Activist Educators

Breaking Past Limits

Catherine Marshall, Amy L. Anderson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781135910433
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation générale

Taking an active stand in today's conservative educational climate can be a risky business. Given both the expectations of the profession and the challenge of participation in social justice activism, how do educator activists manage the often competing demands of professional and activist commitments? Activist Educators offers a view into the big picture of assertive idealistic professionals' lives by presenting rich qualitative data on the impetus behind educators' activism and the strategies they used to push limits in fighting for a cause. Chapters follow the stories of educator activists as they take on problems in schools, including sexual harassment, sexism, racism, reproductive rights, and GLBT rights. The research in Activist Educators contributes to an understanding of professional and personal motivations for educators' activism, ultimately offering a significant contribution to aspiring teachers who need to know that education careers and social justice activist causes need not be mutually exclusive pursuits.

1
Is it Possible to be an Activist Educator?

CATHERINE MARSHALL AND AMY L. ANDERSON

What happens when professional educators¹ are involved in political activism for social justice causes? Given the expectations of the education profession and the challenge of participation in social activism, how do educator activists manage the often competing demands? How do they protect their career status when they are involved in political activism that challenges the status quo? What dilemmas and choices do they face, what are their fears, and how do they manage the challenges? This book explores these questions using research on 52 educators who have espoused social justice causes, heroically, subtly, sometimes painfully, but more often with pride.

The Context: Educators’ Professional Cultures

Education is often imagined as an apolitical enterprise. Both education and educators are assumed to maintain a respectful distance from hot-button issues and significant political and social movements. Venturing too close, in fact, carries risks. The professional risks associated with standing too firmly at any space along the political continuum can lead educators to avoid political activism. Teachers and administrators create boundaries, separating their private lives and their beliefs about social and political events from their educator work lives. Are educators in effect neutered politically? Must they check their interests at the schoolhouse door? Must they become less-than-full citizens to be educators? What do they do with their strongly held beliefs about political and social issues? The case studies presented in this book explore these questions head on.

This book is based on interviews with 52 teachers and administrators identified because of their reputations for taking some action, some stand, to address social justice issues. Such activism is often understood as an arena for making the personal political (Epstein, 1990), and as requiring advocates who are willing to take a vocal stand in support of projects often seen as controversial. Our research focused on several strands of social justice activism—for African Americans, the rights of gays and lesbians, women’s reproductive freedom, advancing girls’ and women’s opportunities, and for protections against sexual harassment. Certainly these are progressive liberal causes, and they are only a few among the range of progressive issues. Certainly other educators’ passions, beliefs, and activism can entail conservative agendas, but these are not our focus. As explored below, our understanding of social justice led us to study educators active in the service of those long-marginalized or silenced: people of color, girls and women, gays and lesbians. Our book opens the questions and agendas on educators’ activism, and with these five causes and 52 cases we have uncovered fascinating patterns and a wide range of educators’ dilemmas, choices, and coping strategies as they asserted their beliefs and kept their jobs.

This chapter begins by situating educators’ activism in the context of their professional and socio-cultural socialization, and describes the theories we found important for framing our study of educators’ choices and actions. It then introduces the subsequent chapters of the book that tell stories of educators’ efforts to reconcile their interests in social justice issues with their work as school teachers and administrators.

Educators’ Professional Socialization and the Limits on Activism

Teachers and administrators are socialized to steer clear of overtly political positions that might interfere with their roles as school and community leaders. Those who seek leadership positions in education learn that taking a clear values stance or political action may mean losing sponsorship and career opportunities, because certain actions may alienate educators from students or their parents (Marshall, 1993b; Marshall & Mitchell, 1991; Ortiz, 1982). Anderson (2001) notes that “administration programmes increasingly are in the business of providing future administrators with ‘safe’ discourses that will not offend pluralist interest groups” (p. 211). The appearance of neutrality, so the argument goes, increases the likelihood of one’s acceptance among various constituencies. Teachers are also socialized to neutrality and passivity vis-à-vis political issues.

Leaping back in time, we see the historical origins of these safe positions: The overarching goals for schools in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were to control religious and moral development, and these are the roots of schooling in the United States. Town ministers expected teachers to adhere to the same religious and moral codes as the clergy; this applied not only to their professional conduct, but contractual expectations guided their personal lives as well. One contract stated that female teachers were “[not to] dress in bright colors, not to dye her hair, to wear at least two petticoats, and not to wear dresses more than two inches above the ankles” (Harbeck, 1997, p. 107). Female teachers had to promise to “take vital interest in all phases of Sunday school work, donating of my time, service, and money without stint for the uplift and benefit of the community.” They complied with contracts prohibiting “immodest dressing,” they pledged, “I promise not to fall in love, to become engaged or secretly married,” and “I promise to sleep at least eight hours a night, to eat carefully, and take every precaution to keep in the best of health and spirits, in order that I may be better able to render efficient service to my pupils.” In addition, they pledged to remain circumspect: “I promise to remember that I owe a duty to the townspeople who are paying my wages, that I owe respect to the school board and the superintendent that hired me, and that I shall consider myself at all times the willing servant of the school board and the townspeople” (pp. 107, 108). With teachers “boarding around” (p. 105) in various homes, townspeople had more opportunities to scrutinize the personality, beliefs, and behaviors of their teachers.

Limitations have persisted to more modern times. Prior to 1960, the courts considered teaching to be a privilege subject to whatever conditions the government wished to impose (Harbeck, 1997). And today, conservative controls on educators are part of growing public sentiments against progressive activism, diversity, and curriculum innovation all of which are presumed to interfere in public schooling. Jerry Falwell (1979), representing the religious right in contemporary politics, was quoted as saying, “I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be” (pp. 52–53). Thus, more progressive politics may be suspect or unsafe in schools, as the movement back to the days of educators reinforcing and modeling a particular morality may be on the horizon. The “Abstinence Only” movement in education is but one example of government efforts to control curriculum and support a conservative political agenda. Managerial controls have tightened monitoring and accountability in educators’ work lives in the early 21st century.

Despite the hopes of more conservative critics, however, contractual requirements for teachers are not quite as extreme as they were in the past. Teacher unions that emerged in the mid-20th century from workers’ rights and also the women’s rights movements have upended the most egregious limitations on teachers’ personal freedoms.

A review of the position statements of educators’ professional associations provides a telling context for educators’ activist work. Not surprisingly, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have the strongest statements in regards to the issues detailed in this text. For example, a review of AFT Resolutions reveals well-developed position statements addressing all of the progressive issues in this text, including a 2002 resolution of support for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; a 2004 Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary resolution to “help our nation realize the promise of Brown”; a 2006 resolution of Support for Reproductive Rights “to preserve reproductive rights, … call for medically accurate sex education programs in public schools,” and the approval of over-the-counter emergency contraception along with a requirement that pharmacists fill birth control prescriptions; and a 2004 resolution in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. The NEA also has an extensive list of resolutions that support equity for students and educators in regards to issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation. The NEA also takes positions against sexual harassment and in favor of comprehensive sex education.

On the other hand, teachers’ and administrators’ professional associations take more distanced and much safer positions in regards to progressive issues. Websites of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), the Middle Schools Association, and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) were reviewed to determine the scope and strength of the organizations’ position statements. Position statements and platforms for AASA, NASSP, NAESP, and ASCD were easily found, but in all cases their content focused on broad educational aspirations and leadership concerns, such as achievement, leadership, security, teacher quality, accountability, and “recognizing and valuing diversity.” Although not embedded in organizational principles, most websites also posted articles that provided members with content about issues including harassment and tolerance for gay and lesbian students.

School boards and townspeople are no longer able to contractually proscribe the private behaviors of educators, but professional norms are still at work. Professional associations may espouse broad goals with slight nods to equity, but these goals are nonspecific and stay clear of controversial topics. So what are the hurdles and inhibitions felt by educators who would participate in activism for social justice?

Educators’ Avoidance of Political Activism

Wouldn’t the specter of injustice, inequities, and silencing of the oppressed lead educators into assertive fights to end the oppression? Wouldn’t educators want to join in, becoming vocal and active in social movements? Wouldn’t educators, whose passion and caring for those who are treated unfairly and losing out, feel activism to be an extension of identifying with and caring for them? If they do not, isn’t this puzzling? Maddening? Missed and wasted opportunity for progressive energies?

Educators do see needs: Schoolteachers, teacher’s aides, school administrators and counselors recognize situations where “something must be done.” To offer just one example, the need for gay and lesbian students to have advocates and activists is illustrated in “Choices, Not Closets: Heterosexism and Homophobia in Schools” (Friend, 1993). In this text, Friend provides a few student voices and reveals their need. For example, Brenda age 18, says,

There are kids in high school who are scared and don’t know where to turn. There needs to be something in the educational system so they have a place to go. Also, the teachers need to mention positive information in sexuality education classes… it is important to include lesbian and gay teens, we’re always left out…we are there. Also, when you try to educate teachers, let them know to include us! (p. 233)

Similarly, in the conservative domain of schooling, social justice activism is needed for women leaders, for prevention of sexual harassment, for Black children, for poor families, for the rights of girls and women, for language and religious minorities, for disabled students, and so on.

In fact, some educators are activists. But they are working in a context characterized by managerial and political controls and a conservative professional culture. Clearly there are tipping points that lead to an educator being overidentified with a particular movement, losing professional status in the face of increasing activist status. What, then, are the conditions that inhibit educators’ activism for progressive movements and social justice in schooling?

Informal Professional Rules As educators are socialized, both in universities and on the job, they come to understand often unstated and context-driven constraints. According to Fullan (1993) the conservative nature of education has various manifestations:

The way that teachers are trained, the way that schools are organized, the way that the educational hierarchy operates, and the way that education is treated by political decision-makers results in a system that is more likely to retain the status quo than to change. (p. 3, emphasis in original)

In Women Teaching for Change, Weiler (1988) elaborated the hierarchical and patriarchal nature of schools and school decision making, describing the negative consequences of maintaining the status quo:

Their hierarchical structure, the content of the formal curriculum, the nature of the hidden curriculum of rules and social relationships all tend to reproduce the status quo. Those who are in control, who dominate and benefit from this structure, attempt in both conscious and unconscious ways to shape the schools so as to maintain their own privilege. In this way, school organization and practices tend to reproduce classism, racism, and sexism…(pp. 150–151)

Teachers’ activism and challenging creates trouble. Paul and Smith (2000) stated, “Teachers who do not toe the line, who question policy, and creatively maladjust to school cultures that do not value all children, are often dubbed as ‘troublemakers’” (p. 137).

Marshall and Mitchell (1991) studied the careers of school administrators and described “school-site administrators’ understandings about the ways to gain and maintain power, control, and predictability in their environments” (p. 396). They delineated the unstated rules of the profession referred to as the “assumptive worlds.” These assumptive rules serve to govern behavior within the context of work:

1. Limit risk taking to small and finite projects.
2. Make displays of commitment to the profession and sponsors.
3. Do not display divergent or challenging values.
4. Remake policy quietly as a street-level bureaucrat.
5. Keep disputes private.
6. Avoid moral dilemmas.
7. Avoid getting a troublemaker label.
8. Cover and guard all areas in your job description.
9. Build trust among the administrative team. (p. 15)

Assumptive worlds’ rules are insider information about “exhibiting loyalty, avoidance of trouble, keeping conflicts private, and avoiding unvalued work,… behaviors that will help them feel more comfortable in administration” (p. 412). For administrator aspirants to gain entry into the profession, they must learn political strategies and get insider information. Coupled with legal constraints, the professional culture of assumptive worlds serves as a driver and a restrainer. These understandings help facilitate collegiality among administrators while simultaneously serving to limit their drive to challenge the status quo.

The assumptive worlds’ rules especially come into play when educators seek to engage in social change. They learn, for example, to quietly fix a problem when “going though channels” of authority would just cause more problems, and to “fudge” on strict compliance with laws that get in the way of dealing with an issue in front of them, functioning as street level bureaucrats (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977).

Hartzell, Williams, and Nelson (1995) interviewed 90 first year assistant principals to frame their work lives in the context of school administration and found that “the attitudes they develop and the repertoire of responses they build have substantial influence on later behavior patterns and leadership capabilities” (p. 23). They further suggested, “The first-year socialization will likely influence whether they become keepers of the status quo, rebels against the system, or real leaders with a sense of role innovation” (p. 24). A study of female principals regarding the degree to which women in principalships were equity advocates—based on research about the inequitable treatment most women received in administration positions—left the researchers “disappointed, frustrated, alarmed, and angry” (Schmuck & Schubert, 1995). They found that the female principals studied showed little support or action to encourage equitable practices in schools. It appeared that, even with evidence of a need for change, these educators were still limited in what they would do.

Educators must tread carefully as they engage in behavior that illuminates problems of the profession. Marshall and Kasten (1994) warned, “Those who respond by bringing attention to the problems are viewed as disloyal, troublemakers, or poor team players” (pp. 14–15). Activist work that is noncompliant with the governance of the assumptive worlds could impact career patterns, job promotion, and possibly lead to ostracism from colleagues and even the profession.

Evasion and the Social Construction of Non-Events Facing dilemmas, but finding few quick solutions and receiving almost no training or political support, educators concentrate their energies on the more manageable daily work. Taking attendance and creating workable lesson plans are manageable; reporting attendance and creating School Improvement Plans are within the administrator’s control. Educators learn to comply with the social agreements which indicate that their jobs do not include tackling sensitive issues stemming from historical and institutional racism, sexism, and sexual hierarchies and dominance. Demanding that policies against bullying and sexual harassment be enforced, questioning why so few girls take advanced math, why so few Black children are in gifted programs, and why so few women can find enough support to advance to the superintendency are provocative questions over which educators feel little control. They learn to accept that professionals like themselves keep quiet, and learn to classify the array of emotions, observations, and insights that might be seen as disruptive to the status quo as private and personal. Further, they learn that there are limits on the kinds of personal lifestyles, hobbies, and social causes that they as professionals can publicly embrace, much less pursue.

Events and circumstances that otherwise compromise a child’s education are transformed into nonevents. Policies and programs are devised in ways that treat educators as banks in which to deposit useful knowledge that will enable them to signify that the problem has been treated. In their working lives, educators are not exposed to deeply upsetting theories or insights that would take time and distract from daily work; succumbing to calls to redress these ills is seen as distracting, pulling educators from their required tasks. Reforms, professional literatures, training, and staff development offer packages and rhetoric, labeled as diversity training, color blindness, or equal opportunity. These serve to drive issues underground, silencing those who sense that the needs are deeper, and are tightly connected to societal ills tha...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Series Editor Introduction
• 1 Is it Possible to Be an Activist Educator?
• 2 The Fight of Their Lives: African American Activist Educators
• 3 Activist Women in Educational Leadership—How Likely?
• 4 Approaching Activism in the Bible Belt
• 5 Surprising Ways to be an Activist
• 6 Is There Choice in Educator Activism?
• 7 The Activist Professional
• 8 Doing Collaborative Research
• Appendix A: Activists Interview Protocol
• Appendix B: Educator Activists, Preliminary Themes
• Appendix C: Educator Activists, Questions for the Data
• References
• Contributors