1
Will Reese
9/1/17
C&T 4002: Curriculum Theory & History
Prof. Jordan Corson
A Window and A Door:
A Proposal for “Open-Mindedness” Curriculum and Youth Agency
Among the concepts for which French philosopher Michel Foucault is
credited, is his desire to provide a “window and not a door” in his analysis of a given
subject. His juxtaposition of these two symbols articulates the need to see issues
from a place of open-mindedness with many possibilities, rather than prescribe a
door that constitutes a sole path of entry and exit. A moment of public pedagogy
around this notion came while I was sitting at a bus stop in Loíza, Puerto Rico. My
gaze fixed on a dilapidated house with garbage and toys strewn across the yard,
peeling paint flaking off the exterior walls, urgent to be rid of association to that
heavy home. I noticed these characteristics in stark contrast with the classic
Western, specifically American, image of a satellite TV dish perched on top of a
presumably leaky roof. At first, my mind went to the reactive judgment of the people
who occupied that house. Who made the decision to prioritize a luxury such as
entertainment over basic home repairs? I assumed they maintained additional
backwards priorities. But the more I thought about it, the more I understood that
the narrative I was creating was lacking another perspective and far from complete.
I did not know this family. I didn’t engage in conversation, which might bring to light
2
some of their personal struggles and form a rationale as to why the condition of
their house was in contradiction with their cable subscription. I never asked myself
the question of “how would I feel if I was in their shoes?” That would be
uncomfortable. But what I was most overlooking was the even more discomforting
experience of looking within myself and asking “why did I judge these people in the
first place?” In my heart, I knew I wanted to help everyone I could. I wouldn’t be able
to do that without embodying an open mind. I had been seeing and acting through a
door instead of a window.
Having an open mind means having the predisposition of not being
predisposed. This means that people with an open mind have attempted to counter
their lifelong conditioning to make assumptions and categorizations and begin to
question what they have learned through experience and explicit teaching. This is a
challenge, as humans are biologically wired to discern our environment and simplify
stimuli to facilitate survival. However, in the current state of our planet, this
challenge is just as relevant to our survival as a society as the concept of the survival
of the fittest individual. To be able to figuratively “put yourself in someone else’s
shoes” and see things from a perspective other than your own default perspective,
works as a metaphor for overall open-mindedness and seems to be a direct
approach to teaching this way of thinking. While advocacy for general openmindedness is important, this is specifically a proposal for an open-minded
approach to curriculum development that examines critically the politics that
influence curriculum and the American culture of schooling. This task will prove
challenging due to the massive amount of “unlearning” that will necessarily be
3
undertaken by the people who are in charge of developing curriculum for local,
state, and national school policies.
This is a proposal for implementation of an open-minded curriculum, by
open-minded teachers, that positions students as agents of their immediate
learning. What is unique about this proposal is that the curriculum shifts the focus
onto the youth, the subjects of learning, and works tirelessly to keep it there. Due to
the fact that youth have not undergone nearly the amount of social conditioning that
the adults that govern their lives have, the youth by default have more of an open
mindset. This endows them with a wisdom that may be obscured in teachers,
government officials, and politicians, and better equips them to make decisions
about their own education. Additionally, this curriculum prepares them and centers
them as crucial decision-makers in developing future open-minded, youth-centered
curriculum and implementing that curriculum across public education systems.
Youth overall, and youth of color specifically, have historically been forced to
relinquish control over their education, growth, and future. I saw it growing up, I’ve
seen it while working in schools professionally – it can be widely attested to, just ask
the students themselves. In regards to negative schooling experiences, Dr.
Christopher Emdin explains that “many urban youth of color describe oppressive
places that have primary a goal of imposing rules and maintaining control” (Emdin
6). Schools have long played a role in creating and maintaining societal norms and
order. Emdin uses the example of the Carlisle School, a school established after the
conquest of Native American tribes, to describe the inhumane treatment of youth
and the commonly held views that supported it: “As teachers worked to ‘tame and
4
train’ students who were described as ‘savage beasts,’ students struggled to
maintain their authenticity among the efforts to make them ‘as close to the White
man’ as possible” (Emdin 4). Emdin explains that this school was destined to fail its
students because it was “predicated on the teachers’ understanding that the
students came to the school lacking in socialization, intellect, and worth” (Emdin 5).
This pattern of conformity, obedience, and subjugation of youth in schools is also a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Emdin describes schools where teachers who are
uncomfortable with urban youth expression often end up labeling and diagnosing
students with ADD (attention deficit disorder) and ODD (oppositional defiant
disorder) (Emdin 9). Historical teacher discomfort, specifically in white teachers, is
precisely one of the main reasons why open-minded teaching and learning has been
unattainable. Emdin has even experienced silencing backlash when voicing his own
views on the oppressive nature of the school system, epitomizing the “systemic
denial within institutions built upon white cultural traditions that oppress and
silence the indigenous and neo-indigenous” (Emdin 12). Student and youth voices
will be the key to progress in an open-minded curriculum. These voices will not be
heard or valued if those with influence in the educational sphere do not accept
personal discomfort and multiple perspectives as a pathway forward.
The lion’s share of work regarding the successful enactment of an openminded curriculum is an unlearning process. This process will come in the form of
self-exploration by those in power; those that hold the power of education policy
and curriculum development, and those that hold the power of implementing the
curriculum. We are talking about the uncomfortable yet essential subject of
5
whiteness and white supremacy. Although it seems necessary for society as a whole
to address, for the sake of this paper, this challenge rests solely on curriculum
developers and teachers: “The work for white folks who teach in urban schools,
then, is to unpack their privileges and excavate the institutional, societal, and
personal histories they bring with them when they come to the hood” (Emdin 15).
Before conceiving of an open-minded curriculum, one must practice openmindedness in their daily lives. In maintaining students at the center of the
pedagogy, one must ask oneself “what do I need to know about myself in order to
better serve my students?” Being that the analysis of a given subject is facilitated by
the insights from multiple perspectives, one should seek to understand the position
that they find themselves in in relation to the other perspectives in the world. This
pedagogy helps us all to understand the production of norms and differences, and, I
would argue, our roles and overall complicity in their production (Boler 111). Since
whiteness is the default and is positioned as “the chosen race”, many privileged
whites feel they can do no wrong. Life has been easy and comfortable thus far, so the
white person has not had to question or analyze their surroundings out of necessity
for survival, which makes the call for a new awareness on the matter such a
challenge: “It is a painstaking process to develop a critical and conscious awareness
of something as omnipresent as oxygen” (Boler 110). The consequences of their
actions have almost always been favorable, creating a false sense of
accomplishment. Accomplishment without much sweat or discomfort is no such
accomplishment at all. I want to make clear that a “pedagogy of discomfort requires
not only cognitive but emotional labor” and should not be taken lightly (Boler 111).
6
For people of whiteness, accepting this minimal level of discomfort pales in
comparison to the discomfort a real feeling of threat to the body that people of color
and other marginalized groups are already accustomed to. But this approach will
work: “By closely examining emotional reactions and responses – what we call
emotional stances – one begins to identify unconscious privileges as well as invisible
ways in which one complies with dominant ideology” (Boler 111). An open mind can
result from this transformation. Without an open mind, it will be difficult for
educators to connect with students on a personal level and develop a flexible,
representative, student-centered curriculum. The status quo has created a situation
where “the brilliance of neoindigenous youth cannot be appreciated by educators
who are conditioned to perceive anything outside their own ways of knowing and
being as not having value” (Emdin 11). If those in the field of education really see
themselves as invested in their students, they will find a way to accept discomfort,
have an open mind, and view themselves from a critical standpoint.
The International Baccalaureate Program, a renowned high school
curriculum that emphasizes global consciousness and international diplomacy,
outwardly embraces open-minded curriculum. In the context of knowledge
acquisition, the IB program describes open-minded as “a receptiveness to new ideas
or the ideas presented by others” (Stevenson). However, even conscientious
programs such these are not immune to what we might call a “cultural closedmindedness.” An example of pervasive closed-mindedness can be found in a
situation involving a Western (A.K.A. white or whiteness) teaching style mistakenly
dictating what is and is not an appropriate topic for discussion in a mostly Arab
7
classroom. Arab parents, on the other hand, felt that these topics did not have to be
“off limits” and could be adequately addressed if done in a “culturally sensitive way”
(Stevenson). This serves as a reminder of the importance of two-way parent-teacher
communication. Students enter the classroom with their “self” and that “self” is
deeply influenced and tied to their parents and their respective histories. As Emdin
states, “urban youth who enter schools seeing themselves as smart and capable are
confronted by curriculum that is blind to their realities and school rules that seek to
erase their culture” (Emdin 13). It is safe to say that this censorship of topics that
are interesting and relevant to the teachers’ Arab students felt like an erasure of
culture and inhibited student-teacher connection.
In the interest of control by society’s elite (again, usually a synonym for
“white”), certain topics and modes of thought have been deemed “taboo”, thus
blocking progress through productive, often uncomfortable, dialogue. One of the
most glaring examples is bilingual education, which has fought battle after battle in
exchange for minimal progress and implementation. A closed mindset says that any
language other than English is different, scary, and is therefore a threat to the
hegemonic power structure. An open mindset is able to view all of the benefits to be
gained, while also seeking to understand the perspective of those fearful of
something new and different. In fact, foreign language learning can be a powerful
process that helps develop open-mindedness, as it fosters “[tolerance] of the
differences among people” (Carpenter & Torney from Stevenson). Educating
students within a model of linguistic open-mindedness, for example, is essential
from a young age because “the learning experiences of a child determine which
8
[neural] connections are developed and which no longer function. That means what
is easy and natural for a child – learning a language – can become hard work for an
older learner” (Curtain & Dahlberg from Stevenson). This further posits that
students should be positioned at the center of their learning, for the sake of their
own development and for that of future generations when today’s students become
tomorrow’s teachers.
A common uncertainty surrounding youth or student-centered pedagogy
revolves around student focus and leadership. Emdin stresses the importance of decentering the authority figure of the teacher and incorporating, centering even,
student voice and impact of student decision-making. One example is the cogen, a
co-generated mini-group of students who work with each other and the guidance of
the teacher to establish their own classroom norms and curriculum. This allows
students to see themselves and their style reflected in the classroom, while still
feeling validated for being academically successful and developing their critical and
open-minded thinking skills. Emdin suggests that this can remedy prevalent
instances where urban youth are “complicit in their own miseducation and then
celebrated for being everything but who they are” and then “divorce themselves
from their culture in order to be academically successful” (Emdin 13). In this way,
because the origins of the taught content lie with the students, they are able to reach
understanding of the “reasonings that teach him to understand the reasonings”
(Ranciere 5). This is precisely because it is the student themselves who has created
the rationale and logic of the “reasonings.” This is where knowledge truly becomes
power. This process, in and of itself, informs learning because of it’s deconstruction
9
of a power structure and subsequent rebuilding. Students may be more attuned to
the cyclical nature of oppression and utilize the power gained through this process
to work towards dismantling systems of hierarchy in any and all arenas of society.
Hierarchy is predicated on the idea that one thing is better or more powerful
than another, which simultaneously creates privilege and a lack of privilege based
on the subsequent stratification. In the world of academia, scholars can
inadvertently create a system of hierarchy through the seemingly benign process of
analysis. Once a topic or article has been scrutinized, the scholar has claimed some
degree of power over it, perpetuating the hierarchy that the effort of analysis
originally sought to dismantle. The next logical step after intensive analysis is
concrete prescription of an idea or approach, which, in this case is an approach to
curriculum and teaching. The academically respected opinion on the matter and
subsequent point of action is then viewed as prescriptive or preachy, as well as
limited to a door, rather than a window. Open-minded curriculum avoids this by
providing a window through which to see unlimited possibilities in addition to a
door through which to walk, act, teach, and study.
Additionally, an overemphasis on analysis and theory can lead to
deliberation and fear of being evaluated as a failure when theory is finally put into
practice, whether it is from the perspective of a teacher or a student. This fear of
punishment can lead to diminished creativity. Students must open-minded to the
possibility of non-linear learning and actively seek out situations where they push
themselves to think with an open mind and act without fear of negative
consequence. The student-teacher co-generated curriculum that Emdin advocates
10
for breaks up the power structure that positions the teacher as the all-knowing,
superior, source of validation of personhood. One of the beauties of positioning
students as agents of their own learning is that it remains open-minded and nonprescriptive. Students co-create curriculum with their peers and teachers in a fluid
fashion, mirroring that of a stimulating verbal debate.
The Wire, a television series beginning in 2002 that portrays the plight of the
urban poor and the Baltimore society that perpetuates it, offers material for
curricular meta-analysis and is a great example of a non-prescriptive path of action
forward. The most overt and directly applicable example of curriculum
implementation comes in season four when officer Pryzbylewski re-emerges and is
teaching middle school students in West Baltimore, where he used to patrol the
streets. He is frustrated when learning of the orders to teach to the test and
ultimately encounters the same type of hierarchy and manipulation that he did at
the Baltimore Police Department: “Juking the stats. Making robberies into larcenies.
Making rapes disappear. You juke the stats and majors become colonels. I’ve been
here before.” At the same school, Police Major Bunny Colvin conducts a small focus
group of students whom they hope to steer away from the dangerous drug trade.
They offer more personalized support that is relevant to students’ lived experiences
and incentives for academic and behavioral improvement. Students are also
rearranged in a circular seating model and given more opportunities to express
themselves through dialogue. In the words of Freire, In order to foster democratic
teacher-student relationships “those who have been denied their primordial right to
speak their word must first reclaim and prevent the continuation of this
11
dehumanizing aggression” (Bartlett 42). The result of this more horizontal
relationship generally creates more trust between the adults and youth in the
classroom depicted by the series.
Curriculum, as it is defined by Google Dictionary, is “the subjects comprising
a course of study in a school or college.” If the student, or viewer, understands The
Wire as curriculum, they view the characters, plot, and themes as subjects of study.
Both the police crew and the drug gang receive their teaching or curriculum
mandate from above. In a similar way, Pinar explains that curriculum is understood
as “what the district requires them to teach” (Pinar 185). Hypothetically, if a student
is presented with a set of subjects or materials from which to base their study, the
entity with control over which materials are provided possesses a great deal of
power. This entity dictates the learning because they essentially control and
potentially manipulate the student’s exposure to stimuli.
The Wire offers its audience a broad range of subjects and material from
which to study, all of which interacts with and structures an environment that is
analogous to many others within the United States and abroad. Using The Wire as
curriculum utilizes the Freirian concept of “problem-posing” and dialogic education,
equipping an audience of learners with the material to analyze, and have a
conversation, about how to solve the inhumane problem of the urban poor (Bartlett
41). What has occurred subsequent to the release of the series is just that;
journalists, educators, and researchers have weighed in on their experiences and
studies in relation to the show in an attempt to problem-solve. The key to achieving
the type of change that creator David Simon had in mind is to make these
12
discussions accessible to a broader range of people, from those affected at the
community level to those in positions of power.
In this pivotal time in society, human connection and support are at risk.
Children learn based on their environment and stimuli, but naturally tend towards
warmth and belonging. We as teachers must be aware of the enormous influence we
have on our students and the exponential impact that our students will have on
society in the future. Many of us are doing what we can in the present, while also
playing the long game, hoping for a broad change in the tides of empathy and openmindedness. The future comes quick, so our efforts will pay off before we know it.
Middle and high school students educated in an open-minded classroom will be in
positions of agency soon, potentially facilitating deeper dialogue on education, a
broader array of thinking and accompanying options. Most importantly, they won’t
be so far removed from their experience as a young person in a school, and will
empathize and connect with young students, remembering to give them a voice and
control of their pieces on life’s chessboard.
Works Cited
Bartlett, Lesley. Edit: Bajaj, Monisha. Encyclopedia of Peace Education. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Pub, 2008. Print.
Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of
understanding difference. Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for
social change, 110-136. 2003. Print.
Emdin, C. For white folks who teach in the hood ... and the rest of y’all too: Reality
pedagogy and urban education. Boston: Beacon Press. 2016. Print.
13
Pinar, William. What Is Curriculum Theory? Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.
Print.
Ranciè re, Jacques. The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual
Emancipation. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1991. Print.
Stevenson, H, Shah, S, Bailey, L, Cooker, L, Winchip, E and Karak, M. The
International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme (MYP) implementation
in the United Arab Emirates. Bethesda, MD, USA. 2017. International
Baccalaureate Organization.