Course Correction: Teaching Critical Consciousness in an Anti-CRT State

• In Event: Constructing Educational Possibilities Through Normative Case Study Conversations

Abstract

Set in the United States, “Course Correction: Teaching Critical Consciousness in an Anti-CRT State” follows a Black principal deeply committed to equity and antiracist curriculum at his predominantly white middle school. In the wake of new state legislation banning certain discussions of racism and sexism, he weighs whether or not to renew a course centered on the development of critical consciousness. Though the course’s social justice curriculum provides important civic education to students, the principal worries that renewing the course might result in parents filing complaints and his teachers losing their licenses. How much must educators risk—both personally and professionally—to support civic education? In a conversation about the case, a racially and professionally diverse group discusses the ways that educational policy plays out in schools and the challenges of educational leadership in the current polarized climate. What should antiracism look like when enacted well in schools? What roles should parents and schools play in determining the values that young people need to learn?
I want to highlight some strengths, areas for growth, and questions I see in the conversational approach to analyzing a non-fictional case like this one. First, some strengths: Many important facts from research, journalism, and practitioner insight are mobilized in this case narrative and conversation. Each case discussant shares deep academic, practitioner, or philosophical expertise related to the intersection of educational law and anti-racist, equity oriented educational practice that is likely to enrich the knowledge of many readers. The case offers important opportunities to consider perspectives similar to or other than their own – like those of Daniel, a Black school leader juggling many competing considerations in an often hostile environment for learning and teaching, or Mrs. Peterson, a religious parent who sees indoctrination in a teacher’s efforts to teach for social justice using existing educational standards. A range of relevant normative questions, evaluative perspectives, and responses are considered in this conversation, which was structured using a protocol developed by the Harvard EdEthics team and facilitated skillfully by Sara O’Brien. Yet at the level of evaluative judgments, different audiences have responded to this case in contradictory ways and the case does not supply a framework to decide where ethical knowledge lies among competing responses. This seems to suggest a limit to our confidence in these conversations as a means to acquire action guiding normative ethical knowledge and a potential area for growth. This raises (at least) the following questions for me: Which (and whose) judgements should guide the selection of the perspectives, skills, or dispositions sought in discussants to a curated case discussion? Which should we aim to produce as outcomes for learners? Do we need a clearer theory of the principles of instructional design implicit in the creation of case studies and discussion protocols to make these normative decisions more explicit topics of reflection?

Author

• Nicolas Jordan Tanchuk, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign