Anti-Opressive Education
My inquiry’s focus on alternative historical narratives, in particular those of gender and sexuality, childhood and education, and modern Africa, align the project with the pedagogical goals of “anti-oppressive” education. Education falling under this category works against various forms of oppression that are systematic in society and are related to identity. Similarly, through my inquiry project I aimed to embrace identities often overlooked in the classroom (many of those identities shared by my students) through the exploration of alternative narratives in World History lessons.
Educational researcher Kevin K. Kumashiro is among the most prominent scholarly voices in the field of “anti-oppressive” education. In his 2000 publication, “Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education,” he outlines and critiques the four primary approaches to this school of thought that are defined in the literature and practiced in the classroom. Kumashiro titles the first approach “Education for the Other.” This approach seeks to illuminate to ways in which racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and sexual minorities are systematically oppressed by mainstream society. This approach often calls for school-wide reexamination of practices and institutional bias that are harmful to minority students. “Education About the Other” is Kumashiro’s second delineated approach, and it seeks to educate the entire school community, both those who are privileged and those who are marginalized, about oppressed minority groups. By educating all students, teachers, administrators, and staff about minority groups, those advocating and practicing this approach believe misconceptions and harmful stereotypes about those groups can be obliterated. The third approach, “Education that is Critical of Privileging and Othering,” proposes that educators and students must examine how and why some groups are privileged and some are marginalized in society. This approach involves a critique of power structures and ideologies in order to abrupt the reproduction of inequalities. Kumashiro labels the final popular approach “Education that Changes Students and Society.” This approach maintains that the primary forces behind structural inequality revolve around the repetition of harmful language and harmful cultural tropes in social discourse. Proponents of “Education that Changes Students and Society” argue that reiterating all forms of stereotypes, both positive and negative, are harmful because of their immediate consequences and because of their histories deeply situated in oppression (Kumashiro, 2000).
While Kumashiro acknowledges that all four approaches have their strengths and weaknesses and can even be applied in concert with one another, they fall short of addressing the multifaceted nature of oppression in our modern world by failing to engage with various poststructuralist perspectives. In his more recent article, “’Posts’ Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Education in Social Studies, English, Mathematics, and Science Classrooms,” Kumashiro describes two poststructuralist frameworks that challenge classroom teachers. The first centers on “Unknowability, Multiplicity, and Looking Beyond the Known.” In this framework Kumashiro challenges educators to forfeit assumptions not only about their students, but also about the nature of knowledge, the construction of knowledge, and the applicability of knowledge. Educators must recognize and teach students explicitly that our culture privileges certain kinds of knowledge, while in the classroom embracing and affirming knowledge and cultural capital from outside the mainstream. Kumashiro’s second poststructuralist schema, “Resistance, Crisis, and Resigning the Self,” asks educators and students to examine and reexamine their own biases, as well as their own complicity in oppressive structures. Kumashiro explains that as humans we are resistant to change, and therefore harmful school routines often perpetuate or go unrecognized as harmful (Kumashiro, 2001).
My teaching of alternative historical narratives this year shares Kumashiro’s aforementioned goals of “anti-oppressive” education by giving voice to previously stifled identities in the classroom. Meanwhile, the very spirit of change and upending of routine in my lessons, particularly the Africa unit, met Kumashiro’s call for more uncertainty and more change in the classroom.
Educational researcher Kevin K. Kumashiro is among the most prominent scholarly voices in the field of “anti-oppressive” education. In his 2000 publication, “Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education,” he outlines and critiques the four primary approaches to this school of thought that are defined in the literature and practiced in the classroom. Kumashiro titles the first approach “Education for the Other.” This approach seeks to illuminate to ways in which racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and sexual minorities are systematically oppressed by mainstream society. This approach often calls for school-wide reexamination of practices and institutional bias that are harmful to minority students. “Education About the Other” is Kumashiro’s second delineated approach, and it seeks to educate the entire school community, both those who are privileged and those who are marginalized, about oppressed minority groups. By educating all students, teachers, administrators, and staff about minority groups, those advocating and practicing this approach believe misconceptions and harmful stereotypes about those groups can be obliterated. The third approach, “Education that is Critical of Privileging and Othering,” proposes that educators and students must examine how and why some groups are privileged and some are marginalized in society. This approach involves a critique of power structures and ideologies in order to abrupt the reproduction of inequalities. Kumashiro labels the final popular approach “Education that Changes Students and Society.” This approach maintains that the primary forces behind structural inequality revolve around the repetition of harmful language and harmful cultural tropes in social discourse. Proponents of “Education that Changes Students and Society” argue that reiterating all forms of stereotypes, both positive and negative, are harmful because of their immediate consequences and because of their histories deeply situated in oppression (Kumashiro, 2000).
While Kumashiro acknowledges that all four approaches have their strengths and weaknesses and can even be applied in concert with one another, they fall short of addressing the multifaceted nature of oppression in our modern world by failing to engage with various poststructuralist perspectives. In his more recent article, “’Posts’ Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Education in Social Studies, English, Mathematics, and Science Classrooms,” Kumashiro describes two poststructuralist frameworks that challenge classroom teachers. The first centers on “Unknowability, Multiplicity, and Looking Beyond the Known.” In this framework Kumashiro challenges educators to forfeit assumptions not only about their students, but also about the nature of knowledge, the construction of knowledge, and the applicability of knowledge. Educators must recognize and teach students explicitly that our culture privileges certain kinds of knowledge, while in the classroom embracing and affirming knowledge and cultural capital from outside the mainstream. Kumashiro’s second poststructuralist schema, “Resistance, Crisis, and Resigning the Self,” asks educators and students to examine and reexamine their own biases, as well as their own complicity in oppressive structures. Kumashiro explains that as humans we are resistant to change, and therefore harmful school routines often perpetuate or go unrecognized as harmful (Kumashiro, 2001).
My teaching of alternative historical narratives this year shares Kumashiro’s aforementioned goals of “anti-oppressive” education by giving voice to previously stifled identities in the classroom. Meanwhile, the very spirit of change and upending of routine in my lessons, particularly the Africa unit, met Kumashiro’s call for more uncertainty and more change in the classroom.