Month: February 2023

A. A. Akom discusses the mind-opening concept of Critical Hip Hop Pedagogy (CHHP) in the article Critical Hip Hop Pedagogy as a Form of Liberatory Praxis.  Akom’s ideas and analysis of “hip hop pedagogy” form his Critical Hip Hop Pedagogy concept. Still, as he describes, the two differ based on five factors the CHHP actively engages with. The five factors are:

1.  Foregrounds race and racism and their intersectionality with other forms of oppression
2. Challenges traditional paradigms, texts, and theories used to explain the experiences of students of color
3. Centralizes experiential knowledge of students of color
4. Emphasizes the commitment to social justice
5. Encourages a transdisciplinary approach

Akom’s approach to utilizing hip-hop in the classroom offers the opportunity to engage openly with non-white cultures. As he explains, “aspects of youth culture in general, and aspects of white and Asian youth culture in particular, underwent a Black reincarnation via the hip-hop aesthetic” (Akom, 2009, pp. 53). But what does this mean for us as teachers?

Music, in all of its forms, is art. Storytelling and connections through similar experiences create an expressive avenue to draw listeners from all cultural backgrounds, locations, and races. Hip-hop stands out in this category; hip-hop in the 1990s was used as a device to express social discontent to a mass audience. Akom talks about several artists, such as KRS-One and dead prez, who address dissatisfaction with the education system. Hip-hop is a massive part of black culture in America but is also a part of American culture as a whole. We can actively see the issues these artists describe in schools; issues of racism, poverty, misogyny, and incarceration, but these artists also express positivity through love, hope, and joy. Hip-hop is not a malicious art meant to attack the system, but rather a roadway to pave a clearing for change. The power to deliver a strong message across a nation, or globally, allows that message to be heard, examined and understood, so opportunities for change are granted. Rappers and hip-hop artists are able to convey a message that makes sense and speaks to groups that both do and do not relate to the situations they describe. The connection generated between listeners is deeper than the music; the promotion of social justice by discussing societal issues actively engages the students with lives they may or may not live and experience. Hip-hop offers listeners, children, adults, students and teachers alike the opportunity to engage with critical thought and consciousness. Students are encouraged to examine everything and think about the deeper meanings. Examining hip-hop demonstrates the different and/or similar experiences others live through. The expression of discontent, oppression, and mistreatment does not outweigh the love and joy that bonds the artist and the audience. The shared stories and experiences open the audience’s mind to a new realm of very real issues in the world that not everyone experiences.

Below I included the link to a song by rapper Hopsin. Hopsin discusses how the education system damages students’ ability to self-sustain because they are pushed into a world of social inequity and corporate greed that aims to outshine and shut down the general population to line their pockets. The main commentary focuses not on dissing education, the economy, or the government, but on outlining what Hopsin values but was not taught, and what he believes should be understood before students graduate high school.

Fly – Hopsin

Verse 2

“Man, can’t you see we’re robots who know not what we do when we got no shot – In the real world until we climb out of this ice cold box – Your whole life has been part of a whole plot to keep you at the bottom while they on top, stay quiet, then they won’t stop – They always tryna show us what we don’t got – They do it to all of us ’til we finally break and go cop a gold watch”

Article Reference

Akom A. (2009). Critical Hip Hop Pedagogy as a Form of Liberatory Praxis. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(1), 52-66. 

What is citizenship?

Citizenship to my knowledge is understanding the concepts of a society that one lives among. Citizenship goes beyond being a citizen of a country; I am a citizen of Canada, but does that mean I understand citizenship? No! My understanding of citizenship may vary from others, but this is what I believe to be citizenship. Citizenship is about the gathering of collective understandings and sharing of knowledge for the betterment of society. It is the sharing of interests and the development of understanding between differing people. Citizenship is the continuous growth of knowledge and education through civilization to expand the potential of the future.

As Joel Westheimer explores in this video, citizenship and education are very closely related. Joel explains that he wanted to teach kids that they played a role in history and society and that it is important for educators to identify this to students. As Joel states, “We have lost a historical purpose of public education which is to educate a democratic citizenry.” Joel heavily emphasizes the importance of educating everyone. As part of a democratic society, it is important that we teach students about politics and that differences are not bad. “We have to teach kids that intelligent, well-meaning adults differ on important matters of social concern.” Joel paraphrases a quote by Thomas Jefferson, saying, “If citizens are not well educated enough to govern their own affairs, the solution is not to take away that power of governance away from them, but to educate them.”

Mike Capello illustrates the importance of Treaty Education in this podcast. Capello discusses the concept of treaty education and relates it to ethical/treaty citizenship. He expresses the importance of engaging with decolonization, such as through Territorial Land Acknowledgements. As Capello explains Land Acknowledgements, “Those acknowledgements are not about the past, they’re in fact deeply about our future.” He further explains that we should not be saying land acknowledgements or engaging with decolonization because we have to, but because we have a vision for a greater future for Canada. Treaty Education plays a significant role in Canadian citizenship and the successful, equitable future of Canada.

In Ben Levin’s article “Curriculum Policy And The Politics of What Should Be Learned In Schools” he discusses how curricula are developed and implemented into the education system. Levin introduces the chapter by stating, “In this chapter, curriculum is defined as an official statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do” (Levin, 2008, pp. 8). With curriculum clearly defined, how are curricula developed and implemented?

Levin focuses heavily on the politics behind developing an official school curriculum. He says, “[…] curriculum developed by governments or other sanctioned authorities for standard use in schools across a state, province, or country” (Levin, 2008, pp. 7). Furthermore, Levin explains how public policies drive all rules and procedures of public sector activities, including education. Levin describes the development of a curriculum as “six general assertions” that guide the construction. These six assertions are voter interest, governments having limited control over the policy agenda, time constraints, “people and systems matter”, political opposition disturbances, and beliefs being more important than facts. Each of these assertions has a further depth that I would like to explore.

1. Voter interest is the idea that public opinion impacts decisions made. This can cause complications because, as Levin puts it, “Education policy is particularly susceptible to this [input with lack of knowledge] situation as pretty well everyone has some experience of schooling and therefore opinions about how it ought to work” (Levin, 2008, pp. 10). Still, the government takes public thoughts into consideration to form curricula and policies.
2. The government must choose to prioritize matters as they appear. Should a natural disaster occur or an economic downturn, the government must turn resources to address the immediate needs of the country. Therefore, the government only has limited control over the policy agenda. Issues that require immediate attention set back the rest of the agenda and can cause political discourse as setbacks worsen and issues become more complex.
3. There is never enough time to do everything. The government is not immune to this fact of life and therefore must make tough decisions about what issues are most important. As Levin describes, “There is, consequently, never enough time to think about issues in sufficient depth” (Levin, 2008, pp.  12). The result of time constraints is quick or impromptu decisions, which is never ideal, but often there are no alternatives.
4. People that hold critical positions often have a strong voice and input in politics. People in these positions hold significant power in what is made vocal and pushed toward policymaking. Additionally, the systems which are used to make these decisions are very important. “[…] the way in which issues come to decision-making bodies such as a Cabinet, and the kind of information that accompanies them are all important in shaping the way policies are constructed and delivered” (Levin, 2008, pp. 12). The structure of decision-making in politics is the core of making policies.
5. Opposing political parties can cause disturbances in policy and decision-making. By introducing challenges and questioning each decision, both parties must make decisions based on what is believed to be best for the country and the people. However, challenging each decision slows down the development and implementation of such.
6. The government caters to what the people want, sometimes more often than what they need. The idea that beliefs (wants) are more important than facts (needs) is a driving factor in policymaking. Levin explains, “I have had politicians tell me on various occasions that while the evidence I was presenting for a particular policy might be correct, the policy was not what people believed, wanted, or would accept” (Levin, 2008, pp. 13). Politicians play to the people; the people will be happier with the decisions they made/want than the ones the government insists are more beneficial but initially sound less appealing.

With all of these factors covered, what does this mean for the development and implementation of curricula? It means that the process is not as simple as “this needs to be changed, let’s do it.” Politics are driven by so many factors that complicate the process of designing policies in everything from the environment to finances and education to the justice system. Behind the scenes of politics are many more layers than the average person could imagine. Typically, decisions about curriculum are made under formal processes involving experts and sector representatives. By reviewing studies, examining the current curriculum, and addressing what must be changed, experts and government officials organize and develop new curricula to fit what is important for students to learn. There are multiple options on how to implement a new curriculum. As Levin explains, “Sometimes a new curriculum will be created and released to the system, while in other cases it may be released initially on a pilot basis and then revised to a final version” (Levin, 2008, pp. 17). The curriculum process can take several years from start to completion, but it is all in the means of developing a finished, revised curriculum that will benefit learners.

It is no surprise that developing and implementing new curricula can be convoluted. Prioritization is key in politics, and with all of the major difficulties a country can suffer, education typically is not put at the top of the list for revision and reconsideration. None of this is new to me; I enjoy studying politics and I fully understand why politicians must prioritize other events and issues. Like everything in life, some things are always going to be more important than others, especially when requiring an immediate response.

All of this leads to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education’s 2013 article  “Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators.” Many connections can be made between these articles and the implementation of Treaty Education in Saskatchewan. Now understanding the complications that slow down the process of developing and implementing policies, one clear reason why Treaty Education in Saskatchewan is slow moving is due to the idea of education being lower on the list of prioritization. Therefore, the requirement to revamp the curriculum to address treaty education became a suddenly quick-moving issue, and as Levin explained, “There is, consequently, never enough time to think about issues in sufficient depth” (Levin, 2008, pp.  12). The lack of treaty education was rapidly addressed without deeply considering WHY treaty education is important. Treaty education feels empty, almost like it was thrown together to meet expectations, and often these expectations are not met in education. Tensions definitely played a role in the development of treaty education; the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2008 probably impacted the decision to introduce treaty education. Another factor that added pressure and tension would be the beginning of decolonization in Canada, and more specifically in Education.

Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. Connelly, M. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7 – 24). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Available online from: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16905_Chapter_1.pdf

Saskatchewan Treaty Education document