CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL THEORY, IV
So, do critical approaches to instruction motivate students to participate in the activities and other instructional requirements that the construct demands or encourages? Or, of more immediate concern, how prevalent is this construct in American classrooms? This posting will address both questions.
According to a study conducted by a right-wing think tank, the Manhattan Institute, it concluded with this overall judgment:
Critical race and gender theory is endemic in American schools. The vast majority of children are being taught radical CSJ [critical social justice] concepts that affect their view of white people, their country, the relationship between gender and sex, and public policy. For those inclined toward a colorblind and reality-based ideal, these findings should serve as a wakeup call. Unless voters, parents, and governments act, these illiberal and unscientific ideas will spread more widely, and will replace traditional American liberal nationalism with an identity-based cultural socialism.[1]
This blogger finds this general finding surprising. As described below, he would have guessed that such instruction would be found illegitimate by most of the teachers with whom he worked.
But before sharing a description of that experience, here are other recent findings – from a professional news source serving American teachers – as to the dispersion of political sentiments among the teacher corps.
[E]ducators surveyed largely said they tend to look at hot-button issues with a nuanced eye:
· Forty three percent of the educators surveyed see themselves as “moderate.” The rest were slightly more likely to lean to the left than the right. Nearly 30 percent describe themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
· Twenty seven percent view themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative.”
· Seventy percent give Republicans a “D” or an “F” for their handling of K-12 policy. Forty five percent give Democrats a “D” or “F.” Each party gets an “A” from only 1 percent of respondents.
Although educators say they stay largely neutral in the classroom, that doesn’t necessarily apply to their lives outside of school.[2]
Such findings, at a minimum, sways one to be dubious of the Manhattan Institute’s uncompromising conclusions.
Another source of information this blogger can use as alluded to above is his own experience, although as the years go by that experience has become less and less valued. His last year in a secondary classroom as its teacher was 2000. So, whatever their value might be, here are his recollections – at least as compared to the above reporting – of what is apparently the situation today.
The settings of that experience consisted of assignments in two different school districts in Florida (Pinellas and Miami-Dade). In total, he worked in five different schools and through the years, he worked with quite a number of other teachers (one of the schools in Miami-Dade was the largest in the state of Florida at that time with well over four thousand students).
In all of that, he never even heard of a teacher wanting to adopt an approach to the job one might call critical theory or critical pedagogy. As this blog has claimed, the predominant approach to instruction has been essentialist in nature – straight lecture and exposition of content information – also known as direct instruction or teacher-centered instruction.[3]
Given that the critical theory construct has been around since the 1930s in one form another, that bias toward direct instruction reflects quite a rejection of critical pedagogy’s ideas and claims. Be that as it may, what this blogger experienced among his fellow teachers that came closest to critical pedagogy – in any form – was what can be labeled as issue-centered instruction or approach.
To be clear, that approach was in no way popular but occasionally was encountered. And one can safely say that such an approach did not engender either supportive or hostile school policy.[4] Perhaps if it were more in use, districts would have had some policy concerning its adoption.
That level of adoption influences how effective issue-centered instruction would be and leads to the initial question this posting is asking. That is: does the instructional strategy a teacher utilizes, in this case issue-centered approach, motivate students to participate in class activities and dispose them to learn the content the instruction has to convey?
In answering this query, this blogger admits to an opinion perhaps not shared by all. That would be that issue-centered instruction can be considered to be critical light in that it engages students in controversial topics which usually, but not exclusively, deal with oppressive or perceived oppressive conditions facing segments of the population.
A source of information more from that period of time (1990s), the Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS Bulletin 93,[5] edited by Ronald Evans and David Warren Saxe, gives its readers a definition for issue-centered instructional approach. For purposes here, a general description of that definition will do. It is an approach that calls on students to confront controversial issues or questions – e.g., has the American experience been one of exploiting African Americans, from the institution of slavery to degrading discriminatory practices?
The theory of this approach calls for students to deal with all available, relevant information, not just stacked information that supports either a positive response – yes, it has – or a negative response – no, it has not. And with that information, they, the students, discuss and debate with other students what that information leads them to conclude.
Student evaluations by teachers of such efforts are limited to the thoroughness of students’ research and the reasonableness students exhibit in conducting that research and in their efforts to draw and defend their conclusions. In this process, teachers are to be ideologically neutral and not sway students to any given position regarding the issue under consideration.
Yes, the approach has a bias as to the questions it asks – often reflecting critical pedagogic concerns, but not necessarily so. It definitely does not preclude what conclusions students will draw from their inquiry. To repeat, at all points, teachers are to insist on reasonableness in discussion and debate – in what is cited and concluded – but they are not to sway the interchange in any biased direction.
Here are recent thoughts from the American Bar Association regarding this general methodology to social studies:
For most, it’s not often [that teachers use controversial issues as instructional content], and this is part of the reason that students remember and value the opportunity to discuss issues of controversy in a safe environment. You need to communicate to students why you are having them discuss this issue. All of them are potential voters. This country works best when its citizens are both informed and participate. This country is also pluralistic, in almost every sense of the word. We have many different ideas about what is best but only one legitimate way to deal with the inevitable conflict that arises from disagreeing, and it’s called politics. Persuading others and being open to listening are key skills in a democracy, and key skills in a discussion. Controversial issues discussions may be the best model schools can offer for how democracy should work.[6]
Seen through the eyes of the ABA, one can appreciate that this is not critical theory, which readers might recall is focused on economic and social oppressive issues, whereas issue-centered approach opens up its perspective to other concerns.
That would be to all controversial topics that makes it open-ended to “popular” forces – that is, what is considered controversial at a given time. It does not have to be derived from an ideological commitment to critical theory, federalism, natural rights, or any other construct, although given the sense of liberty that natural rights view promotes, this approach comes closest to what that construct would deem as legitimate.
As to whether students are disposed to investigate such questions or issues, here is what Carole L. Hahn had to report back in 1996, during the time this blogger taught:
Nevertheless, it is clear that the three separate parts [identified just below] of that equation alone are not sufficient. Combined, however, they can make a difference in achieving the goals of social studies. That is, if students 1. study issues-centered content, 2. are in classes where discussions, research projects, debates, simulations, or writing assignments encourage them to consider differing views or interpretations of issues, and 3. they perceive the classroom climate as sufficiently supportive, so they are comfortable expressing their own view and considering those of others, then achieving social studies goals in the knowledge, skill, and attitude domains is likely.[7]
These conditions are echoed in the article from the ABA, cited above. And these citations conclude that, after reviewing a number of studies, that in fact an “issued-centered” approach will entice students to actively engage in ensuing inquiries. But it should be pointed out that any instructional model that has any currency can be and has been supported by their advocates as to its effectiveness by appropriate studies, and that includes direct instructional approaches.
Despite this reported research, one can still question whether the bulk of American students from modest to middle class backgrounds will necessarily find controversial issues engaging. In terms of this instructional strategy, as with any approach, this blogger has his doubts. He also believes that his doubt can be extended to whether the viability of either critical pedagogy or issue-centered approaches can even lure lower income groups to engage in active learning modes.
The belief that lower-income groups will be naturally attracted to a curriculum that highlights oppressive conditions that victimize them assumes rational decision-making. That assumption holds that once students see the rational basis for learning about conditions that hold them down and that they, the conditions, can be at least ameliorated by such knowledge, underestimates the emotional and cultural factors at work.
One needs to remember that one is dealing with adolescents – be they from advantaged or disadvantaged groups. The bias there is to rebel and not necessarily against those who one might consider to be reasonable targets.[8] This is not to say such instruction is bound for failure, but that teachers and other educators should not underestimate the challenges entailed with whatever instructional approach is adopted.
For a highly readable account of these irrational mental states and their power to sustain these relationships, read David Brooks' book, Social Animal.[9] This blogger can report from an extensive career as a classroom teacher of secondary social studies in both lower income and middle-income schools that no instructional approach can consistently be counted on to achieve success. Success is the product of many factors. Therefore, he has his doubts as to the belief that the issue-centered approach is a guaranteed way to solicit the sought after response.
But if educators are prone to look toward issue-centered curriculum and instruction as their chosen approach, this blogger has another concern. It is one of bias even to an approach that claims to be an open forum for discussion. That is an approach that claims to be non-ideological and based only on popular concerns. He will address this issue in his next posting.
[1] Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann, “Yes, Critical Race Theory Is Being Taught in Schools, City Journal (October 20, 2022), accessed May 20, 2023, https://www.city-journal.org/article/yes-critical-race-theory-is-being-taught-in-schools.
[2] Alyson Klein, “Survey: Educators’ Political Leanings, Who They Voted For, Where They Stand on Key Issues,” Education Week (December 12, 2017), accessed May 20, 2023, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/survey-educators-political-leanings-who-they-voted-for-where-they-stand-on-key-issues/2017/12#:~:text=Forty%20three%20percent%20of%20the,%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cvery%20liberal.%E2%80%9D.
[3] “Direct Instruction,” The Glossary of Education Reform (December 20, 2013), accessed May 21, 2023, https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/#:~:text=Generally%20speaking%2C%20direct%20instruction%20may,used%20in%20American%20public%20schools.
[4]Remember there is a difference between an instructional approach and a curriculum – the first is logistical, the latter is strategic.
[5] Cited book is a “reader” which contains a collection of solicited articles. Ronald W. Evans & David W. Saxe, eds., Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS bulletin 93 (Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1996).
[6] Louis Ganzler, “Confronting Controversial Issues in the Classroom,” ABA (August 3, 2022), accessed May 20, 2023, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/cornerstones-of-democracy/confronting-controversial-issues-in-the-classroom/.
[7] Carole L. Hahn, “Research on Issues-Centered Social Studies,” in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS Bulletin 93, eds. Ronald W. Evans and David Warren Saxe (Washington, DC: National Council of the Social Studies, 1996), 25-41, 26.
[8] “How to Deal with a Rebellious Teen,” Newport Academy (February 14, 2022) accessed May 21, 2023, https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/restoring-families/rebellious-teen/#:~:text=Rebellion%20is%20a%20natural%20part,person%20separate%20from%20their%20parents.
[9] David Brooks, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (New York, NY: Random House, 2011).