I have always been interested in social justice, so this week’s readings really sparked my interest. A connection I made with this was with the material I learned in my EDFN 306 class. In this class, we discussed gender diversity and gender inequalities and how to teach and incorporate them in the classroom. With that, we discussed how sometimes parents don’t want certain things taught in school because they think it will change their child’s gender orientation. I made the connection between this and the reading, because it is similar to the idea of “brainwashing”. After many years of learning about social justice issues and participating in social justice groups, I have never thought of the teaching and learning about it as “brainwashing”. I don’t believe that the goal of teaching social justice is to “brainwash” students, rather to just educate and raise awareness. In addition, I believe that it is important for teachers to teach students about global and social justice issues; since they will be exposed to them and it is impossible to shelter children from the reality of the world; but this does not mean that it is the teacher’s job to tell them what to believe is right or wrong or what they should or shouldn’t do. Furthermore, I learned that in addition to teaching about social justice, teachers should also teach their students to develop empathy. By doing this, it allows the students to have their own beliefs, while respecting the beliefs of others. Another important thing to keep in mind when teaching social justice is age and developmental appropriateness. In Cynthia Reynold’s reading, she mentions that several children have needed treatment for anxiety after learning certain things related to global issues in school and also emphasizes on the importance of ensuring that children feel safe. This leads me to one of my questions, which is: How can we tell what is age-appropriate to teach to children regarding social justice issues?
In the reading on the difference between tolerance paradigm and transformative paradigm, I learned what these paradigms were, how schools usually follow the tolerance paradigm, and the importance of incorporating the transformative paradigm into our teaching and school systems. Moreover, the transformative paradigm is understanding that problems, conflicts, prejudice, and discrimination are all rooted in a systematic problem and a way to fix them requires us to uncover or change biases or preconceived notions, whereas the tolerance paradigm is the belief that these issues are due to the lack of knowledge and learning about them will “fix” the problems. A connection I made with this reading was something my Indigenous studies professor told us about truth and reconciliation – feeling uncomfortable is part of the process. To be able to transform and break through these systematic problems, we must uncover and change our biases, thus feeling uncomfortable is the beginning of learning and change. I noticed that in elementary and high school, learning the history of Canada never felt uncomfortable, and this may have been because they followed the tolerance paradigm. On the other hand, in University, we are encouraged to challenge ourselves and do a lot of critical thinking. Doing this helps us realize our own biases and find ways to change them.