Teaching to Change the World

According to the State of California, I am a “highly qualified” secondary school teacher with a Professional Clear Teaching Credential. In order to attain this title, I had to complete a credentialing program at a university and pass a state-certified exam in my subject area. My first quarter in the credentialing program included a required course entitled “Introduction to Teaching and Education.” So, sit back and enjoy a truly outrageous story about becoming a teacher.

The “Introduction to Teaching and Education” was a required course was taught by the Director of the Education Department at my university. The Director and Professor was a very vocal African-American female with a rather nifty Boston/Jamaican mixed accent. She had attitude and spunk. The subject-matter of the course was centralized around a book by Jeanne Oakes and Martin Lipton entitled “Teaching to Change the World.” The central premise of this book is that teaching inherently imposes a life-changing education on students. The challenge presented by the authors was this: “How will you change the world through your teaching?” Of course, the authors provided suggestions: Will you relieve systematic oppression of minorities? Will you provide a system of equal education for all? Will you pursue the values of democracy by providing opportunity for every student to receive an education? Will you provide an alternative to inequality in your classroom?

Honestly, I couldn’t relate to this book at all. Do they really think the only reason to be a teacher is to change the world? Was this supposed to be motivating? What about the freakin’ students? But I digress; I read the book from cover to cover. My midterm exam was worth 30% of my grade and was supposed to be a personal summary/response to this book, as well as a personal reflection on the purpose of teaching.

Allow me to summarize the book as I did in my midterm paper. The authors of the book argued against standardized textbooks and tests because they present “set bodies of knowledge” rather than create an atmosphere where knowledge could be “constructed.” As they said, “[National textbooks] helped unify social, moral, political, and educational values, just as their authors had very pointedly intended.” (Oakes and Lipton, 1999, p. 112) Do you sense the critical tone in “very pointedly intended?” They argue that “Intelligence has become a substitute for less acceptable indicators of merit…the technicalities of testing makes it easier to confer benefits on people who are members of traditionally powerful and favored groups.” (Oakes and Lipton, 1999, p. 56) They further argue that texts should not have central social, moral, political, or educational values because such views would be biased: “Today’s reformers maintain, therefore, that the hallmarks of the modern curriculum—absolute certainties and universal truths as mined from the depths of white, Western culture—are weak and limiting guidelines for deciding what and how students will learn in the twenty-first century.” (Oakes and Lipton, 1999, p. 120) I found it ironic that I was learning to teach U.S. History and the Constitution of the United States as “weak and limiting guidelines” “mined from the depths of white, Western culture.”

The authors presented an alternative solution to passing on these white, Western cultural values: “By employing reforms typically called a ‘multicultural curriculum,’ teachers acknowledge many cultures, help the less powerful acquire the cultural tools of the dominant Anglo-American culture, and create a democratic forum for exploring conflict and oppression.” (Oakes and Lipton, 1999, p. 129) A forum of exploring conflict and oppression was the solution to our current system of “set bodies of knowledge” as created by “white, Western culture.” To them, this was “democratic.” The authors suggested that multicultural curriculum would support an even greater goal in education: relieving systematic oppression, eliminating the socially elite, and creating a more “equal” and “democratic” world.

In my paper, I summarized the conflict between the conservative (set bodies of knowledge) and progressive (constructing knowledge) views of education. I used the above quotations and many others to describe the authors’ position. I even presented their evidence, as they described it “socially scientific data,” as rather convincing. I devoted more than half of my paper to the summary, attempting to prove that I knew the material.

Then, of course, I argued. I presented an opinion. I “constructed knowledge.” I shamelessly borrowed arguments from C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, where Screwtape presented Hell with a method of infecting education with the “democratic” values of devaluing human potential to the least common denominator.

I stated that my purpose for becoming a teacher was not to change the world, but to change each student. I suggested that “while it is accurate that social inequalities and instability exists in American society, it is not a practical goal of a state-employed educator to correct these problems as they see fit.” We were teaching at schools, not preaching at political rallies. Parents trusted us to educate their children. “Schools are not meant to make socially insecure students (or parents or educators) feel better by helping them confront less challenging materials, classrooms, societies, or worlds.” Teachers needed to challenge students with critical thinking, knowledge, and curriculum even if (or especially if) it was constructed from “absolute certainties and universal truths as mined from the depths of white, Western culture.” Such certainties and truths cannot be so easily discarded.

I presented the view that “progressive educators would seek to change the teaching job to include those of a nurse, psychologist, and social worker in order to promote their views of equality and social stability.” Our service to American families should not change due to modern socio-political pressure. I suggested the consequences of this action were outrageous, as presented by C.S. Lewis: “Education should not be taught such that a student who is able to handle advanced mathematics or Aristotle will have to sit and listen to a student struggling to read Dr. Seuss’ ‘Green Eggs and Ham.’ Should both of these students receive the same level of education because of special social interests such as promoting views of ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’?”

I argued that the world’s most tyrannical leaders became that way by making people believe their full potential was found in the lowest common denominator. In communism, Marxism, and even socialism, everyone has their place in society that is never above average. To present “social equality” as “true democracy” was absurd. I present my personal reflection, opinion, and purpose for teaching in the last three pages of my eight page paper.

I received my paper back with no corrective markings on it, save one: the letter “F” on the back page. No one else in my class received a grade lower than a “C,” and even that paper had feedback. I approached the professor after the course to talk about my grade. We agreed to meet in her office later in the week.

I met with my professor in her office marked as “Dean of Education.” She initiated the conversation with shock and outrage at my paper, because I had always been a productive student in class discussions and attendance. I summarized my paper and conflicting views with the course text. Her response was priceless.

She said, “As the Director of the Education Department, I need to ask you some questions.” She continued, “How do you feel about me as a professor?” I didn’t quite understand what she meant by the question, so I simply told her I enjoyed her lectures and discussions because they always provoked critical thinking. She responded, “It seems to me that you have a problem with supporting equality in a diverse society. Do you have any problems being taught by me, a black female?” I responded with a simple, “No.” She continued, “How do you feel about minorities? Do you think you’ll be able to effectively teach people such as blacks and Hispanics?” I said, “Yes.” She responded, “Honestly, based on this paper, I do not believe you. You are going to have a very hard time being an effective teacher. I am concerned about you being in this program. I am concern about you earning a credential from this institution. Please understand, this is not personal, but it is my job to make sure people who graduate from here are not racially or ethnically prejudice.”

I was absolutely speechless. I didn’t know what to say. She brought out my application and personal statement, which included my personal background. She asked me more personal questions about my childhood, how I grew up, and if I had any bad experiences with non-whites and females. I answered hesitantly because I did not want her feedback. I told her I did not understand how these questions related to my paper. So, after a small discussion about my life history, the conversation changed again back to the subject of my paper.

At the beginning of the course, my professor announced that, if student disagreed with their grade, they could resubmit it for re-grading. She informed me that this would not be necessary because my grade on the paper would not change. She explained that my views of the text were purposefully inaccurate and misleading, which were the basis for my grade. I explained that there were no inaccuracies in my references or the context in which they were quoted. She replied by saying that my quotes were chosen to purposefully misrepresent the text based on my analysis that followed. She suggested that in order to pass the course and continue in the credentialing program, I would need to have perfect attendance, receive perfect marks on my homework, and receive an “A-“ or better on my final exam. The only other option was to appeal to the Dean of the university by way of a review board.

In closing, she told me that she was still very concerned about me being in the program. She doubted my success in teaching, and suggested that, if my views on diversity in education did not change, she hoped I would not continue the credentialing program. I told her I would continue to do my best, consider an appeal to the Dean, and left her office.

I finished the course with grade of “C.” I had perfect attendance, perfect homework, and received an “A” on the final exam that was an in-class essay written about our personal methods of teaching based on what we saw were the goals of education. Apparently, she saw no reason to criticize my methods of teaching, even if my motives to do so were “racially or ethnically prejudice.”

Throughout the remainder of my credentialing program, I never received a final grade in a course lower than an “A.” My transcript starts out with “A, A, C, A, A, A…” etc. I passed the state-certified subject exam in Social Science and became certified. Due to my coursework, I received a Professional Clear Credential rather than just a Preliminary Credential. I would’ve graduated with high honors if I hadn’t received a “C” my first quarter, but I didn’t even attend the graduation ceremony anyway. If I would’ve attended, I would’ve loved to have shaken the hand of the Dean of Education as I walked across the stage. I’m sure she would’ve enjoyed seeing me too.