Cycle #3 Lens: Teaching For Social Justice

Teaching For Social Justice at a Glance 

To create socially just schools, we must first advocate for moral responsibility. Teaching for social justice aims to include access to resources, equity, participation, diversity, and human rights. 

Meet The Lesson Study Team

Teaching For Social Justice 

Transformational Resistance: "Dover's Article"

Teaching For Social Justice includes: 

• Students must have critique and criticism about social oppression. This suggests that students must be able to think critically about themselves, others, and the oppressive structures.  (Solorozano and Bernal 317)  

• Students must be motivated by an interest in social justice. This suggests that students must be willing to do the work necessary to fight against the structures and demand change.  (Solorozano and Bernal 317)  

As we explore the idea of resistance more, there are 4 major areas that we can look at student “resistance” behaviors. 

Reactionary behavior. This type of student behavior is not in its true form representative of resistance behavior because it doesn’t require a lot of forethought and essential is just a reaction. We can also observe that in this behavior students arent motivated to really fight against the oppressive structures. Students in this model are motivated to be right or to get a reaction out of the teacher or intended target. (Solorozano and Bernal 317)  When we question is this social justice behavior or resistance the answer is no! Looking at the framework above motivation and critical thinking of the social oppression, it is clear that this behavior does not fall in that framework. 0 for 2 on our transformational resistance scale.

Self-Defeating Resistance Behavior. This type of student behavior has critique and criticism of the oppressive structure but is not motivated by social justice. They are not motivated to act in a way that doesn’t harm themselves or others. One example the article provides is the high school dropout. One who is critical of the high school structures (oppressive) but shoots himself or herself in the foot by dropping out and not continuing their education. (Solorozano and Bernal 317)   When students are aware of the oppressive structures but don’t yet have the tools or resources on hand to fight against these oppressive structures, we can see them engage in behaviors that are self-defeating. 

Conformist Resistance Behavior. This type of resistance behavior from students centers on the push to fight against oppressive structures without actually having a real reason or critique for these structures. An example of this would be someone like a bandwagoner, someone who is interested in fighting the good fight but has no real reason for doing so. They have no actual critiques of the oppressive structure and therefore can not be fully be considered transformational resistance. An example the article provides for this type of student behavior is one in which the student offers tutoring or academic support to help bring up the high school dropout rate but doesn’t question the inequities and the system making it possible for students to drop out in the first place. (Solorozano and Bernal 319) 

Transformational Resistance Behavior. This type of student behavior fits the framework above, wherein students have critiques and criticism of the oppressive structures and a drive and motivation to fight against the oppressive structures as well. When students have these 2 things they are better able to enact change. Many examples were provided in the article to detail how transformational resistance essential becomes resilient resistance. One example provided in the article is the idea that students “prove others wrong” and actively work to dispel negative stereotypes.  (Solorozano and Bernal 320) 2 for 2 on our transformational resistance scale. 

The Lesson Plan

Rachel’s Notes 

What went well--

“The fluidity. Students were able to move from question to question. They were not jarred by the questions I was asking. “

“Students were pulled in multiple directions today. I saw some fatigue that is not common. “(Students are testing).

“I wish I would have given more time to role play, as you suggested.”

To discuss- “Did we actually see Critical consciousness in the lesson?”

Was their thinking visible? Were we able to see a shift in their language. 

Mo shared that Finn said they see empathy differently than their father. Father is in the military.

Seating chart or affinity seating? How would this experience change for students depending on comfortability? Would students still initiate role play?

Grouped like that based on friendships or Teacher design?

This was intentional to create safety and belongingness to make the transition back to school as easy as possible. 

From Equity COmmentator

Glad that the norms were reinstated

Unbiased and nonverbal unbiased language

Students comfortable

Katelyn’s Notes

More opportunities to talk and role play

Did we see critical consciousness? 

Did we see awareness of what the microaggression was and have the language to say something?

Were we able to see a shift in their language and their thinking.

Emphasis on the role play

Groupings (affinity groups?), how might each group have been pushed in their thinking/responses

Discussion of whether it was a microaggression or not 

Leadership- all of the groups were stepping up as leaders

Mo’s notes

Students are able to sit with preferred peers to create a sense of safety and community

Students might not be as open to share thoughts if we had started with the role play activity.