In response to complaints, the Denver district is revising language in its teacher-evaluation system that described a "distinguished" teacher as one who "encourages students to challenge and question the dominant culture" and "take social action to change/improve society or work for social justice," The Washington Times reports.
District and union officials both said the language didn't properly reflect the concept they were trying to convey: that the best teachers help students view and analyze information critically. They've updated the framework as a response, the newspaper reports.
This raises some interesting questions. First, is "social justice education" the same thing as "viewing and analyzing information critically?" I can see arguments on both sides: the first being that one needs to think critically to agitate for social justice, the other being that one can think critically and come to different political conclusions about society's ills.
The other question I have is: was the "social justice" language suggested by the teachers themselves? If it was, isn't changing the language yet another top-down mandate of how teachers define and relate to their own work?
I want to know more details about what the Denver policy-makers mean when they say "social justice" - but what do y'all think? Were they smart to take away the "social justice" language away, or simply caving in on a political whim?
Thoroughly relevant article for our class and the program; thanks for posting it, Jessica. It makes me think that perhaps one of the greatest impacts we can have as politically conscious teachers is to communicate consistently that all texts, curricula, and mission statements are political in that they have agendas, include/sanction some priorities and leave others out. If we all understand this as baseline, then it's easier to enter into the next necessary conversation of what does a collective or individual want to do intentionally. In this case, and relevant to us as we are affiliated with a social justice mission, the danger, I fear, is in caving to the commonsensical mythology that some teaching is less ideological than other teaching.
ReplyDeleteThinking critically is the first step. If we are not able to analyze the situation prior to changing the methods in which it works under I am unsure of how far we would get. What we must keep it mind, as Jessica pointed out, is that thinking critically does not always lead to a political stance that is in favor of justice or equality.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to Professor Patal, I too fear that will all of the "agendas" we push upon educators and system we are pitting types of teaching against each other. Personally I believe teachers should be mindful of social justice missions when teaching but adding the language which was interpreted negatively in this case is just another addition to the policing of teachers that is taken place globally.