Pp. 205 ISBN 978-1-4331-0155-7
Reviewed by Mary Anne Drinkwater
University of Toronto
April 20, 2009
Critically Engaged Learning: Connecting to Young Lives
by John Smyth, Lawrence Angus and Peter Mcinerney provides a
refreshing and revitalizing
breath of hope and inspiration for educators struggling to reach
disengaged youth. As is the aim in many of the recent books on
critical engagement, the authors hope is to draw awareness around
the necessity of creating positive and healthy social/political
spaces in which disengaged youth can become re-engaged in their
education. Building on previous research, the authors engaged in
a multi-locale critical ethnographic study in two Australian
communities. High levels of unemployment, welfare dependency and
a significant number of students failing to complete formal
schooling requirements characterize both these communities
ravaged by neoliberal economic policies. This study moves beyond
the immediate school context to examine the institutional and
community processes of capacity building that lead to improved
learning for students. Smyth et al. selected these communities
with the hope of moving “beyond a discourse of despair to
an optimistic view of the possibilities of transformative
education through the intersecting notions of critically
engaged learning and critically engaged community capacity
building” (Smyth et al., 2008, p. 149). They believed
that “in communities blighted by exclusion, both
[critically engaged learning along with critically
engaged community capacity] have to occur in unison or in
tandem…” (p. 4)
Throughout the book, Smyth et al. use
‘portraiture’ (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005) as a form of
inquiry that would enable them to “capture both the
complexity as well as the aesthetic nature of human
experience” (Smyth et al., p. 8). In addition to its
use as a form of textual representation, portraiture is an
effective research tool as a ‘method of documentation,
analysis, and narrative development’. As Riehl (2007) has
argued, “research will generate knowledge …to the
degree that it addresses the full complexity of
education….as a meaning-driven, socially situated,
interpretive practice” (p. 155). Although this approach
has had its critics and detractors, Smyth et al. valued this
approach for its refreshing honesty and commitment to
transparency in an era in which there is a demand for research to
be ‘scientific’ and ‘evidence-based’.
Jerome Bruner (1986) has argued that narratives are the
most basic way in which people give meaning to their experiences
and organize their knowledge about the world. The narrative
approach to research privileges an “agentive Self”
(Bruner, 1990, p. 41) who actively experiences and makes sense of
the world. Riehl (2007) further argued that narratives
“challenge oft-held notions of the status hierarchy of
knowledge” (p. 149). When given the opportunity to tell
their stories, students, teachers and community members can give
valuable evidence for policy analysis and policy development.
Smyth and his co-authors believed that student disengagement is deeply embedded in the ‘self-fulfilling cycle of social disadvantage and poverty’ (p. 20). The organization of the book follows four prominent themes that the authors believe offer solutions to address the root causes of this cycle, namely: socially critical educational and community activism; drawing upon excluded communities’ ‘funds of knowledge’; policy and educational reforms that are respectful of young lives; and connectedness to youth and popular culture. (p. 20). The remainder of the books weaves back and forth between the two communities as it compares and contrasts these four themes. At times, the reader may be wondering about the linkage between the two different approaches going on in these communities and whether either one of them truly reflects the central claim of the authors: the intersecting and inseparable link between school and community.
The first chapter of the book sets the context, situating the study in a cluster of schools which exist in communities of disadvantage or exclusion. The multi-school project involved an elementary and a middle school in the small suburb of Wirra Wagga and a cluster of senior high schools in the larger community of Bountiful Bay. The project schools were all government (public) schools operating under administrative and curriculum guidelines laid down by state and commonwealth governments.
Chapter two, situated in Wirra Wagga, focuses on engaging socially critical educators and community activists in “trying to produce the conditions for breaking the debilitating cycle of educational disadvantage and social exclusion” (p. 24). The authors believe that it is crucial for local community members to be ‘stakeholders’ in designing and delivering young people’s educational destinies (p. 21). Unfortunately, at times these destinies are hindered by exclusionary practices in communities. The authors’ use of the notion of ‘free spaces’, I feel, detracts from the vision of what they are describing. I’m not sure why they wouldn’t call an ‘apple’ an ‘apple’ and stay the course by using ‘critical democratic spaces’ (which could refer to what is envisioned for the classroom, school or community).
Their recounting of the community renewal project from the
vantage point of what Lipsky (1980) has called the
‘street-level bureaucrats’ reinforces the kind of
critically educative process which is both transformative and
democratic based on relationships that ask the questions
‘engagement for what?’ and ‘in whose
interest?’ (Portelli & McMahon, 2004, p. 43).
Residents ‘corrected’ the ‘unfounded
perceptions’ of their community, Wirra Wagga, which in
large part had been precipitated by the media through
“conveying and reinforcing simplified and stigmatizing
stereotypes, to the detriment of more positive images” (p.
36). What was quite surprising in this story was the ‘sense
of pride’ felt by the community members, who were involved
in the renewal project, which was quite at odds with the
“stigmatized and denigrated perceptions held by the
outsiders” (p. 37). As one resident put it, he was
“understandably confounded when he was not only treated
with respect but his opinions were sought and valued”. (p.
38)
Chapter three moves to Bountiful Bay, where schools and
educators try to engage excluded communities through
connectionist pedagogy “which links classroom
learning to the diverse lives, backgrounds and aspirations of the
students” (p. 60). There is no question that schools in
which committed principals and teachers work in tandem with
parents and are committed to a philosophy of making schools an
integral part of a community in terms of curricular content and
pedagogy will be ‘good’ schools (Cuban, 2000).
Although this may increase student engagement in the community,
it remains thin with respect to ‘critical
engagement’. In order to thicken critical
democratic engagement, classrooms need to provide the opportunity
for youth to truly inquire, theorize, collaborate, critique and
challenge the status quo, based on their own experiences and
freedom of choice (which they value so highly to develop
‘agency’) (Vibert et al., 2002).
In Chapter four, the authors begin to unpack and analyze the policy language and assumptions associated with both ‘neighborhood renewal’ and ‘school effectiveness’ in Australia. Concepts and assumptions imbedded in policy documents often convey seemingly ‘common sense’ and benign intentions, yet can be powerful. As Foucault (1980) has argued, power works through representations in seemingly ‘common sense’ language without anyone necessarily intending to wield power. Despite a good analysis of the effects of policy language on community renewal and school reform, and even though the authors claim that “there is evidence of an emerging ‘inclusive deliberative democracy’” following these reforms (p. 111) in Wirra Wagga, this chapter fails to provide much "thickening" of the concepts of "critical pedagogy" (Kincheloe, 2001; McLaren, 1995) or "critical-democratic engagement." (Portelli & McMahon, 2004)
Chapter five provides the strongest link to the title of the book. The authors provide strong and convincing arguments about the need for educational reform which reaches into and connects with young peoples’ lives and their popular culture. The evidence presented in this chapter is solidly grounded in the work of researchers such as Giroux (2000), Kincheloe (2001), McLaren (1995), Shor (1992) and others. The information age is expanding exponentially and youth today are “exposed to a global info-entertainment industry that shapes identities, desires and relationships beyond the school yard” (p. 119). Students are experiencing a growing gap between the nature, purpose and processes of schooling and the realities of their daily lives. Smyth et al. believe that these gaps can provide teachers with the space and resources to create new possibilities for (re)engaging students in more critical and authentic ways connected to the world in which they live. I believe that it is precisely within these gaps or spaces in the ‘policy web’ that radical and important policy work must be done (Joshee, 2008). However, unless policy, programming and funding specifically addresses the issues of pedagogical preparation for critical democratic engagement and resources to support this, progress may be limited.
Finally, in Chapter six, the authors summarize their findings and review ‘the spaces’ for critically engaged educators to work in transformative ways with local communities to improve education for the most disadvantaged students” (p. 151). Smyth et al. hope that this kind of ‘critical analytic perspective’ can serve as an opening for others to enter into dialogue by suggesting new questions or methods applicable to their problems (p. 150).
In moving from individual chapter reviews to more general
reflections on the book, I have a few critiques or
‘unanswered questions’. The text is written in a
format which is accessible to a very broad audience including
teachers, administrators, community members, socially engaged
activists and researchers. This has advantages and
disadvantages. The narrative style makes it an easy-read and
provides a meaning-driven and socially-situated context.
However, the bulleting of items and recommendations may at times
disturb the richness of the textual representations and the flow
of some chapters.
My key concern is that the assertion made by the authors that
both critically engaged learning and critically
engaged community capacity building must occur in unison or in
tandem is not supported by the evidence from either Wirra Wagga
or Bountiful Bay. In Wirra Wagga, the authors present evidence
of a grassroots community renewal project that has had a positive
impact on some educational issues such as the value of pre-school
and the need for student support in transition to high school. I
see this conception of critically engaged learning as
‘thin’. I believe that we need to continue to push
for a ‘deeper’ conception of critically engaged
learning in which students link with their communities (locally,
nationally and/or internationally) to transform ‘open
spaces’ into ‘public spaces’ in their continual
striving for equity, social justice, collectivity and democracy
(Freire, 1994; Giroux, 2001; Greene, 2000). It will be through
this coming together, sharing of multiple perspectives,
reflection, dialogue, debate and collective action that
critically engaged learning will be ‘deepened’.
This commitment to critical democratic learning must come from
both schools and communities. Smyth et al. found that the
teachers of the newly combined elementary school in Wirra Wagga
differed widely in their pedagogical practices and their
commitment to democratic inclusion.
Such commitment of both residents and ‘professionals’ to identify with Wirra Wagga, its families, community members and young people, and to understand and respect the nature of their lives, their strengths, and their problems, is not so evenly spread across school personnel…. (p. 112)
Freire (1998) has argued that in a critically democratic
classroom traditional hierarchies must be broken down and
teachers must also be learners (particularly learning from their
students) and being critically reflective about their practice to
bring about conscientization (Freire, 1998, p. 55).
Teachers must become facilitators to help students as they:
share experiences and learn from each other; undertake critical
inquiry and create their own plans of action. The importance of
dialogue (between students, teachers, administration, parents and
community) must be stressed. Smyth et al. anticipate that
pedagogy and curriculum will be major topics of debate within
both the community of teachers and the broader community as
well. Teachers at the school voiced the importance of support
and encouragement from senior educational leadership as they
endeavored to develop new and more engaging
approaches.
In Bountiful Bay, a different scenario exists in which there are several examples of teachers engaging students in the active construction of knowledge in projects linked to their community; however, examples of ‘critically engaged community capacity building’ are weak. Curriculum linkages to the community are important steps, but do not automatically translate into community capacity building. The authors also admit that several of the examples of engagement they present are linked to workplace or enterprise education and do not appear to engage the students in a critique of market-driven schooling.
Overall, Critically Engaged Learning: Connecting to Young Lives makes solid contributions to scholarly research, particularly with respect to the discourse about democratic schools and student engagement. This work reinforces the importance of increasing student engagement and argues additionally that by building linkages between schools and neighborhoods, expanded opportunities can be created which will benefit both youth and their community. The use of a ‘critical research’ approach demonstrates the authors’ belief in the importance of research “as a way of challenging the existing social order, questioning dominant practices and discourses, and interrupting the asymmetry of the way things are and the trajectory by which they came to be that way” (p. 17)
The value of this work lies in the authors’ attempts to construct the beginnings of a ‘road map’ to a future in which social and educational disadvantage are addressed “through better ways of thinking and acting across boundaries” (p. 26). The authors readily admitted, “our ‘findings’ in this research project are tentative” (p. 115), but they are hopeful that their work will contribute to the opening up of ‘spaces’ to move beyond deficit thinking and pervasive structural, racial and class issues that imprison communities of disadvantage. The educational system must be responsive to the needs of all communities. This can only be accomplished through de-institutionalizing relationships in our schools and communities and engaging our young people “in a positive way that increases their agency, autonomy and capacity for critical reflection and social action” (p. 164). Vibert et al. (2002) described these relationships as a ‘way of life’ which holds as its non-negotiables the values of openness, respectful dialogue, serious inquiry, reason, equity and comfort with ambiguity. Smyth et al. remain hopeful that,
Notwithstanding the difficulties, the optimistic stories of individual and collective agency and engagement from Wirra Wagga and Bountiful Bay point to the possibilities of school and community renewal improving the educational opportunities and life chances of young people in difficult circumstances (p. 165)
Books such as this one, which continue to critically challenge what Giddens (1984) and Foucault (1980) have termed the increasing “administration of human life” are of great value. However, as educational theorists and policy makers around the world are finding, it will take slow, steady and at times subversive steps to continue to build the social and political impetus to regain the important role of schools. As Dewey (1944) and Freire (1994) so passionately have argued, the future of a vibrant and robust democracy depends on the ability of our key social institutions to restore and retain that which is most humane and social in the human discipline of education. Critically Engaged Learning takes one of these steps.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L. (2000). Why is it so hard to get good schools? In
L.Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds.),
Reconstructing the Common Good in Education: Coping with
Intractable
American Dilemmas. Port Chester, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Dewey, J. (1944 [1916]). Democracy in Education. New
York: Free Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon.
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of Hope. New York:
Continuum.
Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of Fredom: Ethics, Democracy,
and Civic Courage.
Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giroux, H. (2001). Public Spaces, Private Lives: Beyond the Culture of Cynicism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Greene, M. (2000). Lived Spaces, Shared Spaces, Public Spaces. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Construction sites: excavating race, class, and gender among urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
Joshee, R. (2008). Neoliberalism versus social justice: A
view from Canada. Power, Voice and the Public Good: Schooling
and Education in Global Societies. Advances in Public Education
in Diverse Communities: Research Policy and Praxis (6),
31-53.
Kincheloe, J. (2001). Getting Beyond the Facts: Teaching
Social Studies/Social Sciences
in the Twenty-first Century (2nd
ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2005). Reflections on portraiture: a dialogue between art and science. Qualitative inquiry, 11(1), 3-15.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Predatory
Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era. New York:
Routledge.
Portelli J., & McMahon, B. (2004). Why critical democratic
engagement? Journal of Maltese Education Research, 2(2),
39-45.
Riehl, C. (2007). Research on Educational Leadership: Knowledge We Need for the World We Live In. In F. English & G. Furman (Eds.), Research and Educational Leadership: Navigating the New National Research Council Guidelines (pp. 133-169). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching
for Social Change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Vibert, A., Portelli, J., Shields, C., & Larocque (2002) ‘Critical Practice in Elementary Schools: Voice, Community and a Curriculum of Life’, Journal of Educational Change, 3, 93-116.
About the Reviewer
Mary Anne Drinkwater (B.A./B.P.H.E.; B. Ed.; MPA-Queen’s University) PhD candidate, Theory & Policy Studies, Ed. Admin. Ontario Institute of Studies in Education/University of Toronto
Professional background: 22 years teaching experience; 7 years administrative experience (Secondary School). Academic areas of interest: critical democratic theory; democratic citizenship education; critical democratic pedagogy & the arts; urban youth pedagogy; comparative international development education (Ukraine, Kenya).