Shultz, B.D. (2008). Spectacular Things Happen Along the Way: Lessons from an Urban Classroom. Reviewed by Cara Zurzolo, University of Toronto

Shultz, B.D. (2008). Spectacular Things Happen Along the Way: Lessons from an Urban Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press Pp. 192         ISBN 978-0807748589

Reviewed by Cara Zurzolo
University of Toronto

April 9, 2009

Spectacular Things Happen Along the Way, a book by Brian Shultz is part of the Teaching for Social Justice Series edited by William Ayers. Brian D. Shultz is an assistant professor of education at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. He was a teacher in the Chicago Public School system (for two years) and received the Educator of the Year award from the Illinois Computing Educators. This book is written with teachers in mind: it provides a compelling case study of the interventions that are possible when using progressive and democratic pedagogy in an urban school with reflections and examples that provide how-to-do-it advice for teachers. Shultz’s position seems to be, “if I could do it, so can you.” The potential and possibility of his suggestion is both encouraging and discouraging for any teacher who reads this book.

The book is based on Shultz’s doctoral work at the University of Illinois. It depicts one teacher’s experience teaching in a poor, urban, public school located in the Cabrini Green neighbourhood in down town Chicago. It tells the story of how the author implemented a student driven, social activist curriculum in a grade five classroom. The impetus for this curriculum was a challenge offered to the students by their teacher to identify a problem in their school and then try to solve it. The problem the students identified was their dilapidated school building. Their school had been slated to be rebuilt six years prior. The process of trying to get the school rebuilt became the curriculum for the duration of their grade five year. The students carried out research (document and original), interviews, surveys, wrote letters, made websites and videos documenting issues and improvements. They gained public attention, and the attention of public officials and politicians. In the end, the school was not rebuilt, but along the way the students and teacher learned a great deal about their own potential and about the possibility for change in their school and themselves.

The author/teacher views teaching and education through a social justice lens that conceives of teachers as social activists. A part of this framework is a belief that students should be the centerpiece in the curriculum and key participants in the creation of knowledge. Shultz mentions that the works of Friere, Dewey, Ayers, and Schwab are the foundation for his teaching methodology, a methodology that is centred on promoting the active political and civic participation of all students regardless of their race or socio-economic status. Shultz juxtaposes this process against an educational backdrop that is “accountability obsessed” and has a “one-size-fits-all” mentality (Shultz, 2008); which, according to the author, fails to meet the educational and personal development needs of students. Moreover, he argues that although schools are charged with preparing students to be productive “democratic” citizens, they resist becoming the environments where democracy is practiced.

The book is organized in chronological order, as a personal narrative about the events that took place during Brian Shultz’s year with Room 405. This format provides background knowledge about the author, the school, the community and to some extent, the students. The narrative walks the reader through the challenges and questions that Shultz posed to himself during his experience with the students in Room 405. The chronology provides a starting point to flesh out the details of the story surrounding this particular school, the political backdrop and the players who were involved in the problems at Carr Academy. The chronological style provides illustrations of what a progressive, democratic classroom that is student driven could/should look like. It also provides a case study of Shultz’s major focus - the cooperation and participation of the public in policy making. Teachers will find the pedagogy, resources and reflection useful in understanding this concept of democratic and progressive education. The reader is offered a “sensory” experience of what it means to teach for social justice because Shultz uses many examples and original dialogue to illustrate his ideas.

It is not until chapter six and seven of the book that Shultz attempts to theorize his method and pedagogy in a more substantial discussion of his framework for the experiences of his year with room 405. This format attests to how student centred Shultz is; he puts the students’ experiences before his own. In these later chapters, he starts to make connections (although somewhat tenuously) to Dewey, Freire and Ayers, and explains that their ideas guide his teaching. He could have done more to direct the reader to particular examples of how these theorists’ ideas were directly connected to his teaching practice. I was able to infer that he was influenced by the idea of “consciencization” (Friere, 1972); however, he does not use this term in his book. If you’ve read Friere, you’d guess that Shultz’s choice of reading the book by Jonathon Kozol (1992) “Savage Inequalities” with his students is an attempt at encouraging a critical consciousness of their world. This looseness can leave the reader who is less familiar with critical theory and pedagogy to wonder about the vague connections Shultz tends to make. He tends not to make strong practice/theory connections. The last two chapters end up clogged with vague allusions to his methods, these could have been made more straightforwardly. He also uses these last two chapters to encourage teachers (the intended audience for this book) to pursue this method and gives them some explanations, warnings and illustrations important in the process of the democratization of schools. He advises teachers about negotiating the risks involved in social justice teaching, the need to become familiar with curriculum studies literature and the complications of good intentions.

Shultz’s authorship can read like a Vygotskyian self-talk exercise: where the author reflects and talks himself through practical and philosophical issues connected to his practice. A specific script starts to materialize about some of the questions teachers might start to ask themselves. This piece of his story provides a template, but does not go far enough. The breadth of questions posed by Shultz about a more critical practice is exemplary, but he often fails to go very deep. An example of this for instance is when Shultz asks “If this (progressive educational project) has been shown to be successful, why is progressive education not put into practice elsewhere?” (Shultz, p.143) His response is that policy makers and the back-to basics movements see schooling in poor, urban schools as a transmission of culture. He says that certain students, namely Black and Latino students, (like the students in his classroom) are thought to need a certain kind of schooling. He fails to unpack the context; he gives no explanation except to say that some people think that way. He spends a total of half a page on something that should be very important to his discussion.

What is more useful here is how he locates himself in all of the shifting ground around the high stakes standardized testing agenda and what is often proposed as an alternative. Shultz is a white, middle class, male teacher who has been assigned to teach in a school where most of his students are Black and from a low socio-economic neighbourhood in urban Chicago. I think this is very meaningful because many researchers have pointed out that the majority of teachers in the United States remain white and middle class. The importance of unpacking this position has been identified by many researchers and educators (Darder and Torres, 2004; Solomon et al, 2005; Howard, 2006; Sims and Lea, 2008). Shultz draws on the concepts from Gary Howard’s book, “We can’t teach what we don’t know,” and Lisa Delpit’s (2006) “Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom” to reflect on his whiteness and to address the often overlooked nature of white dominance. The presence of the highly political and earnest question indicates that Shultz is a thoughtful teacher. He also demonstrates some of the questions that might be part of a reflective teaching practice, whether one chooses to take on the role of activist teacher or not.

A strength of this book is Shultz’s student centred method of teaching. It was exciting to read about the project and to witness through Shultz’s narrative the questions and solutions that students were able to produce together, as a community of learners. It is clear that Shultz is on to something in his conception of citizenship. Citizenship, according to Shultz, should “encourage children to be active players in curricula and society”. His classroom was site of potential and possibility for this kind of citizenship education with his students. Their joint construction of curriculum and activities promoted democratic participation in the present, as young people and in the future, as adults. He problematizes the concept of “good citizen” - it is more than following the rules, it is about actively creating policy. He and his students provided a “counter-narrative” (Shultz, p. 154) to the usual narrative about students who live in impoverished urban areas, the trajectory and importance of schools in their lives and how interested they are in education. He illustrates very clearly what Apple and Beane (2007) argue, “Democratic schools, like democracy itself, do not happen by chance. They result from explicit attempts by educators to put in place arrangements and opportunities that will bring democracy to life.” (p. 140)

However, in this same vein of understanding potential and possibility, the story of room 405 and their teacher is limited. We can see the potential and possibility of the story in this specific case but as a broader strategy of shifting the agendas of school it comes up short. It is not that Shultz does not do an exemplary job of modelling student directed democratic teaching, nor does that short sightedness come to rest in the potential and possibility that the students exhibited. The effort and accomplishment by the students was Herculean, they acted with commitment, thoughtfulness and intelligence that was inspiring. The particular vision problem emerges because of how this story is located in particular political and school reforms context.

What contribution does this story/case study make to support the potential and possibility of progressive school reform? While the book is speaking out against one type of reform movement, it is also advocating another. Shultz is advocating a change in schools: from places that resist democracy and ensure unequal outcomes, to democratic and progressive places for all students, not just affluent ones. This is more than admirable and salient in light of the inequities we see in school experience for poor, urban, minority students. It is a school many other educators and researchers hope for. But what does this particular story do to set a course for making this change. Sadly, I think that despite the excitement of seeing this group of students empowered and learning, and despite the transformations we see in Shultz throughout this project, the question still remains: So What?

We are inundated with stories of people succeeding against incredible odds. We have seen success stories and case studies: for example, “No Excuses: Seven Principals of low income schools who set the standard for High Achievement” by Samuel Carter (1999) and the growth of Lighthouse Schools in the United Sates. Shultz himself cites examples of successful schools: The eight year study, The Small Workshop schools, Central Park East School in East Harlem, and the Foxfire approach (Shultz, p.143). Even Hollywood has created a niche for this kind of thing, illustrated by the success of movies like “Dangerous Minds” (1995) and “Freedom Writers” (2007). However, we need more than affirmations of the power of the human will and hard work to address the issues that face educators and schools. Moreover, the story of how public schools became a site of injustice wasn’t addressed actively in this thesis/book. Does it really just rest in the hands of an enlightened thoughtful practitioner to make things better? If so, then Shultz needed to provide a more theoretical explanation that addresses the complexity and variation involved in school reforms. The problem is plain; he is an exception. While he was able to make exceptional changes, there was an exceptional aggregation of events, personalities, social and cultural capital that made Shultz successful. Furthermore, Shultz achieved success for ONE year. What about teachers who might be expected to do this year after year? Is this type of activism sustainable?

I interpreted Shultz’s ideas as being predicated on the belief that teachers, acting in isolation and with excellence, will be able to transform the education system one classroom at a time. It may be that by changing one classroom at a time, and changing teachers attitudes and knowledge that the changes towards more democratic schools will eventually come to pass; but perhaps not in the “just be excellent” method that Shultz recommends. Shultz reports that one of the most important steps in being successful is gaining approval of administration and colleagues. He explains that he did not get much resistance, but this seems like a contradiction since he also reports, “extreme daily pressure to achieve according to standards imposed on me through outside mandates.” So while he says in one breath that his “licence to be creative was not denied”, he affirms that there were intense contextual barriers in place to discourage him. He had to do twice the work and I guess most principals would say, “Go ahead - do the job of two teachers.” Shultz’s strategy in all of this was to be exemplary in both respects and to participate in two seemingly antithetical processes. So, while the idea of changing one classroom at a time seems reasonable and grassroots enough, it also (inadvertently) places teachers on the “sharp edge of reform” (Bascia and Hargreaves, 2001) in a number of ways: First, by pushing for yet another reform while neglecting teachers: neglecting to find out what matters to them, what they need and what they know. Secondly, it puts immense educational problems in the hands of teachers, problems that are beyond their “best efforts” due to the highly varied and complex contexts of education and schooling, and then most importantly it requires a form of “emotional labour” that not only takes advantage of teachers, but might not sustainable in the long run.

I think that perhaps more interesting and pertinent questions could have been posed while still using the evidence presented in this book, for instance: If change is possible (as demonstrated by Shultz) then why aren’t all teachers doing it? What does this demonstrate about the possibilities of the potential underlying values in the teaching profession that make teachers resistant? What does this demonstrate about the possibility of contextual influences that far outweigh the potency of teachers’ labour? What do other teachers have to say about their efforts that were submerged or subverted by the very same influences that Shultz makes scant mention of in his book?

What does this story say about the kind of “capital” that teachers must possess in order to strike out on their own, against the status quo to be “successful” activist? One might see Shultz’s own constellation of capital: namely, a higher than average level of education than most teachers possess, access to curriculum literature above and beyond what is available in teacher education programs and in professional development for teachers, access to advisors like William Ayers, the confidence of coming to the low status profession of teaching from a high status corporate world, and not to mention being male, white and affluent. In fact, the reliance on this tends to obfuscate what Shultz fails to deeply address, that this endeavour was more complex and more lubricated by his own position than he admits. A more relevant thesis would pose more pertinent, deeper questions along with the important considerations of his identity. He could have admitted to his great privilege, not only because he is white, male and affluent, but also because of other cultural capital he possessed. More important than any admissions on his part, he might have tried to tease out what other contextual influences were at play that affected his success.

A note about the media attention portrayed in this book, and the subsequent attention that Shultz has received evidenced by the endorsements of his book by some of the greatest and most influential minds in progressive and democratic education. In the book, the media attention gave him a strong foothold to bolster the class’ efforts. One wonders how he managed to get such high profile people to visit and endorse this project; I’d like to think it was the power of this story, but more likely it was a combination of the story, Shultz’s connections, and the force of political synecdoche at work. Stone (2002) explains that symbolic representation is a political strategy that can reduce the scope of the problem and thereby makes it more manageable (p. 148). It was clear that room 405 became a synecdoche of the larger-scale problems faced by public schools in Chicago and in the United States itself. The plea for help and the joy people feel when they heard the story of room 405 needing a new school can be seen to make invisible the needs of other Chicago school children. There was little mention of the attention that other schools received because of Room 405; in fact the only other school mentioned was an affluent High School that interacted with the students as pen pals. So rather than bring attention to the issues, the media attention may have provided an escape for the politicians and public. Does this book draw attention to the problem or to the feel good success story?

While this story far exceeded Shultz’s expected outcomes in his labour for justice, it’s reliance on the labour of teachers is problematic. According to Shultz teachers are “seen as selfless people who have dedicated themselves to helping and nurturing young people.” (p. 126). These are the characteristics expected of teachers in Shultz’s plan for change. The type of labour expected can be described as “emotional labour” (Basica and Hargreaves, 2001). This kind of labour is described as the labours that people in the caring professions (like teaching) perform to manage or mask their own emotions so they produce desired or required emotional states in others. (Basica and Hargreaves, 2001, p. 12) These individuals do things like “infect students with their own enthusiasm; resist being provoked by colleagues...or are able to charm, persuade and otherwise move corporate benefactors to provide financial support for educationally desirable initiatives that benefit students.” (Bascia and Hargreaves, 2001, p. 12). This describes emotional labour at its best. Shultz demonstrates this positive end of emotional labour. However, this same type of labour can also have adverse affects on the professionals that employ it. In an unsupportive context, teachers feel drained and have a reduced sense of efficacy and feelings of alienation. Reforms that place teachers in this position are certainly illustrated by the standards movement and the No Child Left Behind program, where teachers’ autonomy and professionalism are pushed aside (scripted and canned curriculum); where educators are provided with insufficient time and resources to meet high expectations (standards first and then students), where teachers feel powerless and there are fear-laden processes of inspection and supervision (sanctions if standards aren’t met). (Basica and Hargreaves, 2001) Shultz’s expectation is that teachers perform emotional labour in the face of very unsupportive workplaces and educational contexts. In fact, his assertion is that teachers should be going over and above what they are already mandated to do in this unsupportive context. He provides teachers with the advice that they should be exemplary to win others over to democratic pedagogy and progressive education. Shultz himself illustrates the point that his success was due in part to his exemplary behaviour and excellence in being a dutiful teacher, even when some practices were at odds with his own convictions. He went over and above what was required by the administration and the standards, and on top of it he applied for grants, gave detailed lesson plans, garnered administration’s backing through his connections to the university, won colleagues over to his pedagogy, spent his prep time in other teacher’s classrooms, and all of this while completing his doctoral work (pp. 132-133). He says, “Academic rigor is paramount because curriculum delivered within a social justice context has a tendency to move beyond the school structure.” (p. 127) He warns that students and teachers will be in the line of fire for challenging the status quo, but his best advice is to labour on despite the danger.

The responsibility for change falls into the lap of teachers according to the plan set out by the author of this book. Shultz highlights that teachers are important to any changes in schools, and many researchers would agree with him (Johnson, 1990; Bascia, 1996; Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1998). However, this is not because they can or need to do all of the work but because they are often the embodiment of policy and reform efforts. The story of success in this book is an outlier, different than the vast majority of teachers who try to accomplish this sort of work. Shultz himself notes that he saw other colleagues trying to make similar changes and witnessed their subsequent failures. He blames their lack of success on failing to gain the support and permission of administrators; he says, “I observed other teachers who did not take this step and did not have the same support. By making the administration a collaborator with Room 405, I earned its interest in the successes we all shared.”(p. 130) Shultz does not address what happens when teachers attempt to gain support and are not successful.

This story is exceptional, in a way that may prove to be less than inspiring for most teachers, specifically ones that are working in urban schools. Shultz is not your average teacher; for example, in a talk at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), Pedro Noguerra tells quite a different story of the types of urban teachers assigned to schools like Carr Academy. In his lecture on November 9, 2008, he clearly stated that one of the major problems facing urban education is that young, new and inexperienced teachers are often the ones placed in the urban settings, where the complexity of the context demands from them more than they have available in light of their training and intersections with those communities. Noguerra also advocates for changes to initial teacher education programs to equip new teachers for this type of work.

In the end, Brian Shultz is an exemplary teacher. He provides a good example of what exciting and positive things can happen for students when they are respected and central to the curriculum and classroom practices. He should be applauded for this effort. Brian Shultz falls short as a visionary for educational change or as a counterpoint to the current educational reform movement that has a stronghold in the United States. He fails to describe and discuss the complexity of the context of schools and teachers’ work. In fact, he inadvertently puts teachers on the “sharp edge of reform” (Basica and Hargreaves, 2001).

References

Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007). Democratic schools (2nd ed.) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bascia, N., & Hargreaves, A. (2001). The sharp edge of educational change: Teaching, leading, and the Realities of reform. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cochran-Smith, M. Lytle, S. L. (1998). Teacher research: The question that persists. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 19-36.

Darder, A., & Torres,R. (2004). After Race:Racism after Multiculturalism.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Howard, G. (2006). We Can’t Teach What We Don’t Know: White Teachers, Multiracial Schools. NY: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, S.M. (1991). Teacher at work: Achieving Success in Our Schools. New York: Basic Books.

Lea, V. & Sims, E.J. (2008). Undoing Whiteness in the Classroom: Critical Educultural Approaches for Social Justice Activism.New York: Peter Lang.

Solomon, R., Portelli, J., Daniel, B-J., Campbell, A. (2005). The discourse of denial: How white teacher candidates construct race, racism and “white privilege”. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(2), 147-169.

About the Reviewer

Cara Zurzolo is currently a PhD student at the University of Toronto (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education). Her current research interest is teachers and their work towards social justice and democracy in schools, and in particular what challenges and/or supports their efforts. Prior to entering the doctoral program, she worked as a classroom teacher in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. She has eight years of classroom experience.