Virtually Unpacking Your Backpack: Educational Philosophy and Pedagogical Praxis

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 50: 65–86, 2014Copyright C© American Educational Studies AssociationISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00131946.2014.867219

Virtually Unpacking Your Backpack:Educational Philosophyand Pedagogical Praxis

Yvette Franklin

Tennessee Tech University

In this autoethnographic, conceptual philosophical reflection, the author inquires:Can my students and I, in a technologically mediated virtual space, harness thework of philosophy of education scholars to engage in a shared experience of(re)considering paths to sensitivity to diversity for equity and equality? The authorengages the reader in a theoretical hike through a philosophical argument for attend-ing to philosophical theories of education. She focuses on the work of Jane RolandMartin regarding sensitivity and cultural (mis)education and draws heavily on thescholarship of Barbara Thayer-Bacon regarding relational “(e)pistemologies,” con-structed thinking, and democratic community. After examining her own practices,the author contends that in the reality of the growth of online education, she is ten-tatively optimistic that educators can facilitate authentic examination of educationalpractices in the light of theoretical work and push beyond superficial engagement tolasting transformative growth for the sake of equitable student achievement.

THE HIKE: AN INTRODUCTION

In the fall of 2013, I got the e-mail every recent PhD Social Foundations graduatehopes for. Someone needed an adjunct to teach a course, and the class and $1,800were mine if I was interested. I was thrilled to be teaching a course focusing on thephilosophical analysis of educational theories and public policy. However, it wasan online course. I say “however” because my research and dissertation had beenbased on the use of Philosophy of Education to reflect on one’s educational practiceto cause pedagogical praxis. This was to be done within a democratic community

Correspondence should be addressed to Yvette Franklin, PhD, Tennessee Tech University,Cookeville, TN 38505. E-mail: [email protected]

66 FRANKLIN

of reflective learners interacting with each other in real-time. I was committed togenerating sensitivity to diversity and inclusion for the sake of promoting equitableeducational opportunities within the nation’s schools, but wasn’t sure if this couldbe effectively facilitated in a virtual setting. Although I fully appreciated thatonline teaching and learning was a reality for those in the education world andthat it created opportunities for teachers and learners, to be quite frank, I was aclassroom snob. Only face-to-face, real-time Socratic engagement seemed like thecorrect forum for the democratic classroom I wanted to create and model and thephilosophical engagement and reflection I wanted to foster. I was unclear howto establish authentic, empathetic online presence as a facilitator and colearner.I was unsure of how to enact the activities I had used in the past that attendedto individual learning styles while building community and knowledge throughcooperative learning. But I wanted to teach. And I needed the $1,800.

Despite utilitarian needs like income and practical issues like online pedagogy,I needed to find a way to incorporate my philosophy of education. You see, once,in the land of my youth, I went on a hike. My memory is of walking along a paththrough the fynbos, the flora that can only be found in the southernmost tip ofthe continent of Africa where the winds and two oceans converge. I recall being apart of a group that wended our way across the saddle of the mountain, beginningand ending somewhere different with the remarkable sense of accomplishmentof having traversed from one space to another. Now, almost thirty years later, Ihave experienced another crossing-over: a theoretical journey that is unfoldingprofoundly in my teaching practice. And as a consequence, I have sought tomake the case that there is an imperative need to change the trajectory of currentefforts to reduce “achievement gaps” (Ladson-Billings 2006, 5) in the UnitedStates through transforming school settings through fostering similar journeys ofconscious-raising for educators. What I propose is fostering sensitivity regardingissues of equality though harnessing the work of conscious-raising Philosophy ofEducation scholars. The argument seeks an approach to education that pursuesequity toward equality or, in other words, righting educational inequalities withthe hope of establishing equal educational opportunities and achievement. Perhapsthis project is too ambitious, but I have sought to traverse from philosophicaltheory to online instruction and back in the hopes of improving my educationalpractice. I believe this is a useful transformative and reflective process for alleducators.

The recollection of my childhood hike offers me a metaphor for my theoreticalengagement with philosophical theories of education and my consequent peda-gogical praxis in an online setting. In terms of preparation for the hike I haveselected the trail of conceptual philosophical research as a means to “advance ed-ucational practice” through establishing a philosophical argument (Thayer-Baconand Moyer 2006, 141). The route shows my autothenographic reflection on my ex-periences teaching of an online graduate level Social Foundations course that tried

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 67

to encourage similar, yet unique, processes of personal preparation (Gay 2003) forsensitivity to equity in other educators (hikers). Preparing for a transformative hikeacross educational theory starts with sorting provisions in a metaphorical back-pack. This backpack needs to be (un)packed regarding our sensitivity as educatorsto issues of diversity and equality (McIntosh 19906). I look particularly to twophilosophers of education to help guide my journeying. Jane Roland Martin’s the-ory of situated sensitivity and cultural (mis)education (Martin 1981, 1985, 1992,2002) help me develop discernment about what to (un)pack in my backpack. Myguidebook along the trail is a synthesis of Barbara Thayer-Bacon’s work (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998; Thayer-Bacon 2000, 2003, 2008), particularly relating toher application of philosophy to education through relational “(e)pistemologies,”constructive thinking, and a vision of schooling as a democratic community.

THE TRAIL, HIKERS, AND ROUTE: PHILOSOPHICALRESEARCH

Why the trail of philosophy? First, I am going to avoid the long-standing debatebetween philosophers and educators as to the nature of their relationship and im-pact on each other’s realms. I ask the reader to postpone disciplinary introspectionand, rather, join me in thinking the two to be in an evolving conversation withinthe field of Philosophy of Education. Let us assume the view that Philosophyof Education is working toward making a positive contribution to education dis-courses. That it builds the case for how things could and should be, by contributingto theory and practice in a way that bridges the abstract and the practical. It isa place to make “sense of the current educational situation, . . . and proposingbetter ways to educate that are responsive to the reality of the situation and tothe range of the ideals that it activates” (Bredo 2002, 217). I see Philosophy ofEducation as a tool to understand the why of education through the explorationof the aims of education, the why of practice, and the why that forms a critiqueand the license to “envision things how they should be ideally” (Thayer-Baconand Bacon 1998, 1). For, as the father of questioning and recalcitrant George inE. M. Foster’s novel A Room With a View, emphatically states, “By the side ofthe everlasting Why there is a Yes—a transitory Yes if you like, but a Yes.” Phi-losophy affords us questioning and leads us to critique. Moreover, it pushes us toenvisage and pursue a better way, to seek a yes. This trail is not the much-travelledasphalt road of positivist scientific research that seeks to determine quantifiablefacts. And it is not metaphysical, abstract theory, for it seeks to link conceptualwork to educational application (Thayer-Bacon and Moyer 2006). But this trailis one that seeks to traverse the divide between what is and what should be and“try to make the case for what is the best, the right, the good, the beautiful, thefair and just, the true” (Thayer-Bacon and Moyer 2006, 143). I logically attempt

68 FRANKLIN

to demonstrate the contribution of Philosophy of Education to my on-going per-sonal preparation (Gay 2003, 4) for sensitivity to issues of equity; this is a caseof praxis. Thayer-Bacon extends my tools beyond logic to include the harnessingof intuition, emotions, and imagination to effectively communicate and relate myargument (Thayer-Bacon 2000, 171; Thayer-Bacon and Moyer 2006, 143).

Now on the trail of philosophical research, I turn to autoethnographic reflec-tion to incorporate the theorizing of experience to examine my attempts to fosterpedagogical praxis that nurtures equity sensitivity. My data is philosophical the-ory (supported by the work of other educational thinkers) and my own anecdotalrecollections of the experiences and reflections of my students. The students werenot subjects under investigation, but revisiting their final papers, hundreds of dis-cussion entries, and numerous e-mails, their experiences informed my reflection.The class comprised of eighteen women and five men with middle- or working-class socio-economic backgrounds. The class members all lived in the southeastUnited States and were English speaking, with limited ethnic and racial diver-sity (19 White and 4 African America students). The students were preserviceteachers, classroom teachers, administrators, or hoping to become collegiate levelinstructors.

We hikers were on the route of a particular course. I designed my course tobe a structured overview, centering on textual interactions with the prescribedtext that took the form of journals posted on a discussion board for all to readand respond to. The students shared that they found this helpful. In lieu of atraditional midterm, I created a popular culture interface project. This forma-tive evaluation had students identify philosophies of education presented in filmand compare-and-contrast them to their own evolving understanding of their phi-losophy of education. Students said they found this relevant and helpful. Thecourse culminated with a final synthesizing writing project with a visual class-room representation that students reported was a rigorous and helpful form ofsummative evaluation. The course was delivered; all the students participated inthe assigned learning activities, and I submitted the grades. I could now claimexperience as an online instructor. My informal survey indicated that 30% ofstudents felt that the course was helpful in getting them to think about philoso-phy, ideology, and theory in education; 60% stated that it had really changed theway they see philosophy, ideology, and theory in education (10% did not respondto the question). However, my self-paced, independent, online pedagogical ap-proach was very different from my typical classroom delivery. Fear of technicalglitches inhibited me from trying to engage students en masse or in small groups.Interactions remained one-on-one between the students and me and student-to-student. Upon completion of the course, as any good hiker (and educator) shoulddo, I checked my backpack and guidebook and reflected on my journey and theview.


THE BACKPACK: MARTIN’S SENSITIVITYAND MISEDUCATION

In the 2009 movie, Up in the Air , central protagonist Ryan Bingham, relishinghis seemingly liberated transient life devoid of significant connection to peopleor possessions, develops the premise of the empty backpack. Bingham touts histheory on the motivational-speaking circuit, asking the audience: “How much doesyour life weigh?” He uses guided imagery to visualize packing “all the stuff youhave in your life” into his prop of an empty backpack, leading us to believe thatby emptying our backpacks we can find a pleasant kind of nothingness in a life ofno attachments. The idea of emptying our backpacks really resonated with me. Ihad imagined that I had emptied my backpack of things like racism, classism, andsexism. I liked to think that they were no longer carried by me individually or as asociety in a pervasive, systemic way, except of course for the odd bigoted relative atthe family potluck with ribald jokes and a gang of wayward skinheads in the newsnow and then. It is with embarrassment that I recall how I would disavow racialclassifications by stating that I was human when a form asked what race I was.I earnestly declared impartiality, invoking color-blindness, asserting my classlessoutlook, and proclaimed gender equality. I believed in individual egalitarianism. Iembraced the meritocratic ideal that anything is possible if we just are sufficientlymotivated and work hard enough. Little did I know that my outlook was basedon the fact that I could assume a stance of race-, class-, and gender–blindnessbecause of the invisibility of my race, the ubiquity of being middle-class, and lackof awareness of the experience of being a nondominant culture woman. The emptybackpack and it is racial, gendered, and classist assumption of neutrality and equalopportunity is an illusion.

In her 1982 presidential address at the annual meeting of the Philosophy ofEducation Society, Jane Roland Martin exposed this illusion of neutrality as it per-tains to gender (Martin 1981).1 Attending to a dominant discourse in Philosophyof Education at the time, Martin unpacked the ideal of an educated person2 andrevealed it to be an individual with a “male cognitive perspective” (Martin 1981,99). This person was located in the productive processes of society beyond thecustomary female realm of homebound reproductive processes and studied mate-rial written by men (even if the subject was women). They exemplified rationality,thus excluding traits conventionally associated with women such as sensitivity,feelings, emotions, empathy, nurturing, and intuition. Martin exposes the illusionof the empty backpack; the false impartiality of becoming an educated person.The backpack is in fact filled with the ideal of a rational man objectively learningand working in the world outside the home. Equality is consequently impossible;only assimilation and accommodation on the part of the woman will allow her tobe an educated person by this definition. She must choose between the productive

70 FRANKLIN

and reproductive world; she must deny her emotions and intuitions, and she mustbe judged as a woman-compared-to-a-man, not simply on her intrinsic worth.Women who do not see knowledge created in a way that incorporates emotionsor intuition might feel derision and ingrained feelings of inferiority. They do notsee the contributions of women in the bodies of knowledge. They feel compelledto split their bodies from their minds and their homes from places of education.Conversely, maleness is the location of superior knowledge that is objective andcreated through reasoning. Men are the major contributors to bodies of knowledgebecause of the marginalization of women’s contributions. Productive work is themost valuable site for education. And the poignant irony of this situation is thata man is given an equal chance to succeed judged against the same normativestandard of maleness a woman must measure up to. The playing field seems leveland the need for equity appears unfounded for both women and men. He seesthe backpack as empty when, in fact, is it half-filled with normative malenessand half-empty of female traits, epistemologies, and contributions. Both men andwomen are victims of the illusion of an educated person that Martin is analyzing.The contributions of women are lost to all and a hegemonic standard of malenormativity grips both genders.

It is now that I will make my particular contribution by extending Martin’sinquiry into gender to include race and class. I am sure that I am not the first to makethis connection, but I am hoping my rendering offers a unique contribution to thedialogue regarding sensitivity to equity. Let us take this ideal of an educated personthat Martin has problematized and imagine the antithesis: an uneducated personor child. Let us follow the logic of Peters (the philosopher of education Martinis critiquing) and, as Thayer-Bacon argues (Thayer-Bacon 2008), the pervasiveclassic liberal theories of democracy that have informed everyday practice inpublic schools in the United States. A child who seemingly fails in the schoolsetting to acquire the body of knowledge, the ability to reason, and to apply thebody of knowledge is uneducated.3 And here, philosophy’s description(s) of theideal of an educated person and real-life intersect: The ideal student thinks, learns,and interacts based on what is normative for the dominant gender, race, and class.Thus, when student’s lack of achievement in the public schools occurs along linesof gender, race, and class, the question becomes: Is becoming an ideal student(ideal as based on dominant community normativity) possible or even desirablefor a no-dominant student? For a concrete example of the illusion of the emptybackpack and it’s racial, gendered, and classist assumptions, let us turn to recentreform efforts in the United States directed to address children deemed to be failingto reach the ideal of becoming an educated person.

In the 1990s a perception of education crisis resulted in mandated standardizedtesting, increased use of “prestructured and preformulated curricula and teachingstrategies,” refocusing on “transmitting a common storehouse of knowledge,” and“achievement of excellence in the name of economic competitiveness” (Mayher


1990, xiii). This wave of reform in the United States was the reauthorization ofTitle I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). This laterbecame the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). It declared that it wouldmeet “the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, childrenwith disabilities, Indian children” (United States Department of Education [USDE]2004). NCLB promised to close the so-called “achievement gap” between high-and low-performing children, “especially the achievement gaps between minorityand nonminority students” (USDE 2004). Sonia Nieto notes that NCLB wassubtitled “An Act to Close the Achievement Gap” but cites recent statistics thatindicate that, despite gains made by all students, a persistent scoring disparityremains equivalent to two full grade levels (Nieto 2010, 11). In the over ten yearssince the law was enacted, despite “more targeted interventions” no appreciableclosing of the gaps has occurred (Education Week 2011). In fact, it is my contentionthat NCLB has embarked on a reform agenda that has had the contradictory effectof increasing the “achievement gap” through high levels of targeted students beingretained (which has high co-morbidity with high school incompletion rates, Spring2010, 54); pushed into special education (increasing marginalization and reducingpost-secondary opportunities, Schrag 2004); being denied bilingual education(Iddings and Rose 2010), despite the fact that 20 percent of students currentlyspeak a language other than English in their home (Nieto 2010); being schooled inresegregated schools (Nieto 2010); and dropping-out of high school (Sloan 2007) atalarming rates (Nieto 2010). Scholars point to these outcomes as being exacerbatedby high-stakes testing (Darling-Hammond 2004; Noddings 2004; Seigel 2004),narrowing of the curriculum through standardization (Valli and Buese 2007),unequal distribution of resources (Spring 2010), and the marginalizing effect ofmonolingualism (Irizarry and Raible 2010) that NCLB has perpetuated (Hirsh2007). The myth of equal opportunity, meritocracy, equality as conformity, andthe power of neutrality (Kincheloe and Steinberg 2002) bring us back to Martin’soriginal argument regarding gender.

Martin’s problematizing of gender extended to race and class now suggests anideal of an educated person that is not only male, but also White and middle- orupper-class. Equality is again impossible. Only assimilation and accommodationthrough discarding one’s cultural community, traits, and assets on the part ofpeople of color and the so-called lower class to the dominant cultural will allowthe alleged assent to become an educated person. Those not of the dominantculture are thus valued compared to a White middle-class male standard. Similarderisive thoughts and ingrained feelings of inferiority occur because they do notsee knowledge created in a way that incorporates traits of nondominant groupcultures. They do not see the contributions of people of color or different classesin the bodies of knowledge. Nondominant group members feel compelled tosplit their bodies from their minds, their homes from places of education, and

72 FRANKLIN

their individuality from their community. Lack of representation is causing anincreasing disconnect for students who do not see themselves in the curriculumand a perpetuation of privileged status quo for those who do (Milner 2010a). Forexample, the move to a limited, national curriculum explicitly, implicitly, and innullifying ways teaches some students to achieve and some to not (Eisner 1994).

And so the similarity pervades: Whiteness and middle-classness are seen as thelocation of superior knowledge; they are perceived to be the major contributionbecause of the marginalization of nondominant group member contributions. Pro-ductive work is viewed as the most valuable site of education, not those who liveor labor in the reproductive spheres. Again, the same poignant irony is that male,White, middle-class children are being given a better than equal chance to succeedbecause they are the normative standard. So, for them the playing field seemslevel; their individual efforts will determine their achievement or lack thereof, andthe need for equity seems unfounded. They see the backpack as empty. But thebackpack is half-full of their normativity and half-empty of the traits, epistemolo-gies, and contributions of nondominant culture members. Both the dominant andthe marginalized become victims of the illusion of an educated person.

Fortunately, Martin couples her critique with the valuable philosophical workof (re)defining the function of education and restructuring the ideal of an educatedperson. She encourages us to find the hidden curriculum that teaches us the mythsof the empty backpack in a process of conscious-raising. And we read her wordsthinking of gender with race and class:

Raising to consciousness the male cognitive perspective of the disciplines of knowl-edge in the educated person’s curriculum is no guarantee, of course, that the educatedfemales will not suffer from a lack of self-confidence and from self-alienation. Yetknowledge can be power. A curriculum which, through critical analysis, exposes thebiased view of women embodied in the disciplines and which, by granting amplespace to the study of women shows how unjust that view is, is certainly preferableto a curriculum which, by its silence in the subject, gives students the impressionthat the ways in which the disciplines look at the world are impartial and unbiased.(Martin 1981, 107)

In addition to raising consciousness through broader exposure to the process ofmarginalization and the reclamation of the contributions of women, people ofcolor, and different classes, Martin suggests that we appreciate that identical orequal treatment does not create “identical results so long as the treatment contains amale [White, classist] bias” (Martin 1981, 109). When our differences are thoughtto make no difference, our unique contributions may be overlooked. To be fair, weneed to attend to unfairness, seeking to be just to dismantle injustice. To be trulyequal, we must be equitable.


Feminist scholar Barbara Houston inquired whether public education shouldbe gender-free (Houston 1994). She explored three possible meanings of gender-free. The first possibility was gender education that would actively work to ignoregender all together. The next two offerings were a system that worked to “disregardgender by obliterating gender differentiations that arose within the educationsphere” to “deinstitutionalize sex differences to create a form of gender-blindness”and education that limited itself to only eliminate issues of bias in terms of gender(Houston 1994, 122). However, Houston’s examination revealed the perpetuationof gender inequality in all three strategies (Houston 1994).

To get at the roots of inequity manifest in funding inequality, racial segregation,inequitable access to learning, underrepresentation of teachers of color, practices ofcultural assimilation (Nieto 2010), oppressive patriarchal practices, privilege, themyth of meritocracy, a shift in strategy is needed in teachers. Similarly, rather thanrisking assimilationist behaviors, ignoring gender, or attempting to create equal-ity without equity, Houston suggests a different way: Martin’s gender-sensitiveconstruct. This perspective recommends:

that we pay attention to gender when it can present sex bias or further sex equality.It is a perspective that requires careful monitoring of our gender interactions andurges direct intervention when necessary to equalize opportunities. . . . A gender-sensitive perspective is not a blueprint for education that will answer all our questionsabout particular practices. It is, rather, a perspective that constantly reminds us toquestion the ways in which students and teachers make sense of and respond to asexist culture. It is a situational strategy, one that lets the patterns of discriminationthemselves determine which particular action to take to eliminate bias. (Houston1994, 131)

It is a self-correcting method that can adapt to the unique contexts, positionality,embeddedness, and embodiments of teachers and students.

Martin describes this gender-sensitive approach as “one which takes sex orgender [or race or class] into account when it makes a difference and ignores itwhen it does not” (Martin 1981, 109). Martin’s gender-sensitivity, which Houstondescribes as a situational strategy, and what I would expand to call situationalsensitivity, helps me (un)pack my backpack because I now see that ignoringgender, race, and class “in the name of equality is self-defeating,” (Martin 1985,195), no matter how well intentioned I might be. This situational strategy, thatimplies a sentiment of attentiveness and a probable action, is constantly lookingfor patterns of discrimination, their effects, and possible solutions. It is “a processthat is constantly organizing and reorganizing our social life” (Houston 1994,131) and teaching practices. Through continuous, critical vigilance wecan “catchour own errors, alter policies and practices that no longer work, and introducenew policies for new circumstances” (Houston 1994, 131). In doing so we might

74 FRANKLIN

begin to have our consciences heightened (Martin 1981) to see the ways thatstudents have been excluded from the curriculum, expected to conduct themselvesaccording to dominant group norms, and how their diversity has been perceivedas a deficit (Martin 1981). Situational sensitivity does not mean a constant focusin our thinking and in our practice as educators on race, class, and gender. Itis a mindset of being constantly attentive to “the workings of sex and gender[race and class] because in this historical and cultural moment, paradoxically theysometimes make a big difference even if they sometimes make no difference atall” (Martin 1985, 195).

Now that I know my backpack is not empty, how do I go about (un)packingit? Jane Roland Martin’s book Cultural Miseducation: In Search of a DemocraticSolution (Martin 2002), helps us explore the importance of culture to schoolsettings and begin to distinguish how we packs our backpacks with cultural-wealth (be they cultural assets and cultural liabilities), and work to understandhow to preserve the good (reclaim, remember, record), while unpacking the bad ormediating the next generation through it (Martin 2002). Martin states, “Culturalmiseducation occurs when so many cultural liabilities or such devastating ones arepassed down that a heavy burden is placed on the next generation; or, alternative,when invaluable portions of the culture’s wealth are not passed down. . . . It occurswhen these sins of omission and commission are conjoined” (Martin 2002, 5). Thistakes us back to backpacks that are half-full and half-empty.

Martin argues against a single curriculum and for a more nuanced approach tothe traditionally individual-focused educational mind-set, one that understands thetransmission of culture that is occurring in multiple ways, not just in schools. Thepowerful benefits of her cultural-wealth approach are that it “encourages one todistinguish between cultural assets and liabilities, another is that it acknowledgesthe central role that institutions play in cultural preservation and transmission”(Martin 2002, 19). Martin’s concept of cultural wealth deals with the issues of:cultural abundance, the problem of curriculum selection, the overabundance ofinformation or increased cultural stock, and the reclamation of cultural assetssuch as indigenous practices. She expresses the idea of a cultural debt or culturalpoverty as the passing on of cultural liabilities or the failure to pass on culturalassets. Martin states that, “to increase the nation’s level of education, we will haveto solve the problem of cultural miseducation” (Martin 2002, 86). She suggeststhat to “accomplish this it is necessary to know the extent and nature of ourculture’s stock and its educational agents, and to discover whether and how ourassets and liabilities are being preserved and transmitted to the new generation”(Martin 2002, 115). This is the work of a hiker with a growing discernment aboutwhat to (un)pack to be prepared for the trip. However, the hiker must acknowledgethe power they hold in determining what is (un)packed. We are able to explorewhat is being packed, what should be packed but isn’t, and what should to beunpacked in our metaphorical backpack regarding our acculturated assumptions


in a process of situational-sensitivity that is raising consciousness regarding issuesof diversity and equality.

A practical starting point for developing and enacting Martin’s heightened con-sciousness includes the development of courses that incorporate exploring issuescultural groups face that model a situationally sensitive pedagogy. Intellectual ex-posure to “concepts such as prejudice, oppression . . . justice . . . critical theory”is another factor in developing sensitivity. Experiential engagement with people ofother cultures to encourage relationships to foster “understanding and responsiveactions when working with students of varied backgrounds” (Rehm and Allison2006, 263) is another option. Reflective analysis of one’s own loci of culture isa further possibility. By developing a degree of cultural competence, educatorswill be able to become sensitive to the different ways of knowing/epistemologies(Milner 2007, 395).

Sensitivity enacted will embrace a culturally responsive curriculum that un-derstands that knowledge is coconstructed and connects the curriculum to thestudents’ culture and language (Castagno and Brayboy 2008, 947). Nieto suggeststhat it is the teachers who should do the institutional transforming to promotelearning through careful implementation of curriculum and pedagogy through acritical lens. By encouraging teachers to learn about their students, connect withstudent families, develop collaborative relationships with fellow educators, joinprofessional organizations, and be active in dismantling oppression beyond theschool space, Nieto provides tools to confront and transform the education set-ting. These tools offer to empower the teacher with microcosmic acts of justice inthe form of sensitivity to equity within their classroom communities to challengethe disempowering effects of NCLB and other reforms that limit teacher powerin the macrocosm. For these recommendations to be enacted, they cannot be im-posed, but must be catalyzed by a compelling philosophical outlook. Philosophicalbecause it causes us to attend to the very way we think about knowledge, wideningthe educators gaze beyond only the psychological, physical, and practical foci ofeducation. This is the expanded vision a guidebook offers the hiker to inspireand aid them on their journey. I refer to my guidebook as I begin to justify thechange in trajectory I am suggesting and that I hope I can enact in my onlinecourse.

THE GUIDEBOOK: THAYER-BACON’S RELATIONAL“(E)PISTEMOLOGIES,” CONSTRUCTED THINKING, AND

DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY

We have seen that Martin has pointed out the problem of an ideal of an educatedperson that thinks, acts, and learns in a male way. I have argued in agreement withher that this ideal person is not only of the dominant male gender, but has other

76 FRANKLIN

dominant culture attributes such as Whiteness and middle/upper class sensibili-ties. This is especially vital to grasp for educators who have adhered to gender-or color-blindness and need to be convinced of the pertinence of gender, race,and class (Milner 2010b). Awareness of the impact of gender, race, and classwill produce educational practices that address their existence. Curriculum will bescrutinized for representative contributions; miseducation will have to be broughtto consciousness, and programs of study will need to be infused with nurturingand care (Ladson-Billings 1999; Milner 2010b). These recommendations requireclassrooms that intentionally value and nurture students of every gender, race, andclass. Here Thayer-Bacon can help one imagine such an environment. Thayer-Bacon’s (2003) idea of democratic learning spaces will help advance sensitivityto diversity for equity with the imperative of inclusion for equality through the de-velopment of relational “(e)pistemologies” and constructive thinking, knowledgeof the ideal community, support of cultural diversity, and a sense of justice andcare.

Thayer-Bacon’s idea of relational (e)pistemologies is vital for a (re)visioningof educational purpose and conduct as it “views knowledge as something that issocially constructed by embedded, embodied people who are in relation with eachother” (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, vi). As Thayer-Bacon states:

I seek to offer a feminist (e)pistemological theory that insists that knowers/subjectsare fallible, that our criteria is corrigible (capable of being corrected), and that ourstandards are socially constructed, and thus continually in need of critique and re-construction. I offer a self-conscious and reflective (e)pistemological theory, onethat attempts to be adjustable and adaptable as people gain further in understanding.(Thayer-Bacon 2003, 7)

In my opinion, this view of knowledge construction nullifies the quantitativelydescribed and prescribed standardization of knowledge, pedagogy, and assessmentthat we see in the current education climate.4 Understanding that knowledge issocially constructed means acknowledging the relational nature and variety inways of knowing and, consequently, learning. The ideal of an educated personbecomes multi-facetted epistemologically.

Relational “(e)pistemologies” not only point to the way we make knowledge,and by extension, do the work of knowledge making and sharing in democraticlearning, but it draws us back to our backpacks. The concept of being “embeddedand embodied” give us a sense of being situated in a particular time and place,with our backpack full of unique histories, dispositions, needs, and limitation(Thayer-Bacon 2000, 104-105). We are making knowledge together in a processof inquiry that is “dynamic, flexible, and reciprocal” (Thayer-Bacon 2000, 58).These standpoints or particularities position us within our learning community,in a collaboration of knowledge construction that is always in process. We can


never fully know the view of the other, but we can seek to attempt to see another’sperspective or be sensitive to hear their opinions as we (un)pack our backpacksand seek to learn together.

Our embeddedness gives emotional, social, intellectual, and relational contextto our construction of knowledge. Appreciation of our situatedness is vital if we areto encourage sensitivity to diversity by attempting to know ourselves, attempting toknow others, and to create knowledge together. It acknowledges our positionalityin that we cannot be detached from the knowledge we are making, but we arenot limited to just our knowledge. We can, in relation with others, broaden ourunderstanding of the perspectives of others (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998).

Not only does our embeddedness help connect us to others, but our embod-iedness helps us to unite the parts of our individual identities (Thayer-Bacon andBacon 1998). Acknowledging our embodiedness heals the split of our minds fromour bodies (Thayer-Bacon 2000), by connecting our objective and subjective andproductive and reproductive (Martin 1981) selves together. Embodiment makesfor a rich place for teachers and students in a democratic learning community toexplore their personal positionalities to develop a sense of self through relation-ships with others to enhance learning, for, as Thayer-Bacon states, “We need asense of self to become potential knowers” (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 56).Acknowledgement of embodiment is also a powerful tool in the dismantling ofthese splits as they manifest themselves in oppressive racial, gender, and classhierarchies.

Current reform measures bear the fingerprints of Locke and Rousseau withwhat Thayer-Bacon calls their “assumption that individuals develop atomisticallyon their own” (Thayer-Bacon 2008, 2). Within a democratic learning community,students will develop their ability to reason and care together, by being constructivethinkers. By drawing on their personal knowledge and expert knowledge of others,these students will be able to piece together thinking patterns that appreciateboth logic and our inherent subjectivity. They will be able to investigate moredeeply what they experience through attending to what they feel, imagine, or intuit(Thayer-Bacon 2008). Such engagement is antithetical to the current emphasison direct instruction, rote memorization, and limited assessment modalities, butholds the greatest potential for developing critical appreciation of diversity andequality.

The standardization and high-stakes testing reform tactics of the 1990s, postthe negative USDE report A Nation at Risk and the more recent NCLB initiatives,have disempowered teachers by diminishing progressive teaching strategies andrefocusing on so-called basic skills. They have consequently bred a school envi-ronment directly oppositional to the cultures of the very students these measureshave been implemented for. The competitive school culture and narrowing of cur-riculum makes culturally relevant instruction (Ladson-Billings 1994) unlikely andminority and/or low achieving students bear the brunt of culturally biased testing

78 FRANKLIN

based on a curriculum that has been dumbed down. Thayer-Bacon’s attention tocommunity can reduce feelings of alienation for students from communitariancultures. Thayer-Bacon suggests the creation of a classroom environment thatsidesteps individualistic models that “focus on the individuals at the expense ofthe group” and social constructivist models that “emphasizes the group at theexpense of the individual” (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 31). She recommendsa democratic classroom community that “does justice to both the individual andthe group by focusing on interconnected, interdependent, interactive relationshipthat exists between the self and the community” (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998,31).

High-stakes testing, among other factors in current reform measures, encour-age competition and a sense of individualism that causes school environmentsto be alienating, hostile, and “makes it even more difficult for students fromcommunitarian cultures to succeed” (Thayer-Bacon 2008, 3). Native Americans,Hispanic, and African American students, who have been specifically targeted bythe current reform, belong to communities that, in general, value “cooperation,sharing, and fraternity, based on a belief in the interconnectedness of the selfto others” (Thayer-Bacon 2008, 4–5). As multicultural scholar, Richard Milner,states, “Since students come to learning encounters with different cultural orienta-tions, frames of reference, lived experiences, and personal styles treating them allthe same instructionally is morally indefensible” (Milner 2009, xvi). Multiculturalscholars agree “that a race-centered, cultural and diversity-focused, and multicul-tural curriculum are essential for student academic and social success” (Milner2010b, 6) and suggest that teacher education programs “provide an encompassingstudy of cultures, a repertoire of appropriate teaching adaptations, reflective andcritical thinking, and multiple experiences with culturally diverse people” (Rehmand Allison 2006, 260). Thayer-Bacon reflects that the more educators are “pro-vided teacher education programs that encourage the developments and practiceof such skills as communication, relational, and critical thinking skills, the morelikely they will be aware of their own perspectives and the possible limits to these”(Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 72). She echoes the call for teachers to experienceinteraction with people different from themselves and to be supported in effortsin self-reflection (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998). Teachers so equipped will beparticipants in democratic learning communities.

In a democratic learning community, students will hopefully experience acollective that is working toward inclusion and affirmation, caring and justice, andthat allows for “dissonance and discord,” time to develop relationships, a feeling ofresponsibility, and have a sense of being a vital contributor to the group (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 72). This environment will counteract the current reformenvironment that is creating tension, rather than collaboration, between learnersand teachers when the stakes are so high (merit-pay, public exposure of studenttest scores, high school graduation rates, etc.). “Social democractic values such


as fraternity, equality, sharing, and cooperation” will create spaces to exploreshared responsibilities, shared authority, and shared identity (Thayer-Bacon 2008,176) and will counteract perceptions that focus on so-called achievement gapsand perceive culturally diverse students as coming to the classroom with deficits(Milner 2010b).

Thayer-Bacon describes a learning community that would welcome Englishlanguage learners in an affirming way, engage learners of cultures different fromthat of the dominant discourse, and create a nurturing space for learning to oc-cur. This space will allow for civil discourse and civic empowerment, as studentswill feel their value and the efficacy of their efforts and will work against low-expectations and negative self-fulfilling prophecies (Thayer-Bacon 2008). Immi-grants, who are choosing to reside in the United States at the rate of a million peoplea year (Nieto 2010, ix), will be drawn into community. It is in this (re)visioningthat increasing achievement gaps between students based on race and socioeco-nomic status, the narrowing of the curriculum, and the marginalizing effect ofmonolingualism can be addressed and reversed because students are not problemswith deficiencies to be addressed and students are not the sum of their cumulativetesting statistics.

Thayer-Bacon’s nurturance of a democratic community in the classroom createsa mindset that “acknowledges that each of us is a unique human being with ourown specific context and different, individual gifts and talents as well as needs andlimitations” (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 119). She elucidates a caring ethicthat focuses on “unique differences that exist within particular situations” andsuggests caring as an ethical approach that “allows a teacher to take into accountthe students as a whole person” but acknowledges the many questions that thissort of relational approach raises (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 119–120).Thayer-Bacon suggests that teachers must focus on student’s interactions andencourage them to exchange ideas freely. She suggests that students must beencouraged to develop their communication skills and well as their relationalskills. Teachers are described as needing to create an environment that insists thateach person has a voice to be heard. Additionally Thayer-Bacon explains thatschools need to be structured to allow teachers and students to spend more timewith each other in manageably sized groups. Consequently, teachers, students,and parents will have more of a chance to know each other and have healthyrelationships.

Through opportunities to learn how to communicate with each other, studentswill increase their shared interests to help alleviate their experiences of loss ofcommunity or the harmful, destructive forms of community, and finally, studentswho feel marginalized, excluded, and othered, can find a sense of belonging in acommunity of learners who are actively constructing knowledge together (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998). This creates a nontoxic environment where students areable to explore, relate, and connect. This does not mean absence from conflict,

80 FRANKLIN

inequity, or failure, but, I believe, with Thayer-Bacon, that if we can envisionschools committed to justice and care, trust and respect, appreciation and affection,we can work together to develop the sensitivity to diversity for equity with theimperative of inclusion for equality necessary to justly leave no child behind. Thiscursory perusal of our guidebook is enough to get us on our way. We see possiblesolutions to the mind-body split, epistemological marginalization, and dominanceof rationality at the expense of emotion, intuition, and imagination that Martin’sideally educated person was challenged by.

THE VIEW: FINDINGS

In Philosophy Applied to Education, Thayer-Bacon and Bacon (1998) examinestwo kinds of communities; one is individualistic and the other social constructivist.Of her inquiry with Charles Bacon, Thayer-Bacon writes,

We found the individualistic models focus on the individual at the expense of thegroup, whereas the social constructivist models tend to emphasize the group atthe expense of the individual. We suggested that the democratic community is amodel that does justice to both the individual and the group by focusing on theinterconnected, interdependent, interactive relationship that exists between the selfand the community. (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon 1998, 31)

This democratic community perspective is established through the high-qualityrelationships of its members. These relationships are vitally coupled with devel-oping caring and reason to help the students and teacher navigate how do deal withagreements and disagreements; honoring the individual’s right but negotiating thecommunity’s needs and safety; encouraging involvement while discouraging dom-ination; and fostering the freedom to participate or not (Thayer-Bacon and Bacon1998). Online education can appear antithetical to interconnectivity and interde-pendence, but Thayer-Bacon helps heal the split within the classroom and virtualspaces by suggesting a both/and approach. We do not have to choose between theindividual learner and social constructions of learning; as instructors, we facili-tate the individual while building connection and interaction through innovativestrategies that encourage a relational approach. Pedagogical strategies to buildrelationships between the instructor and students and among the instructor andstudents include the utilization of social media, blending synchronous and asyn-chronous online instruction, and use of student-led discussions and presentationof material. Other tools for pedagogical praxis include establishing discussionthreads, balancing of discussion with direct instruction, creating activity-basedsmall group breakout rooms, use of voice- and e-mail, novel textual interactionssuch as reading response learning journals/blogs, use of interactive multimedia,


exploring popular culture interface, use of synthesizing writing activities, and theuse of online surveys.

This text champions the efficacy of philosophical scholarship as a means to“advance educational practice” (Thayer-Bacon and Moyer 2006, 141). Students,most for the first time, identified philosophies and ideologies they could perceiveinfluenced their instruction. They expressed appreciation of evolving philosophicaloutlooks and recognize the philosophies and ideologies that were determiningpolicies within education in general. Some students were able to articulate placesof marginalization and inequality. They demonstrated exploration of the roles ofthe teacher and the student and deep thinking about the purpose of education.The ideal of a democratic classroom was examined by some; others made the firststeps to connect theory to their practice. Others were able to acknowledge evolvingpedagogies, reflect using imagination, intuition, and emotion, and became moreaware of curriculum choices. The students were able to visually create classroomspaces that reflect their evolving philosophical positions. Newfound awareness ofissues of domination were expressed by a few. Many acknowledged the effect of(a)religious beliefs on their practice. Through reflecting, learners confidently usedtheir own voice and demonstrated wanting to encourage expression in their ownstudents. Awareness of political orientations and expression of patriotism and itsinfluence on instruction and curriculum were made explicit. Appreciation of theneeds of the individual and community were expressed and increased awarenessof adaptability was stated. Students made cross-disciplinary connections. Specialand physical education educators were able to speak from the edges and inform thecollective. Some oversimplified theories and others showed nuanced appreciationof discrete approaches. Many moved from minimal understanding to a betterunderstanding of educational theory.

What was encouraging was seeing echoes of Thayer-Bacon’s work within stu-dent responses to course work. Although not one of the scholars we read as a class,her theoretical influence on my practice had permeated student thinking. Studentfinal papers revealed ideas such as wanting to foster discussion and wanting toestablish communities of learners, ideas I could trace to the work of Thayer-Baconthat I had engaged with. Similarly, Philosophy of Education statements elucidatedthe desire to encourage communication skills in learners. Statements regarding be-ing learner-focused or wishing to foster learner autonomy where also coupled withothers expressing support of collaborative learning, demonstrating the grapplingwith ideas of how to balance individual and community needs that Thayer-Baconguides her readers through. Desire to be a guide or facilitator was a part of somestudent expressions of teacher roles and the aspiration toward authentic assess-ment was articulated by others. Additionally, the student’s use of metaphor, poetry,drawings, and photography show my pedagogical praxis that has been informedby the educational philosophy of Thayer-Bacon. My conclusion? Philosophy can

82 FRANKLIN

directly (me) and indirectly (my students) influence teaching practice resulting inpedagogical praxis.

But did I foster transformative journeys/personal preparation to sensitivity/conscious-raising? Did the students go on a hike from where they were to some-where else? Student understanding of the value of Philosophy of Education at thebeginning of the course demonstrated a negative impression. Responses rangedfrom “Oh no, not again,” expressing that Philosophy of Education was just therecycling of ideas, to equating it with some kind of arbitrary professional devel-opment requirement. Candid statements reflecting a low regard for the field statedthat philosophers of education must have too much time on their hands. Althoughothers saw the potential for empowerment, they felt that the urgent and politicaltrump philosophical. Their perception was that teachers were not actively involvedin the philosophical conversations that ultimately shape the educational systemin which they work. Students fretted about how to apply and connect Philosophyof Education to their practice. Initial responses showed shallow and unfoundedphilosophies of education that did not speak to the ethical, aesthetic, epistemo-logical, metaphysical, or logical aspects of philosophy as they influence teachingpractice.

By the end of the course, students expressed truly enjoying digging deeper intoPhilosophies of Education and exploring the role of schools, teachers, learners,pedagogy, and curriculum. Many found solidarity with philosophies that reflectedtheir thoughts, and many expressed concern about marginalization and ethicalissues, embraced critical theory, and imagined ideal curricula. The students couldarticulate their evolving philosophy of education, connect it to other philosophies,ideologies, and theories, and express how their influences manifested in theirclassroom practices. Like my own journey, student interaction with Philosophiesof Education caused a movement from one point of understanding to a deeper, morenuanced comprehension of the value and influence of educational philosophies.But what about situational sensitivity? Did my students develop sensitivity toissues of diversity and inclusion as a result of their course engagement?

Situation-sensitivity seeks to help educators be aware of race, class, and genderand cultural assets and liabilities in the hope that consciousness will influencepedagogical practices that attend to difference and build inclusion. Despite mypersonal commitment to situational sensitivity, this did not appear to translate to amarked impact on my students as very few of my students referenced race, class,and gender in their final philosophical statements. In generic ways, students didexpress adherence to belief that education has a social agenda, with some evenstating that education and educators can challenge the status quo. Many studentswrote about the idea that education should improve the human condition and someeven mentioned rights. Although awareness of issues of diversity and a generalprofession to be open to change was articulated, many expressed no experiencesof marginalization. Consequently, students often revealed a disimpassioned grasp


of the influence of race, class, and gender on academic achievement. In fact, whenoffered a choice, most of the class avoided responding to a direct question regardingrace, class, and gender. Despite mild statements voicing the need to celebratediversity, this appears to be couched within a superficial appreciation of diversity.To return to my hiking metaphor, our backpacks need further (un)packing!

CONCLUSION

As a new semester approaches and I am preparing to teach the course again,there are a number of things I am doing differently. I am attending to the con-ceptual frameworks of the teacher education program. The performance elementseeks to foster reflection to improve learning experiences and the dispositionelement wishes to create an atmosphere of “openness, inquiry, and support bypracticing strategies that foster relationships of acceptance, appreciation, andvalue for diverse individuals and groups in the larger community, and recognizeethical, professional standards and strive for continual personal improvement”(Conceptual Framework 2014). The Social Foundations course standards pro-mote critical and reflective interpretative examination of education and the diver-sity therein and understanding of normative perspectives to help students unpackwhat is seen as normative and to probe their own assumptions. With this depart-mental validation, I have challenged myself to seek online pedagogical strategiesthat will foster a critically reflective democratic community of learners. I amgoing to incorporate breakout rooms for small-group activities and facilitate syn-chronous discussions. I have added readings from Thayer-Bacon in an attempt toconnect Philosophy of Education more clearly with issues of diversity and equalitywithin the democratic learning community and build understanding of relational(e)pistemology and constructive thinking. I have also revisited the reflective journalquestions and further aligned them with the goal of fostering situational sensitiv-ity, especially regarding issues of diversity and equality pertaining to race, gender,and class.

Returning to my memory of my childhood hike, I recalled the sense of ac-complishment I felt traversing from one space to another. Infinite variables makeeach journey distinctive, but I have demonstrated that teachers can be especiallyprepared through philosophical theory to be conscious of their practice and, toa lesser extent in this particular course, issues of equity and diversity, and theideal of inclusion and equality. My extension of Martin’s situational sensitivityand understanding of her concepts of cultural miseducation and Thayer-Bacon’srelational (e)pistemology, constructive thinking, and democratic community canbegin to create the space for equity and equality to be uniquely addressed. Personaltransformation of teachers must result in structural change through pedagogicalpraxis (Nieto 2010). Through reflective research of the self, the self in relation to

84 FRANKLIN

others, and the self within the system (Milner 2007) educators can possibly de-velop the tools for the vigilance required to create learning communities attentiveto issues of equity.

Not attending to the conscious-raising potential of philosophical theories of ed-ucation (and other theories that have transformative capabilities) and their possibleiterations in classrooms risks retaining the status quo. It limits the benefits of anon-going personal preparation for situational sensitivity might offer to educatorsin the form of equitable and inclusive pedagogy, curriculum selection, and assess-ment strategies. True to the uniqueness of the process, the students, the instructor,and the course, duplication of these movements along the gamut of personal prepa-ration for situational sensitivity cannot be assumed. I am optimistic that fosteringthis potential can be replicated for students of education in a classroom and canbe facilitated in the online setting. In technically mediated virtual spaces, we canfind new access and connections that time, geography, and financial constraintsmight otherwise prevent. In the reality of the growth of online education I hope tocontinue to facilitate authentic examination of educational practices in the light oftheoretical work and push beyond superficial engagement to lasting transformativegrowth.

Notes

1. Disclaimer: Although I am aware that that identity is not fixed and the socially con-structed location of gender manifests stereotypes about the genderized traits of women(and men), genderized epistemological approaches, and the reproductive processes thathave conventionally associated with women, such as childrearing. Appreciating that thesetraits, epistemologies, and processes are fluid and complex, Martin’s argument at the timewas a powerful act of inclusion.2. The work of Peter’s, which Martin primarily critiques in this text, is called “The EducatedMan,” but Martin generously comprehends that he presumes to be referring to both men andwoman in what he thinks is a gender-neutral way. Martin goes on to trouble this assumption.3. It is important to note that this is education located in formalized schooling; it is notreferring to education that happens outside school settings.4. Which must not be confused with authentic accountability and educationally soundassessment, see Noddings (2004).

REFERENCES

Bredo, Eric. 2002. “How Can Philosophy of Education Be Both Viable and Good?” EducationalTheory 52: 263–271.

Castagno, Angelina E, and Bryan McKinley, Jones Brayboy. 2008. “Culturally Responsive Schoolingfor Indigenous Youth: A Review of the Literature.” Review of Educational Research 78: 941–993.

Conceptual Framework. Tennessee Tech University, http://www.tntech.edu/education/framework/ (ac-cessed January 2, 2014).


Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2004. “Standards, Accountability, and School Reform.” Teachers CollegeRecord 106: 1047–1085.

Education Week. 2011. Achievement Gap. http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/ (ac-cessed January 2, 2014).

Eisner, E.W. 1994. The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs.New York: McMillan College.

Foster, E.M. 1908. Reprint. A Room with a View. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1986, 48.Gay, Geneva. 2003. Becoming Multicultural Educators: Personal Journey Toward Professional

Agency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Hirsh, David. 2007. “Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education Policies.”

American Educational Research Journal 44: 493–518.Houston, Barbara. 1994. “Should Public Education Be Gender Free?” Pp. 122–134 in The Education

Feminism Reader. Edited by Lynda Stone. New York: Routledge.Iddings, Ana, and Brian Rose. 2010. “Promoting Educational Equity.” Pp. 78–79 in Culture, Curricu-

lum, and Identity in Education. Edited by H. Richard Milner. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Irizarry, Jason and John Raible. 2010. “Unpacking the Sociopolitical Context Surrounding English

Language Learners.” Pp. 95–115 in Culture, Curriculum, and Identity in Education. Edited by H.Richard Milner. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kincheloe, Joe, and Shirley Steinberg. 1998. “Addressing the Crisis of Whiteness: ReconfiguringWhite Identity in a Pedagogy of Whiteness.” Pp. 3–30 in White Reign: Deploying Whiteness inAmerica. Edited by Joe Kincheloe et al. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1994. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

—————. 1999. “Preparing Teachers for Diverse Student Populations: A Critical Race TheoryPerspective.” Review of Research in Education 24: 211–247.

—————. 2006. “From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievementin U.S. Schools,” Educational Researcher 35: 3–12.

Martin, Jane Roland. 1981. “The Ideal of the Educated Person.” Educational Theory 31: 97–109.—————. 1985. Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman. New Haven: Yale

University Press.—————. 1992. The Schoolhome: Rethinking Schools for Changing Families. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.—————. 2002. Cultural Miseducation: In Search of a Democratic Solution. New York: Teachers

College Press.Mayher, John S. 1990. “Forward.” Pp. xiii–xvi in Finding Our Own Way: Teachers Exploring Their

Assumptions. Edited by Judith M. Newman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.McIntosh, Peggy. 1990. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Independent School

49: 31–36.Milner IV, H. Richard. 2007. “Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers

Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen.” Educational Researcher 36: 388–400.—————. 2009. Diversity and Education: Teachers, Teaching, and Teacher Education. Springfield:

Charles C. Thomas, xvi.—————. 2010a. Culture, Curriculum, and Identity in Education, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.—————. 2010b. Start Where You Are, But Don’t Stay There: Understanding Diversity, Opportunity

Gaps, and Teaching in Today’s Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.—————. 2010. The Light in their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities. New York:

Teachers College Press.Noddings, Nel. 2004. “High Stakes Testing: Why?” Theory and Research in Education 2: 263–268.Peters, R.S. 1970. “Education and the Educated Man.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 4: 5–20.

86 FRANKLIN

Rehm, Marsha L., and Barbara Allison. 2006. “Positionality in Teaching Culturally Diverse Stu-dents: Implications for Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Programs.” Family andConsumer Sciences Research Journal 34: 260–275.

Schrag, Francis. 2004. “High Stakes Testing and Distributive Justice.” Theory and Research in Edu-cation 2: 255–262.

Seigel, Harvey. 2004. “High Stakes Testing, Educational Aims and Ideals, and Responsible Assess-ment,” Theory and Research in Education 2: 219–233.

Sloan, Kris. 2007. “High-Stakes Accountability, Minority Youth, and Ethnography: Assessing theMultiple Effects,” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 38: 24–41.

Spring, Joel H. 2010. American Education. 14th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J. 2000. Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively. New York:

Teachers College.—————. 2003. Relational “(e)pistomologies.” New York: Peter Lang Publishing.—————. 2008. Beyond Liberal Democracy in Schools: The Power of Pluralism. New York:

Teachers College Press.—————, and Charles S. Bacon. 1998. Philosophy Applied to Education: Nurturing a Democratic

Community in the Classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.—————, and Diana Moyer. 2006. “Philosophical and Historical Research.” Pp. 139–156 in Doing

Educational Research: A Handbook. Edited by Kenneth Tobin and Joe Kincheloe. Rotterdam,Amsterdam: Sense.

Up in the Air. 2009. DVD. Directed by Jason Reitman. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Pictures, Inc.US Department of Education. 2004. US Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Edu-

cation Title 1 - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html (accessed January 2, 2014).

Valli, Linda, and Daria Buese. 2007. “The Changing Roles of Teachers in an Era of High-stakesAccountability,” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 38: 57–75.

Documents

Virtually Unpacking Your Backpack: Educational Philosophy and Pedagogical Praxis