Summary:
In their chapter Lee and
Spratley explore NCTE's relationship to social justice--both its work toward
social justice and the ways in which social justice has or has not played out
within the organization--by examining the history of "language learning in
instruction," the texts selected for instruction, and efforts to build
"professional capacity for addressing diversity as a goal of social
justice" (256, 269). For the authors, the debates over issues of social
justice in the English classroom concern, " the language of instruction,
the kinds of texts that should be taught and to whom, and how reading,
speaking, and writing should be assessed" (254). In order Identify NCTE's
work in this area, Lee and Spratley examine the organization’s history, its
conferences, policy statements, publications, the development of
sub-organizations, and key figures who were involved in this work.
In laying the ground work for
their chapter, Lee and Spratley identify
three aspects of historical context which shaped NCTE's birth and development
in the beginning of the twentieth century. They suggest that the rising debate
over what should constitute literacy education and who should design its curriculum
and policy, the advent and rise of testing, and the progressive education
movement, all worked together to create the perfect conditions from which the organization
could arise. Lee and Spratley then use the bulk of the chapter to recount the
creation of various policy statements and the founding of several sub-groups
within NCTE which serve to represent particular minority or topical issues. In
the end, then, they conclude by giving an extremely shallow passing nod to
NCTE's work with "youth with special needs, ...issues of sexual
orientation, class, and war and peace" and end by commenting on their
great hope for the future.
Activism:
It seems for Lee and
Spratley, activism (specifically social justice activism) is primarily manifest
in policy statements, conference proceedings, scholarly writing and research,
and the creation of interest groups within NCTE.
Thoughts:
As a whole, I found much of
the information/history that Lee and Spratley provide interesting (e.g. the
early history of standardized texting, the interest early in the century of
making students aware of language and dialectical diversity, and the range of
resolutions and policy statements that have been created). More specifically,
the three areas of social justice work
which they identify as sites of inquiry, struck me as interesting in couple of
ways. Firstly I was happy to see their identification of "text
selection" as a key pedagogical move which can impact social justice work.
A week ago, I would have probably never considered the critical role texts play
in helping or hindering social justice education. (Stupid, I know, not to think
of, but I just don't think it would have been one of the first areas to cross
my mind). This week, however, I have spent time in my Rhetoric of Women Writers
class discussing who creates anthologies and what work those texts do in
defining a field, a discipline, and set of intellectual and social values. This
conversation, in combination with the recent book banning in Tucson, has left
me thinking about the kind of activism (or lack thereof)that many teachers
engage in as they select and argue for or against textbooks and other print and
multimedia materials for their classes.
In opening their third
section of analysis, Lee and Spratley, suggest " The teaching of English
language arts isparticularly well suited for
addressing issues of social justice for at least two reasons. First, literature
offers a forum for interrogating the human condition, including how humans
relate to one another. Second, writing promotes self-reflection, a disposition
that can promote civic consciousness in a democracy" (269). This statement
had struck me; I suppose I had never considered that "my" discipline
was any better or worse suited to encourage students to grapple with issues of
social justice. While I'm still convinced that every field and discipline
offers ample room for a social justice-centered curriculum, I suppose I agree
with the authors' comments on the particularly powerful role literacy
instruction can play. However, I would argue they sell the power of writing
instruction short. While it does allow writers time for reflection on , I would
insist that it's more important role is to help students engage in critical
thinking provide them with a toll of potential empowerment that will hopefully
allow them to continue to seek and fight for social justice in their everyday
lives.
Questions:
1. What real work or good do
policy statements, resolutions, conference presentations, and the formation of caucuses
really do? How can/do they change things? How do the ideas they espouse and the
work they do ever make it those who make the decisions?
2. Should we really be
equating awards for minority scholars and professional mentoring programs with
work in social justice? (see pg. 273)
No comments:
Post a Comment