The role of the institution

Two questions that kept coming up during the Phase One interviews were about “being real” and the “end game” (Appendix C). As I understand it, the general argument seemed to be: we need to be clear about where we’re are going and why we are going there. Some also understand this as related to the “chicken and egg” debate (Personal correspondence). From my perspective, I see these lines of inquiry as a distraction. We do not need to wait for the institution to offer us “clarity” or “approval.” Freire (1993) explains,

The correct method [for a revolutionary leadership to employ] lies in dialogue. The conviction of the oppressed that they must fight for their liberation is not a gift bestowed by the revolutionary leadership, but the result of their own conscientizçāo. / The revolutionary leaders must realize that their own conviction of the necessity for struggle (an indispensable dimension of revolutionary wisdom) was not given to them by anyone else -- if it is authentic. This conviction cannot be packaged and sold; it is reached, rather, by means of a totality of reflection and action. (p.67)

The revolution began long ago and continues today. While I wait for my colleagues to become my comrades in the struggle, I have repurposed the five default narratives discussed here as “red flags” -- warnings that signal we are headed down a path that is both unproductive and problematic. Petit á petit, l’oiseau fait son nid. 

Yes: There are aspects of our school’s “core academic” culture that are beautifully humane and can be used to critically interrogate the current status quo, e.g., the school’s commitment to promote passionate intellectual inquiry. And: Imagine what it might feel like if there was a collective curiosity about the boundaries and limitations of the distinct discourses within both ourselves and our community. Would this allow us to genuinely engage in the anti-bias, identity affirming work needed for social justice? Would this provide us an opportunity to understand and confront our values and beliefs that numb us to the injustice that plagues educational institutions in the United States?

---

I hear you: Yes, but what is your advice to the educational leaders out there? Are they the sticks that hold up the inverted pyramid? First, I’m going to assume by “educational leaders” you mean the administration, e.g., Heads of School, Principals, Director-level positions. As Grace Lee Boggs reminds us, “We are the leaders we are looking for” (Lee & Lee, 2014). Second, the whole thing looks/feels unstable AND that’s okay. The intersection of the current institutional “common sense” and this critical reframing of our default narratives feels both shaky and unstable because it is shaky and unstable. The foundation rests on us (e.g., white teachers) both understanding ourselves as accountable and finding ways to hold ourselves accountable (Appendix I). Nevertheless, this visualization feels authentic to my own lived experience as a practitioner-researcher. From my perspective, building fortress-style systems that stakeholders become emotionally and financially invested in maintaining is what helps hold the current status quo in place. We have to break out of the mindset that our current reality is just how “it” is and how “it” will always be. Reflect. Reframe. Reimagine.

I can imagine a world in which school administration focus their time, energy, and financial resources on increasing both their own, and the community’s collective racial literacy and tolerance for discomfort. A world in which white people say “thank you” when someone cares enough to point out their #whitenonsense, instead of what I used to say: “That’s not what I meant” or “I don’t know.” A world in which students are understood as being aware of the problematic classroom dynamics. A world in which we hold ourselves accountable, racial “ignorance” is understood as racial illiteracy, and struggle is seen as a sign of engagement. I can see it now. Just over the horizon. Can you? As astra per aspera.