Talk:Teaching for social justice

Untitled

- not only in the history. And if someone is going to take this to AfD, do it already. Let's just move forward here, and quit griping about everything you don't like. I have taken a stab at cleaning up some of the issues in this piece, and I've hit a wall - so someone else needs to do something, anything. That means something other than simply complaining though. - Freechild 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Seems to me there is universal agreement that the contribution is lacking in scholarly merit, and some disagreement about whether it also is biased. I was disappointed by the quality of scholarship, and do hope that someone who is well versed in this area can do a complete rewrite. DavidKirshner (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Trash

This is the stupidest article I've ever read on Wikipedia. I think it should be marked for deletion. It provides no backup to facts, no proofs, just a copy of some stupid secondary-education student's term paper. I'm sure she got an A.

I agree, there is pretty much nothing in this article worth keeping. Nominating it for deletion GordonRoss 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Waste-of-space non-article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.137.116 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE. THANKS FOR NOTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.211.77 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Biased

This article doesn't simply cross the line with regards to the NPOV policy, it rockets over it. Parts of this article read like a poorly cited term paper, whereas other parts more closely resemble educational propaganda. Many of the statements presented in this article are *not* shown to be based in fact. No, it doesn't matter that the opinions presented are 'critical' ones. Where is the criticism section of this 'critical' article? I know full well that what has been presented here is controversial at the very least and cannot bring myself to believe that no one has offered up any contradictory material. Wikipedia is not a platform for broadcasting propaganda. This article needs to properly cite sources for its radical claims or retract them entirely. 72.69.7.92 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that this topic is very biased, especially by the fact that it is written so that even the "criticism" section seems to reaffirm the assumption that promoting "social justice" is an essential mission of education. I am certain that I am not alone not only in denying that assumption, but also finding this entire doctrine dreadful. A more neutral summary of this doctrine needs to be written.--Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Opinions are stated as fact throughout the article. Ex: "values cannot be explicitly taught, nor should they" Who says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.245.132 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Assumptions

The first unfortunality of this article is in citing Freire as the originator of educating for social justice -- and this is informative in understanding who has written this piece. The concept of social justice was conceived much prior to the era of Freire. Why is DuBois not mentioned? This initial assertion is indicitive of the lack of historical perspective this piece exudes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.213.10 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

"Why is DuBois not mentioned?" - If you think DuBois should be mentioned, by all means, edit the article and add reference to him. Obviously this article needs improvement, so why not spend some time improving it?

Ay Caramba

This article appears to portray the beliefs of teaching for social justice advocates as undisputed facts with no rebuttals or references to other educational philosophies and beliefs. (RookZERO 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

NPOV is definitely an issue... - Freechild 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article states several ideologically-based assumptions as if they were fact, and it seems like it was written to promote TfSJ. According to a few articles I've found on the web, this one-sidedness is business-as-usual for TfSJ advocates. The articles claim that students in teaching-credential programs who do not accept TfSJ uncritically are often told that they lack the "proper disposition" to be teachers, and are pressured to leave. Here are some of the articles:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10753446/site/newsweek/

http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_2_a1.html

On the subject of POV, please note that these articles are by authors whom many would label "conservative" or "libertarian." - Skaraoke 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the diatribe above, I do not agree with what you wrote; please do not associate my POV regarding TfSJ with your anti-critical perspective. Skaraoke, attribution is not enough. The article is primarily a regurgitation of others' statements, and is far too long. It still reads like a paper - not an encyclopedic article. WP defines NPOV; the article needs to be re-written with that definition in mind. - Freechild 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It ain't me dude -- but what a wonderful conversation! -- NL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.213.10 (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

First, to summarily characterize someone's statement as a "diatribe" goes against Wikipedia's expectation that you assume good faith, and it is not a good example of showing civility. Second, I don't know what an "anti-critical perspective" is, or why you think that I have one. - Skaraoke 17:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

“ This article states several ideologically based assumptions as if they were fact, and it seems like it was written to promote TfSJ. According to a few articles I've found on the web, this one-sidedness is business-as-usual for TfSJ advocates. ”

That is a "bitter denunciation" of teaching for social justice in general; that is the definition of diatribe. You can see this for more about anti-critical perspectives, as you shared above. Regarding this article, it can be better written; however, the patent dismissal of TfSJ advocates is not civil, nor appropriate, for WP. - Freechild 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Freechild, I'm a graduate student in the School of Education at Stanford University, so I know all about critical pedagogy and the criticisms of it. However, people can plainly see that your original use of the term "anti-critical" links to the article about critical thinking, which seems to me like a thinly veiled way of saying that I am not capable of critical thinking (i.e. not as smart as you), which you are now trying to back-track from. You should also know that there is a big difference between research-based programs within an Ed School and its professional teacher-education program. A professional program is there to quickly and efficiently mint new public-school teachers, based on its director's idea of the ideal teacher. As such, it generally can't provide the same opportunity for intellectual discourse and exploration that an academic program would have, and they can be inhospitable to students who have different ideas of what a teacher should be. The content for this article, largely provided by you, is the kind of TfSJ advocacy that you would see in a course reader for a teacher-ed program. I'm not sure how describing a view point about the culture of TfSJ that is absent from the article, and explicitly labeling it as such, constitutes a "bitter denunciation." I think you need to learn how to tell the difference between description and advocacy, both in your own writing and in interpreting the writing of others. - Skaraoke 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Skaraoke, congratulations on exerting your authority, and for the knowledge that you exude above. If you would re-read the history of this article you will discover that the majority of the content of this article was provided by the original author, whom you can see my note to below. By re-reading the history, you will also see that I have contributed very little content; rather, I have axed tons of what was there. I have been concerned with this article since it was written, primarily due to its controversial nature and problematic structure and prose. Again, I know that there are some real wankers out there in WPland. That much said, I appreciate what you shared above and I hope that you will continue to contribute your obvious wisdom and blatant knowledge to the article; your energy for the topic and WP as a whole has only made this a better article to read, and has truly contributed to the betterment of humanity via WP. You're the star. - Freechild 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Freechild, you still seem to be having trouble with the idea of civility and assuming good faith. I don't appreciate your snide comments, and I think it's a shame that you're not embarrassed to write things like this for everyone to read. If you don't like the "wankers" on Wikipedia, why don't you start your own online encyclopedia whose culture is more to your liking? As long as you're still here, though, I'm curious about your connection to the Freechild Project? Many of the edits for that article seems to have been done by you, and your username is obviously very similar. Have you been using Wikipedia to promote an organization that you are associated with? - Skaraoke 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Skaraoke, after reading this dialogue of yours with Freechild, I am left with a concern about your intention to assume good faith. I must ask, what is at issue here in this discussion? Is this a forum for discussing how to improve the Teaching for social justice article, or is this some other socio/political power trip? Duder, I have to say, as one of the primary contributors to the Teaching for social justice article I have seen that Freechild is a valuable editor and member of this community. Now I think there is little room to argue that the Teaching for social justice article doesn't meet the standards of WP. I agree, and frankly I find the responses by most of the editors very helpful, and am grateful that other people would contribute to making this article a solid WP entry. From the very beginning Freechild has pointed out to me that the article sucks, and that it would raise the ire of the WP community for a host of reasons. Now, as a person who was looking to make a contribution to WP, without really knowing to much about the conventions and standards, I think Freechild's tone, and tackt in educating me about the culture of WP was absolutly civil. So the question remains Skaraoke, is this dialogue about improving the article or is it about something else? I'll admit that my biases heavily tainted this article from the start. I'll more readily admit that I would rather the Teaching for social justice article be writen with a nuetral and non-biased lens so that the public has a valid resource to understand and learn about this issue. That being the case, lets do something positive with WP, instead of attacking people for what they are trying to do.Jevergreen 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't worry, you didn't sound the least bit self-righteous or condescending while you were saying that... If Freechild didn't want people to scrutinize his vanity page, he shouldn't have drawn attention to himself by flaming me. This, plus his statement elsewhere on this page that he's been "bullied" for his "critical contributions" could easily leave the impression that he has a persecution complex, and that he is lashing out at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that he thinks is hounding him. - Skaraoke 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an important topic. I am requesting that this unproductive tit-for-tat idealougue stuff be minimized and not prove indicitive of authors here in.

So Classic

People put out something that they think ought be recepted as fact, and a lot of people disagree, or at least see thorugh the assumptions.

I heart Wikipedia!

I am an advocate for teaching for social justice -- but I happen to hold my own opinion in subjectivity and strive to see things from many perspectives. This article has not done that!

The voices involved coulden't see themselves if they had a mirror in front of them!

Here it is -- read through the stuff again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.213.10 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Many Problems

I took a stab at making some of the clear subjectiveness of this article less so in one section, but their seems a clear culturally and politically encapsulation here in the unaddressed premises, assumptions and understandings embedded in the structure, and this makes the entirety of the piece quite biased and problematic for this genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.218.154 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I concur. (RookZERO 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Heads-up

This article needs a lot of work, in form, content and style of prose. From the experience of writing youth voice, you should also expect that this article will probably be disputed, as well. Great start though! - Freechild 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a style editor on WP, but I have learned a few things. I won't cite a bunch of the Wikistyle rules, but know that they are out there...

• You can't insert headings without text under them as placeholders. Here's three examples: Parent and community involvement in your classroom, Classroom management strategies, and Parent and community advocacy in your school.
• Don't use breaks like this: |
  |
• This whole article reads like an essay. While that's cool to me, its not what WP editors call encyclopedic. They are big on what they call Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. While you and I may agree that there is no such thing as neutrality, particularly when writing so-called "encyclopedic" content, the fact of the matter is that they - the average and predominate Wikipedia editor, and the so-called culture of WP is opposed to critically conscious perspectives regarding this encyclopedia project. So... I would suggest this article be reviewed against articles that are similarly challenging to the mainstream, and that are more WP-friendly, and this one be edited/rewritten accordingly.

I write all of this cautiously, not as anyone the wiser, but as one who has been a bit bullied around WP for his critical contributions. - Freechild 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

restoration of tag deletion

The noncompliant tag had been restored after its unilateral deletion. The talk page still explains why the article was so tagged to begin with. The problems have NOT been solved. (RookZERO 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

So what solution do you offer, other than deletion of the article? Given that, for instance, my little girl goes to a school in which this is one of their main goals and specialties, that seems counter-productive. If it's biased, why aren't you editing it? --Orange Mike 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Somebody did try to address the NPOV allegations by inserting a "Criticism" section. Aside from the fact that "criticism" sections per se are deprecated, it was written in a non-encyclopedic manner. I do hope some of this article's critics will look at the stuff I clipped and see if something can be salvaged in the interest of genuine neutrality. --Orange Mike 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory?

Why is it necessary to teach for social justice ? Is there a conspiracy somewhere there ? Is somebody interested in doing social injustice to somebody else ? 80.178.205.228 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Advocates of teaching for social justice feel that traditional curricula generally have ignored or even deprecated issues of social justice, which are (in their opinions) as central to citizenship as many of the topics which traditional curricula do address. --Orange Mike 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Addressing justice through curricula will bring no benefit. Justice must be taught through experience -- the same as democracy. Cheers, 80.178.205.228 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC) -- 80.178.163.171 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Influences section

The recent content added to the Influences section, Rawls v. Hayek v. Nozick, has a number of issues. The first is weight, WP:UNDUE, giving an entire paragraph to Swift's views. To include more than a sentence or two of coverage, you would need to show that Swift's work is highly influential to the field. The second issue is article scope. Wikipedia articles are relatively tightly focused on the subject, since related subjects are easily wikilinked. In this case, we have Social justice which covers the influence of Rawls and Hayek and the development of the philosophical idea. This information does not need to be repeated in 'Teaching for social justice' unless there are specific, relevant quotes from people writing about the teaching movement. Lastly, wikipedia articles are significantly different from academic essay writing, see WP:NOTESSAY and the content as written has some essay-like qualities.Dialectric (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this article even salvageable?

There are so many opinions and unsubstantiated assumptions in this article--and a quick look through the talk page and edit history indicates that there have been for years--that it's hard to know where to start. Virtually the entire "Applications" section is written from the perspective of an enthusiastic believer in "teaching for social justice." It's just an instruction manual preaching to the already converted. There's nothing encyclopedic about it. As the "Applications" section is the heart of the article, it raises the serious question of whether this article is even salvageable. Its continued existence through the years, despite all the animosity on the talk page and all the unresolved problems and tags within the text, is probably attributable to inertia more than anything else. Unless someone with the scholarly knowledge and, above all else, the objectivity, can bring this article up to snuff, I think we should seriously consider bringing it up for deletion once again (a procedure I do not have experience with, so this would need to be a group effort). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable references on the topic, deletion is unlikely to succeed and a more effective approach would be to stub and rework the article. I suggest retaining all of the existing sources, if only in a 'further reading section', then moving all unencyclopedic and poorly written content to the talk page, and removing it from the article. If other editors think portions should be added back, that can be discussed on talk. Unfortunately, a few editors have chosen to work on this article as their sole contribution to wikipedia, not in itself a problem, but they also did not respond to talk page messages, and didn't appear to have a clear sense of wikipedia style or guidelines.Dialectric (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I like the sound of that; it strikes me as more restrained and more practicable than the whole "scrap it all!" position that I was staking out. Let's see if we get any more interest in a revamp and then we can consider making some substantive changes. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)