Resonse to "Critical Pedagogy in an Urban High School English Classroom"

“Multiculturalism [is] more closely related to pedagogy than to curriculum.”

“Critical Pedagogy in an Urban High School English Classroom” gave an optimistic look at what can be done for young people in an Urban, or any, classroom.  While it may make sense that it would be more work to pair “canonized” text with texts that are more contemporary, I do not think a teacher, at least one with any type of concern for her his/her students would shirk at the extra work.  For me, it seems like having a class full of students engaged in the lesson, and empowered with personal ownership for what is being taught, would be much more enjoyable than one in which I am parked in front of a group of people who stare blankly at me, counting the seconds down to the bell.

As for the line at the beginning of my response, though it takes almost a dozen times of reading it to understand, it makes perfect sense.  In other words, the idea that teaching with a student’s personal experiences and unique culture in mind, used to be part of how a teacher teaches, not actually affecting what is actually being taught to students.  The whole idea of “critical pedagogy” is what it says—the idea that one must be critical of anything  that asks one to teach or do things the same way for every person, every time.  “Our students existed in a world where they would be expected to take and perform well on standardized tests that served as gatekeepers to postsecondary education and, as a consequence, professional membership.”  I distinctly remember being told that one of the worst things one can do for a student is to ask them to do something, but then not giving them an opportunity or ability to succeed.

The whole idea here is to all “students to be able to present themselves powerfully.”  This should always be the idea, and goal for any teacher to work for.  The future of our society depends on this.