Running Head: CAPSTONE: CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
Catherine Thomson
Capstone: Critical Literacy in Urban Schools
Vanderbilt University
2
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
Abstract
In this paper, I first describe my personal belief that teachers should take a culturally responsive
pedagogical approach in their classrooms. This approach, at its core, is based on the belief that
all children can learn, and that their individual cultures and identities are not only important, but
should be the foundation of the teaching and learning experience. The components of culturally
responsive teaching include a focus on high academic success, cultural competency and critical
consciousness. This leads teachers to engage their students in rigorous, liberating learning
experiences that allow them to challenge the status quo of society and become agents of change
in the world.
Drawing on the theories of culturally responsive pedagogy, critical pedagogy, and
intersectionality, I explain how critical literacy has the potential to influence the closing of three
main gaps present in urban education: the achievement gap, the opportunity gap and the
curriculum gap. With a close look at what critical literacy is, the types of questions it asks and
the type of students it creates, I challenge urban elementary school teachers to examine their own
literacy practices and consider embracing a critical approach to teaching. I conclude the paper
with both implications for education and for my own work. For the field of education, I suggest
that teacher preparation programs shift their instruction and have a greater focus on culturally
responsive teaching philosophies. For my own work, I conclude that I must never stop growing
and learning, and that my pedagogy should continue to be challenged so that I can forever be
responsive to my students’ cultures, identities and needs.
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
3
Introduction
“I believe.” Those two words hold so much power and great implications for each of our
lives. What I believe impacts the choices I make every day. As a teacher, everything from how I
organize my classroom space, to the way I teach math or reading, to the way I engage families,
are all affected by my underlying beliefs. The learners I will address in this paper are urban
elementary school teachers who teach culturally diverse students. But, instead of engaging
directly into the explanation of these teachers use of critical literacy and the rationale behind
teachers using this approach in an urban elementary school classroom, I must first explain what
underlying beliefs I have about teaching, learning and the students I come in contact with each
day, and how those beliefs, when shared by other educators, can be the foundation and catalyst
for embarking on a critical literacy approach in the classroom. What we each believe is greatly
influenced by our own life experiences, so my first personal challenge throughout this capstone
experience was to engage in self-reflection and an understanding of what I believe, and the life
experiences that have influenced those beliefs.
In addition to understanding what I believe, I also acknowledge that as I suggest that
teachers be culturally responsive (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and internalize the beliefs that the
theory is based upon, I must also acknowledge that there are various phases of change, as
described by the transtheoretical model of change (TM), which implies that as I suggest a certain
approach urban teachers should take, I must also consider that they might not be ready to change
their previous practices (Burke et al. 2006). “The TM proposes that change is an evolving
process that occurs over time rather than construed as a single event.” (Burke et al, 2006, p. 2).
One of my goals for this paper is to first raise consciousness of the need to understand your own
belief systems, and then, to understand how a culturally responsive philosophy and critical
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
4
literacy approach could help promote equity in schooling. One of the change processes in the TM
model is simply “consciousness-raising,” which “is defined as increasing information about
one’s self and the problem” (Burke et al, 2006, p. 3). As I explain my beliefs about culturally
responsive pedagogy, the current urban educational crisis and the use of critical literacy, I am
writing to an audience of teachers who are perhaps in the contemplation stage in the TM model.
Through this paper, they might be inspired to embark on being agents of change in urban
elementary schools through the use of critical literacy (Burke et al., 2006, p. 2).
Important Terms
In this paper, I use the term urban in the same way as Weiner (2006). She describes
urban (or city) schools as those marked by high poverty, racial and religious diversity, highly
bureaucratic, impersonal school structure, and inadequate funding (pp. 16-17). In describing a
school where she taught, Weiner (2006) identifies another important feature of most urban
schools: a faculty that is “socially isolated from their students’ lives outside the classroom”
(p. 17). Next, I use the term culture in the way that Howard (2010) defines it: “a complex
constellation of values, mores, norms, customs, ways of being, ways of knowing, and traditions
that provides a general design for living … passed from generation to generation, and serves as a
pattern for interpreting reality” (p. 51). Although this is a lengthy list of what culture
encompasses, it is necessary to consider all of the facets that make someone who he or she is.
Finally, it is important to explain what I mean when I say students who come from a diverse
background, or minority students. I take on Milner’s (2013) viewpoint of culturally diverse
students, whom he describes as “…students of color, those whose first language is not English,
and those who live in poverty or are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds” (p. 10). Finally, I
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
5
will also refer to the dominant culture, which “refers to social practices and representations that
affirm the central values, interests, and concerns of the social class in control of the material and
symbolic wealth of society” (McLaren, 2009, p. 65). Meaning, there is a set of practices and
values that society celebrates, marginalizing various other sets of values, concerns, etc. These
key terms will be used throughout this paper.
I Believe…Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
First and foremost, I believe that all children are capable of achieving high levels of
academic and personal success. I also believe that their schooling experiences should be
equitable and responsive to their individual needs, cultures and identities. Additionally, I believe
that my role as a teacher is to provide an equitable and responsive learning environment and
experiences to help equip my students to fight for the equitable schooling and the life they
deserve. Gay (2002) spoke of culturally responsive teachers as teachers who “genuinely believe
in the intellectual potential of these students and accept, unequivocally, their responsibility to
facilitate its realization without ignoring, demeaning, or neglecting their ethnic or cultural
identities” (p. 110). Another part of my responsibility as a teacher is to empower my students to
be active participants in democracy. Unfortunately, teachers without a culturally responsive
outlook on education end up being “mere functionaries of a system that has no intent on
preparing students—particularly urban students of color—for meaningful work and dynamic
participation in democracy. The academic death of students is made evident in the
disengagement, academic failure, dropout, suspension, expulsion that have become an all too
familiar part of schooling in urban schools” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 77). In the next section I
will explain the current urban educational crisis in more depth, but for now, I make the point that
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
6
a culturally responsive pedagogue is one who prepares students to be active members in
democracy and believes that all students can achieve high levels of academic and personal
success.
What is culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP)? One of the main goals of CRP is to
empower students who come from culturally diverse backgrounds to fight for equitable
schooling and life opportunities (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2002; Delpit, 1995; Freire, 2000).
An underlying assumption to this viewpoint is that the current public education system is not
equitable and that it does not meet the needs of all students, especially students who come from
culturally diverse backgrounds. According to Delpit (1995), there is a culture of power that
operates in schools, and culturally diverse students are often voiceless and lack access to that
power system. In turn, their schooling experiences often do not meet their needs or prepare them
to be active members in society. She argues for culturally diverse students to be taught to
navigate this system of power. She explains that “schools must provide these children the content
that other families from a different cultural orientation provide at home” (p. 30). Part of CRP is
for students to understand their cultures, to be conscious of the power structures at be, and to
challenge those structures by advocating for change (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Culturally responsive pedagogy is built upon the principles of the Social Critical Theory,
which begins “with the premise that men and women are essentially unfree and inhabit a world
rife with contradictions and asymmetries of power and privilege” (McLaren, 1988, p. 61 as
quoted in Beck, 2005, p. 393). Critical educators believe that schools are mere demonstrations,
and perpetuations of an unequal distribution of power in society, which legitimizes “particular
forms of knowledge that serve the interests of a dominant culture and ideology” (Rogers, 2002,
p. 744 as quoted in Beck, 2005, p. 393).
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
7
Additionally, within the idea that culturally diverse students are marginalized in school,
Carter’s (2002) work on intersectionality helps explain the complexity of the factors that
influence diverse students’ school achievement and experiences. The concepts of
intersectionality “stress the idea that race (or ethnicity), class, and gender (in addition to other
social forces) are not separate and additive, but rather interactive and multiplicative (p. 111). In
other words, students who fall into multiple non-dominant categories have even greater chances
of being marginalized and silenced in school (Carter, 2002).
Now back to the meaning of culturally responsive pedagogy. According to Gloria
Ladson-Billings (1995), culturally responsive pedagogy intends to challenge the dominant norms
and create a space in the classroom where concepts of power and inequity can be challenged. Her
framework consists of three components: academic success, cultural competency and critical
consciousness. One of the primary misconceptions of CRP is that is has “affective but not
cognitive benefits. … However, the purpose is to promote academic learning and to reach the
goal of educational equality” (Au, 2001, p. 5). CRP is based upon strong relationships with
students and valuing their cultures, yet it never lacks rigorous academic goals and achievement.
In fact, because of the focus on what is relevant to students based off of their own cultural
identities, their engagement and academic success are increased. Gay (2002) confirmed this
philosophy of teaching and explained that “it is based on the assumption that when academic
knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of reference of
students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more
easily and thoroughly” (p. 106). Further, the components of CRP include “…teaching
approaches (that) build upon the strengths that students bring from their home cultures, instead
of ignoring these strengths or requiring that students learn through approaches that conflict with
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
8
their cultural values. Culturally responsive instruction fosters new literacies that make
connections to students’ home cultures” (Au, 2001, p. 3). Unfortunately, culturally responsive
instruction is not widely adopted in urban schools. The next section is an explanation of three
different urban educational gaps that have emerged from the lack of responsiveness to the needs
of diverse students (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Freire, 2000).
Urban Educational Crisis: The Gaps
While thinking about urban educational gaps, it is important to note that a large
percentage of culturally diverse students attend urban schools, which disenfranchises them from
their white, middle class peers even more (Corner, 1999, p. 327). A consequence is the creation
of three gaps: the achievement gap, the opportunity gap and the curriculum gap.
The achievement gap is “the differences in scores on state or national achievement tests
between various student demographic groups. And the gap that has been a long-standing source
of the greatest concern is that between white students and minority students” (Anderson,
Medrich, Fowler, 2007, p. 547). As Noguera (2009) said, “The achievement gap is not new.
Disparities in student achievement that correspond to the racial, socioeconomic, and linguistic
backgrounds of children have been common to American public schools for years” (p. 62). This
gap means that many culturally diverse students are educated in failing schools and many are
disengaging from their schooling experience. Even through the understanding of the achievement
gap is not new, “what is new is the idea that the gap can be closed and that schools should be
held responsible for making it happen” (Noguera, 2009, p. 62).
Consider the implications of intersectionality mentioned earlier, where students with
multiple forms of non-dominant characteristics, such as low-socioeconomic status and a non-
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
9
dominant race, interfere with their acceptance in society. These students will have even greater
chances of marginalization in school, which can contributes to lower achievement on
standardized tests. Later I explain how critical literacy could be one step for bridging this gap,
but first, Ladson-Billings (2007) encourages educational reformers to not only look at the student
achievement gap, but also to look at “other ‘gaps’ that plague the lives of poor children of color”
(p. 317).
Another gap that is prevalent in urban schools is the opportunity gap. Milner, in his book,
Start Where You Are, But Don’t Stay There (2013), said, “I have often wondered why so many
people focus on the outcomes (test scores) rather than on the processes that lead to the
outcomes—that is, teaching and learning. Rather than focus on an achievement gap to explain
students’ educational outcomes, I suggest we think about what I call an opportunity gap” (p. 7).
He goes on to say, “Too many students in P-12 institutions have not been provided an
opportunity to develop into successful students because our educational system has not been
structurally designed to do so” (p. 8). He suggests that educators look at the disparities in
opportunities that culturally diverse students face. Au (2001) said, “It often takes these children
longer to learn to ‘do’ school, because school is so different from the environments with which
they are familiar” (Au, 2001, p. 8). With the combination of barriers and lack of opportunities
culturally diverse students face, it makes sense that there would be a gap in achievement test
scores.
Furthering the explanation of these gaps, another gap must be mentioned: the curriculum
gap. As we have already seen, culturally diverse students often do not have the same types of
opportunities as their white, middle class peers. Instead, they are being educated in schools
where the norms match the culture of power, and the result is a gap in achievement.
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
10
Additionally, the curriculum in urban schools is not representative of the students in those
schools.
The final gap I will discuss, the curriculum gap, can be defined as a narrowing of the
curriculum in urban schools in an attempt to raise standardized test scores (Au, 2001). One of the
ways urban schools have been encouraged to raise test scores is through scripted, mandated
curriculum programs (Au, 2001, p. 3). For literacy in lower elementary grades, these program
often focus solely on phonological awareness and decoding and other foundational literacy skills,
“however, other foundational aspects of literacy are also essential but often missing from or only
attended to in passing in daily instruction in urban K-3 classrooms, thus creating a severe
curriculum gap (Teale, Paciga, Hoffman, 2007, p. 347).
McLaren (2009) explains, “From the perspective of critical educational theorists, the
curriculum represents much more than a program of study, a classroom text, or a course syllabus.
Rather, it represents the introduction to a particular form of life; it serves in part to prepare
students for dominant or subordinate positions in the existing society. The curriculum favors
certain forms of knowledge over others and affirms the dreams, desires, and values of select
groups of students over other groups, often discriminatorily on the basis of race, class, and
gender” (p. 75). I propose that critical literacy can help address the dominant cultural norms
represented in current curriculum, leading to a more equitable schooling experience for culturally
diverse students. These three gaps are not the only gaps present in urban education; however, an
investigation of the other gaps is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, through this short
explanation of the achievement gap, the opportunity gap and the curriculum gap, we can see that
there is a need for change in the current system.
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
11
Introduction to Critical Literacy
As evidenced above, there is an apparent need in urban education, specifically with the
curriculum used to teach culturally diverse students. “While the literacy achievement gap is but
one manifestation of a whole constellation of issues, it constitutes a specific target to which
educators can direct their efforts” (Au, 2001, p. 2). Au continues, “If students of diverse
backgrounds are to compete with their mainstream peers, their instruction must take them
beyond the basics to higher level thinking with text” (p. 2). One way to address this issue is
through the use of critical literacy. Critical literacy allows teachers and students to engage the
curriculum in a new way, making it more responsive to the students represented in the class. It,
too, builds on social critical pedagogy, which focuses on transforming social inequalities and
injustices (Beck, 2005; McLaren, 2009 and 1988; Freire, 2000). In order to understand the
potential benefits of a critical literacy approach, I will first define it in light of current research
literature, then explain why it is important, and finally show the benefits for urban education. My
intention is not to give specific lesson examples, but rather encourage urban elementary school
educators to begin thinking differently about how they approach literacy instruction.
Critical Literacy is…
What is it critical literacy? First, “Critical literacy is a perspective and way of thinking
about curriculum, literacies, and the lived experiences of our students” (Wood, 2005, p. 2). This
approach views children’s literature as an avenue for students to discuss and “understand the
social and political issues around them” (Vasquez, 2007, p. 7; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay,
2002). Concerning the curriculum, a critical literacy approach assumes that texts are never
neutral and that all children’s literature depicts and promotes specific norms. These texts “are
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
12
written from particular perspectives, stances, or vantage points and … carry with them particular
ideologies” (Vasquez, 2007, p. 7). According to Meller (2009), “Texts are not (always) critical in
and of themselves; it is the conversations that take place around the texts that qualify as critical”
(p. 77). On the surface, this might appear to contradict the previous point that all texts carry
particular ideologies; however, what Meller (2009) points out is that the choice to engage in
critical conversations about the texts is what makes the literacy instruction critical or not. So, the
foundation of a critical literacy approach is using high-quality children’s literature (or relevant
media) to engage students in conversations about the social and political issues that surround
them (Vasquez, 2007; Meller, 2009; Wood, 2005).
Next, critical literacy is always student centered because the conversations around the
texts arise from the lives of the students in the class. One of the problems with current
curriculum (which has led to the curriculum gap) is that most curriculums are not centered on the
diverse groups of students represented in urban schools. Critical literacy addresses this directly
by engaging students in instruction that “can make school literacy learning personally
meaningful and rewarding for students of diverse backgrounds” (Au, 2001, p. 4). Wood (2005)
supports this position: “Through this perspective, a space is created that allows the students to
better connect classroom practice with the social realms they engage in outside of school” (p. 4).
It allows the students to question and challenge the way society functions and gives them a voice
concerning those issues (Meller, 2009; Freire, 2000).
A final way of thinking about critical literacy is to view it as “organic” (Campano, Ghiso,
Sanchez, 2013). Through their research, Campano, Ghiso, and Sanchez (2013) describe how the
students in their study did not need to be “taught” critical literacy, “but rather were cultivating
critical orientations and dispositions already seeded in the soil of their local context” (p. 102). To
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
13
further support this idea, consider what young children know and what they have experienced
before even entering school. As Comber (2001) notes, “Children begin school with ideas about
what’s fair and what’s not, gleaned from five years of experience with family and community
life. They also come to school with rich repertoires of narrative resources from popular culture,
sports, and so on—stories that deal with who/what’s powerful, who/what’s cool, who the
good/bad guys are” (p. 1). The teacher’s role, then, is to help students develop their language and
critical thinking skills in order to discuss these experiences and facilitate critical conversations.
So, we are led to ask, how can teachers promote these types of student centered, organic,
liberating literacy experiences? How can teachers foster conversations that lead to power
structures being exposed, social issues being discussed and action plans being created?
Critical Literacy Asks…
Since “all critical literacy lessons are student centered and involve lively, sometimes
heated, discussion about controversial, provocative issues; encouraging strong engagement with
and discussion of subject matter that is deeply relevant to students’ lives beyond the classroom,”
how exactly do teachers foster this type of learning experience (Beck, 2005, p. 393)? The critical
literacy process begins with a teacher analyzing her/his approach to teaching literacy and then
looking at the curriculum differently. This often requires a teacher to think more broadly about
what counts as literature or valuable content for teaching literacy. Brkich (2012) proposes that
teachers include pop culture—specifically music—to reveal social injustices (pp. 1-2). In regard
to teachers who are new to the critical literacy approach, Chafel (2007) encourages teachers to
begin by asking, “How can I draw on children’s everyday, lived knowledge and experiences to
examine issues of poverty in the classroom? How might I employ literature to support sustained
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
14
critical conversations with children? What conversation strategies support children’s knowledge
construction and negotiation?” (p. 80). Once the teacher has set up the structure for critical
conversations using carefully selected texts and media, she/he then begins modeling and
encouraging students to generate questions around the texts.
Critical literacy continues to develop from whatever the students have identified as
relevant issues based off their lived experiences at home and in their community, in connection
to, or stimulated by, their literacy lessons. Wood (2005) suggests activating discussion with
questions such as: “Who is this text written for? Who benefits from the message of this text?
What would this story look like from another perspective?” (p. 5). Other questions include,
“Who has produced this text, under what circumstances, and for which readers? What’s missing
from this account? How could it be told differently?” (Comber, 2001, p. 1).
As these conversations begin, the students’ responses will lead to the next steps of the
lesson, such as an action plan to address the societal inequities that are exposed. The discussions
and questions will often lead to “problematizing texts to expose privilege and oppression; it
reveals how texts benefit some people and harm others” in the same way that there are power
tensions in society (Bourke, 2008, p. 304). When considering the urban education gaps discussed
previously, exposing privilege and oppression in students’ lives through literacy can be a
powerful outlet for them, giving them a voice concerning those experiences (Freire, 2000;
McLaren, 2009; Beck, 2005).
Critical Literacy Creates…
What are the results of a critical literacy approach? First, it challenges the “Rule of Text,”
which is “the perception that text is authoritative and final and an underlying belief that
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
15
suppresses the reader’s license to challenge, question, deconstruct, and rewrite the assumptions,
beliefs, ideologies, and concepts embedded, whether implicitly or not, within the perspective of
the text” (Bourke, 2008, p. 309). Critical literacy gives students permission to challenge texts, to
question and analyze the implications and to ask how the themes of the texts are played out in
society and the world around them. Critical literacy creates culturally, racially, politically, and
socially conscious students (Freire, 2000; McLaren, 2009; Beck, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Delpit, 1995). It gives students opportunities to have a voice, to share their perspectives and to
consider the perspectives of others. And, perhaps most importantly, critical literacy gives them
opportunities to take action and participate in society (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
These critical conversations make students thinkers, not workers, giving them the ability
to make informed decisions about the world around them (Au, 2001; Vasquez, 2007).
Additionally, their engagement with and discussion of relevant subject matter is increased, which
addresses the lack of relevance in typical curriculum in urban schools (Beck, 2005). In regard to
higher order thinking skills, “When students question texts as well as their experiences and
beliefs, they are engaging in deeper practices of critique and analysis” (Bourke, 2008, p. 305).
Furthermore, as students learn new ways of analyzing and interpreting texts and the
social and political worlds around them, their critical lens is transferred to other realms of school,
multiplying the academic impact (Bourke, 2008). Bourke supports this when he shares the results
of critical literacy with his students: “When my students were granted agency to adjust factions
of power, their fairy tale renditions resonated with evidence of critical thinking—thinking that
was to extend into other areas of curriculum. As we read other genres, my students transferred
their critical skills and began to discern the inequities present in various text types,
deconstructing them in their conversations and writing” (p. 311). These literacy skills act as
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
16
“scaffolds for each other,” which “supports literacy learning across the child’s discourses”
(Wood, 2005, p. 4). Ultimately, this approach to literacy “is an act of knowing that empowers
individuals because through it, individuals simultaneously discover their voices and their ethical
responsibilities to use literacy for the improvement of their world” (Beck, 2005, p. 394). Critical
literacy, when initiated by a culturally responsive pedagogue, has the potential to address the
urban educational gaps mentioned earlier.
Next, I will briefly return to the concepts of culturally responsive pedagogy and the three
gaps and suggest how critical literacy can potentially address those needs.
Closing the Gaps
As evidenced above, critical literacy can lead to high levels of engagement, critical
thinking and critique, all of which are skills needed for academic success (Vasquez, 2007;
Ladson-Billings, 1995). So, critical literacy addresses the first principle of Ladson-Billing’s
(1995) components of CRP: academic success. This type of engagement with content has the
potential to directly impact the achievement gap. Students’ literacy instruction utilizes the
strengths of their culture, while also teaching them how to operate in the culture of power
(Delpit, 1995).
Next, critical literacy gives students an opportunity to engage in their literacy instruction
in meaningful ways. I am not implying that critical literacy gives students all of the
opportunities, inside and outside of the school setting, that they deserve, but what it does do is
expose students to the inequitable distribution and access to opportunities in society and
empowers them to begin liberating themselves (Freire, 2000). The heart of this type of liberation
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
17
is an understanding and valuing of their own cultures, which addresses Ladson-Billing’s second
component of CRP: cultural competence (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Finally, as teachers begin to rethink curriculum and how they can expose the dominant
culture represented in it and implied through it, they are bridging the curriculum gap (McLaren,
2009). Instead of narrowing the curriculum in an attempt to raise standardized test scores, they
are broadening and enriching the curriculum, making it more rigorous and applicable (Au, 2001).
This new view of curriculum raises both the teacher’s and the students’ critical consciousness,
which is the third component of Ladson-Billing’s (1995) definition of CRP.
Implications/Limitations
My primary implication from this study of critical literacy is best summed up by Vasquez
(2007): “Given this complex world, we cannot afford for children not to engage in some tough
conversations if they are to learn to become critical analysts of the world who are able to make
informed decisions as they engage with the world around them” (p. 6). Teachers are the ones
who facilitate and encourage students to become critical analysts of the world around them, so I
suggest that teacher preparation programs reconsider their approaches and begin preparing
teachers to do this kind of work. However, “it is often difficult to even imagine a critical
curriculum, especially in the confines of fixed instructional approaches (Wolfe, 2010, p. 370).
Research suggests that “almost all successful changes are teacher-initiated and result
from working from the ‘inside-out’” (Tyack and Cuban, 1995 as cited in Cooper & White, 2012).
Therefore, with a shift in focus in teacher preparation programs to a more critical pedagogy, this
“inside-out” work of liberation and pursuit of equity might be actualized (Freire, 2000; McLaren,
2009; Ladson-Billings, 1995).
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
18
This work, however, has what I would consider to be limitations, or perhaps “cautions.”
First, how do I, as an urban educator of culturally diverse students, and others like myself, move
from theory to practice? In the real life lessons and conversations with my students, will I be able
to facilitate effective critical literacy lessons (Gay, 2001)? Part of my own consciousness must be
an awareness of my own white privilege and my need to teach as an ally to an oppressed group
(Orner, 1992; McIntosh, 2004). Lesley (1997) says there is need for “recognition of privilege as
an instructor and member of White America” but for that recognition to “not (be) given primacy
over the voices and experiences of students with differing perspectives” (p. 424). These
questions and concerns will remain unanswered until I am back in the classroom, enacting
culturally responsive pedagogy.
An additional caution is that through critical literacy with elementary students, teachers
intentionally keep the work “pleasurable by discussing issues that are significant to the students”
(Vasquez, 2007, p.7). This means that the teacher cannot assume what the students will find
meaningful, but rather allow the topics to be generated by the students’ interests. The teacher
must avoid “over-schooling the children’s topics and co-opting their interests thereby
diminishing their pleasure with it” (Vasquez, 2007, p. 8). This type of sensitivity cannot be
taught to teachers, which confirms that critical literacy “is not without risks” (Beck, 2014,
p. 392). These risks include taking the pleasure out of learning experiences, or teachers being
insensitive to the needs of the students.
Future Considerations: My Teaching
Through this journey and study of critical pedagogy and critical literacy, I have added to
my own beliefs. I believe that I must “permit” myself “to be known by [my] students and
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
19
proceed with them into some uncomfortable, contradictory spheres” (Lesley, 1997, p. 423). Part
of this process is the pursuit of growth throughout my entire teaching career. I was struck by
Ladson-Billings’ (2014) most recent writings about culturally responsive teaching. She said, “if
we ever get to a place of complete certainty and assuredness about our practice, we will stop
growing. If we stop growing, we will die, and, more importantly, our students will wither and die
in our presence. Both teachers and students can be vulnerable to a sort of classroom death. Death
in the classroom refers to teachers who stop trying to reach each and every student or teachers
who succumb to rules and regulations that that are dehumanizing” (p. 77). I shall never stop
growing, never stop advocating, and never stop exposing that which is unreasonable, insensible,
and inequitable in urban schools.
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
20
References
Au, K. (2001). Culturally responsive instruction as a dimension of new literacies. Reading
Online.
Anderson, S., Medrich, E., & Fowler, D. (2007). Which Achievement Gap? The Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 88(No, 7), 547-550.
Beck, A. (2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal for Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(5),
392-400.
Bourke, R. (2008). First graders and fairy tales: One teacher’s action research of
critical literacy. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 304-312.
Brkich, C. (2012). Music as a weapon: Using popular culture to combat social injustice. The
Georgia Social Studies Journal, 2(1), 1-9.
Burke, R., Guck, T., Robinson, M., Powell, W., &Fichtner, L. (2006). Overcoming resistance to
implementing classroom management strategies: Use of the transtheoretical model to
explain teacher behavior. Research in the School, 13(2), 1-12.
Campano, G., Ghiso, M., & Sanchez, L. (2013). “Nobody knows the…amount of a
person”: Elementary students critiquing dehumanization through organic critical
literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 98-125.
Carter, P., Sellers, S. L., & Squires, C. (2002). Reflections on race/ethnicity, class and gender
inclusive research. African American Research Perspectives, 8(1), 111-124.
Chafel, J., Flint, A., Hammel, J., & Pomeroy, K. (2007). Young children, social issues,
and critical literacy. Young Children, 62(1), 73-81.
Cooper, K. & White, R. (2012). The recursive process in and of critical literacy: Action research
in an urban elementary school. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(2), 41-57.
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
21
Comber, B. (2001). Critical literacy: Power and pleasure with language in the early
years. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(3), 168-181.
Corner, J., Hoxby, C., & Rawlings, H. (1999). Creating Successful Schools. Brookings Papers
on Education Policy, No. 2, 327-370.
Delpit, L. (1995). The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's
Children. In Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New
Press.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Howard, T. (2010). Why race matters and culture matter in schools. New York: Teachers
College Press. (p. 51-66).
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing Past the Achievement Gap: An Essay on the Language of
Deficit. The Journal of Negro Educaiton, Vol. 76(No. 3), 316-323.
Lesley, M. (1997). The different dance of critical literacy. Journal for Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 40(6), 420-424.
McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School.
McLaren, P. (2009). Critical Pedagogy: A look at the Major Concepts.
McLaren, P. (1988). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy and the politics of
literacy. New York: Longman.
CRITICAL LITERACY IN URBAN SCHOOLS
22
Meller, W., Richardson, D., & Hatch, J. (2009). Using read-alouds with critical literacy
literature in K-3 classrooms. Young Children, 64(6), 76-78.
Milner, H. (2010). Start where you are, but don't stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today's classrooms. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Education Press
Milner, H. (2014). Culturally relevant, purpose-driven learning and teaching in a middle school
social studies classroom. Multicultural Education, 21(2), 9-17.
Noguera, P. (2009). The achievement gap: Public education in crisis. New Labor Forum, 18(2),
60-69.
Teale, W., Paciga, K., & Hoffman, J. (2007). Issues in urban literacy: Beginning Reading
Instruction in Urban Schools: The Curriculum Gap Ensures a Continuing Achievement
Gap. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 344-348.
Vasquez, V. (2007). Using the everyday to engage in critical literacy with young
children. New England Reading Association Journal, 43(2), 6-11.
Weiner, L. (2006). Urban teaching the essentials. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia
University.
Wolfe, P. (2010). Preservice Teachers Planning for Critical Literacy Teaching. English
Education, 42(2), 368-390.
Wood, J. (2005). Moses’s story: Critical literacy and social justice in an urban
kindergarten. Voices of Practitioners, 1(12), 101-106.