching differently ... We do the best with what we can. We have<br />
review sessions you would not believe, teachers ... bust their butts<br />
Shields, Social Justice, CCEAM, 8/29/2006, p. 5