Notes: Cult of Pedagogy podcast
Historically Responsive Literacy
Recently in class for a weekly assignment we were introduced to this podcast: The Cult of Pedagogy. In every episode host Jennifer Gonzalez interviews and / or discusses interesting educators, and authors, thought leaders on the state of pedagogy.
Here are some thoughts on this episode.
The adventure I chose was: The Cult of Pedagogy Episode151: Historically Responsive Literacy. Jennifer Gonzalez is the host and her guest for this episode is Dr. Gholdy Muhammad. Her book is called Cultivating Genius: An Equity Framework for Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy which came out January 1, 2020 through Scholastic.
What are some of the connections you’re making between the text and your experiences as a learner or teacher?
Jennifer says she often put aside things such as deeper dives or formative assessments if she ran out of time. I have to wonder if the system is set up this way where we as teachers are crammed with curricula so that we will run out of time and no time will be left for the interpersonal connectivity that lends itself to critical thinking and introspection. It was noted that SEL, critical thinking, inquiry based learning are not required by the standards. And, yet, those are the vehicles in which real learning and discovery is cultivated.
•I really enjoyed this episode on many levels. I like the idea of an adversity score. The adversity a child has to deal with is often glossed over. There is such a thing as cognitive overload. If students are continuously being demanded upon without time for mental processing, this is not rigor.
Accoring to the MIT Teaching and Learning Lab, the Key Principals of Rigor in education are:
1. Rigor, when defined apart from a deficit ideology, is necessary to teach more inclusively.
2. Inadequate definitions of rigor produce poorer learning outcomes, particularly for underrepresented and/or underserved students.
3. Rigor is not simply hard for the sake of being hard, but it is purposeful and transparent.
If educators fail to give students a sense of calm, ability to self reflect, and processing time, they are, in fact, processing them. And, to borrow a phrase from one of my mentors, as in, like canned peas. They are not on a conveyor belt and we are not factory workers processing students. We are gardeners cultivating life long learners. The more I think about it, the more upset I get. So, for a moment, I am going to turn toward a sympathy for or maybe an empathizing with policy makers and administrators because I do think they care. Can smart people be misguided? Yes, I think we all can be. We all have a “job” to do… which could be part of the problem.
The pressure from the top is real. I have heard an administrator say, We don’t have time for ‘too bad’ and ‘poor thing’ because we have to get these scores up! This comment, by the way, followed acknowledgment of a student who had experienced homelessness and is experiencing instability in her young life. A few others suffered from different forms of instability such as a parent finding themselves in and out of the penal system.
This kind of thinking and methodology is counterproductive to the desire outcome. Yet, we who witness this daily are unheard and a blanket pedagogy of systems is mandated. What I find ironic is that these people that I know who are at the top do care. I think they care deeply. In fact, I think because they fear the failing of these students is why they demand a misinterpretation of rigor be implemented. But rushing students when they are not ready will only lead to negative results.
Do you agree or disagree with what you are reading? What left you confused or uncertain? Are the ideas presented in our readings practical for classroom use or in the culture of your school?
I agree with what I learned about. I looked up Dr. Gholdy Muhammad also out of curiosity about the book and a summer program called Black Girls WRITE! I found her being recognized on a site called WISE Muslim Women (WISE stands for Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality). To me, the fact that she is pursuing this line of work is exactly exercising the subversiveness necessary to create change in the systematic oppression of poor and BIPOC people. She actively calls for disrupting and dismantling in order to make change. Making change is hard, however, as we are feeling in what is now a ‘dumpster fire of 2024’. Isn’t the new administration disrupting and dismantling? Isn’t this what we wanted? We are learning we need to better qualify the direction we go in as a society following the disruption. Both liberals and conservatives are calling for freedom, but what the conservatives are really doing is dominating. Perspective can be deep. For example, I recently read an article on how Texas is a hotbed for Taiwanese nationalism and the author called Chiang Kai-Chek a dictator. But his successor by force was Mao Tse Tung. In my Asian studies in undergraduate school I had always sympathized with Chiang Kai-Shek and thought of him as pro-democracy. But this author had some lived experience and the stories from his parents and grandparents to shape his perspective. The article really didn’t talk about the communist regime and horrific treatment of the Chinese people that followed Chiang’s exile. With this regard, the author was focused on the time when Chiang tried to call Taiwan “The People’s Republic of China”. The takeover. It is a perspective we were not taught in our history class. I am glad to have both. And, hindsight is 20/20 which leads me to wish that population had more than two choices at that time since neither lived or advocated for wholesome national qualities in administration.
How history will portray this time we live in now is up for grabs and there are those who are very actively trying to shape and mold it and write it into fact. I’m left to wonder, How did we get so many hundreds of thousands of Americans who didn’t think critically in our recent history? I can only keep working towards critical thought and interpersonal connectivity in my own classroom.
Dr. Muhammad says in the interview, “Okay, well, what you doing? So criticality is important because we have too many times where the oppression of our history has repeated itself. We have sexism. We need criticality because we have sexism. We have ageism. We have ableism. We have religious discrimination. If we get to a place in society where no more hate exists, we do not need criticality. But, you know, that’s just not where we are.”
How does the author characterize or interpret literacy? What theoretical frame/stance is used? Do you see these same notions modeled (or expected of you) in the school environment?
I loved it that she distinguished “reading” from “decoding”. We can read the world, so to speak, but maybe we can’t always decode it. Decoding is such a longer journey for some. The pressures some feel also with regard to keeping up at young ages causes anxiety and downward spiraling. I’d really like to know more about this time in the 19th century she discusses when “a more human form of curriculum” existed, energized, and inspired students that evolved with the Black literary societies. Was it intentional? Was it national? Where was this? Was it just in people’s homes in Harlem? I would like to see this in contemporary society.
