Homework answers / question archive / EVALUATION CRITERIA Form and Style Title page & Attendance at Library and Meeting Day Correct spelling and grammar Citation and referencing following format outlined in the Style and Format page

EVALUATION CRITERIA Form and Style Title page & Attendance at Library and Meeting Day Correct spelling and grammar Citation and referencing following format outlined in the Style and Format page

Business

Share With

EVALUATION CRITERIA Form and Style Title page & Attendance at Library and Meeting Day Correct spelling and grammar Citation and referencing following format outlined in the Style and Format page. Content Introduction/Statement of Research Question The response fully addresses the question Within the response, the student uses popular resources such as the SBJ and New York Times. Within the responses, the student specifically uses of appropriate theories, concepts, issues, and information drawn from weekly lectures and readings with at least four direct quotations from the weekly readings. Within the discussion, the student uses appropriate theories, concepts, issues, and information derived from derived from your own searching of the academic literature (journal articles, book chapters, books). You will be expected to directly quote a minimum of 3 additional academic sources. For more information on the types of academic sources you will be expected to use in your essay, click here. Concludes with a summation of the discussion, with reference to the original research question PERCENTAGE WORTH 20 Failure to submit results in failing grade for essay /10 /10 80 /10 /20 /5 /20 /15 /10 Instructions for Papers – Summary of Audio • • • • • • • • In your syllabus, find the grading rubric Every single paper has the exact same requirements You must have an eight pages of written work to hand in or we won't accept the paper. On time. Three weeks from now Your paper must be in the Dropbox/SafeAssign by 7p.m. or you might want to “Dropbox” (drop) the class. If it's not eight pages (from the first page that you write to the last page, not inclusive of the reference page or the cover page), I won't even grade the paper If you have questions, email me Paper: 8 pages, 12 point font, double-spaced, etc. all details are listed in the syllabus I’ll go through each section - this is what you have to do to get the grade you want. o I'm literally going to tell you exactly how to grade your papers and that way you know very clearly what is expected of you and at the end of the day hopefully you'll be able to achieve that o this class is not easy but it's clear, according to students Sections • Cover page with your name title of the paper; you do not need an abstract you do not need a running head • • I’m looking for I'm looking for you to demonstrate that you have thought about the content The first numbered page should be the first page did you write a letter on; in Word -Insert page number and you see you start at zero and then you click the box that says don't show the first the number on the first page What I do is I actually will instead of reading that first paragraph and the introduction - I actually go to the reference page. That's where I start trading for your paper. So it might be a good time to look at citation and referencing – it’s 10 points your final grade on this paper. • • 1 Good APA formatting not just copying and pasting it from what the library website says, but actually doing it in the proper style with a proper capitalization etc. o If you do a decent job - maybe you're in text quotations are exactly perfect but they're close - and all your things are in you know they're on that last page it says References centered in bold and then underneath it you have, in alphabetical order, the references you used, and it's close to APA that's a passing grade. To meet, passing is a 7 out of 10. o With correct style and format, you can get higher grades. For example: ? Are you doing blockquotes correctly, putting the citation in the right spot, using page numbers with your direct quotations, etc. contributes to you getting the full credit for that style and format • • 2 Spelling and grammar - There's no perfect paper o Looking four paragraphs that are ~3/4/5 sentences long o I don't want paragraphs that are two pages long. o Avoid these common mistakes, such as: ? You’re not writing passively. Instead, you're telling the story, this is your argument, you're writing in the first person ? Passing level: you don't run-ons, it's a readable paper again you’re looking at a 7. A really well written paper, good paragraph structure, etc. all that kind of stuff you’re looking at an eight or nine out of 10. ? If I'm the first set of eyes beside yours to look at your paper, you're probably not going to get more than a 7 out of 10 on spelling and grammar. Give it to a parent, a friend, someone to look at it, and think about think through what you've written, maybe take it to the Writing Center. ? I think that this first paper is the hardest one to do. Introduction o 10 points: Good introduction should be 1 – 1.3 pages long; should be no more than three paragraphs and that third paragraph should have your thesis statement and statement of purpose. o A thesis statement and statement of purpose are the most important thing. A 10: A broad over overarching paragraph. ? For example: “Internships have been going on for X amount of time there are people who argue for their need in particular fields, such as medicine…. but the same arguments may or may not hold up in Sport. In Sport, we've seen the sport industry take advantage of the fact that they can get cheap unpaid labor and they no longer have to pay people for their entry level jobs.” ? The 2nd paragraph should be focused on sport management internships or looking at my future occupation… ? The 3rd paragraph -- Examples: “In the following I'm going to argue internships an exploitative practice” or “In this paper I'm going to argue the internships are beneficial…to demonstrate my point I'm going to use series presented by these particular authors and think through some of the benefits and weaknesses of internships and demonstrate how I have arrived at my position on internships” ? That's a good three paragraph break down. I already know what the paper will cover -- that's a 10. o Passing grade: ? One-paragraph introduction including the statement and the thesis and statement of purpose only. ? Not suggested. o You could get a zero if: ? No introduction or not meaningful introduction ? Suggestion: Write it last • • • Response fully addresses the question o Only majorly subjective part of the paper o How to get 8 pages? Show a well-rounded and considered argument. o Read question prompts for more guidance Examples: • Did you thoroughly answer everything? • Did you consider other points of view/weaknesses in your arguments? What are the three best arguments against your belief system? How do you respond to those? How do you address them in a thoughtful way? • If that is done, that would be 20 out of 20 • Most people get a 16 out of 20 on this part Conclusion o Similar as intro. o Approx. 3 paragraphs; 1 – 1.3 pages o 10 point example: ? First paragraph: “In the aforementioned …I’ve discussed the morals and ethics of internships and how I feel about them” and a few more sentences that supports that ? 2nd paragraph: “I also demonstrated arguments against my belief system and how I can see some validity in their statements here, here, and here, but in the end I still think this.” ? 3rd: Lead us off to a direction. Where do you see internships going? Or if you’re shadowing someone - where do you see that occupation moving in the future? o If you don't have a conclusion, you can get a zero 40 percent of your grade (40 points) --- Whether or not you can demonstrate that you can do research, find direct quotations, insert them into your paper, and make them make sense to your argument. o o o o o 3 A direct quote: the two quotations with the citation with your own page number – gets you a point You need to have 4 direct quotations from weekly readings, 1 direct quote from three different peer-reviewed sources, and 1 from a popular – that’s 8 points for 8 quotes The rest of the points - How did you blend it in? Dr. Bustad’s analogy: Does it sound like I'm talking to you were having this conversation and then someone's coming from the other side of the room with a quote? -- It's jarring to read those. Instead - introduce it in a smooth fashion. Example “As West and King-White assert this about…” then add direct quote about internships, end quote, your citation (year o o o o o and page), period, and then you move on. By moving on what I mean is - you restate in different words with that quote was about and what that means to your argument. If you do that you can get 40 out of 40; if you don't do that then you're not going to get full credit Even if I completely disagree with your argument or your belief system that's not the point of this paper. Defend your argument with sound research. If I completely love your argument but you don't support it was strong quotes, etc. you don’t get the grade. I'm looking for -- demonstrate that you can do research on a college-level. As a college senior, this is you showing I'm working at this level. That's what I'm hoping for you to be able to do by the end of the semester. Additional Questions and Answers between the instructor and students was not transcribed, but can be heard on the audio file starting at approximately 23:38. 4 Policy Futures in Education Volume 8 Number 6 2010 www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE OCCASIONAL THOUGHTS In Defense of Public School Teachers in a Time of Crisis HENRY A. GIROUX McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada There has been a long, though declining, tradition in the United States in which public school teaching was embraced as an important public service. It was assumed that teachers provided a crucial foundation for educating young people in the values, skills, and knowledge that enabled them to be critical citizens capable of shaping and expanding democratic institutions. Since the 1980s, teachers have been under an unprecedented attack by those forces that view schools less as a public good than as a private right. Seldom accorded the status of intellectuals that they deserved, teachers remain the most important component in the learning process for students while serving as a moral compass to gauge how seriously a society invests in its youth and in the future. Yet, teachers are being deskilled, unceremoniously removed from the process of school governance, largely reduced to technicians, or subordinated to the authority of security guards. Underlying these transformations are a number of forces eager to privatize schools, substitute vocational training for education, govern schools that serve poor white and minority students through the axis of crime, and reduce teaching and learning to reductive modes of testing and evaluation. Indications of the poisonous transformation of both the role of the public school and the nature of teacher work abound. The passage of laws promoting high-stakes testing for students and the use of test scores to measure teacher quality have both limited the autonomy of teacher authority and devalued the possibility of critical teaching and visionary goals for student learning. Teachers are no longer asked to think critically and be creative in the classroom. On the contrary, they are now forced to simply implement predetermined instructional procedures and standardized content at best and at worst put their imaginative powers on hold while using precious classroom time to teach students how to master the skill of test taking. Subject to what might be labeled as a form of bare or stripped-down pedagogy, teachers are removed from the processes of deliberation and reflection, reduced to implementing lock-step, time-on-task pedagogies that do great violence to students while promoting a division of labor between conception and execution hatched by bureaucrats and ‘experts’ from mainly conservative foundations. Questions regarding how teachers motivate students, make knowledge meaningful in order to make it critical and transformative, work with parents and the larger community, or exercise the authority needed to become a constructive pedagogical force in the classroom and community are now sacrificed to the dictates of an instrumental rationality largely defined through the optic of measurable utility. Little is said in this discourse about allocating more federal dollars for public schooling, replacing the aging infrastructures of schooling, or increasing salaries so as to expand the pool of qualified teachers. Nor are teachers praised for their public service, the trust we impart to them in educating our children, or the firewall they provide between a culture saturated in violence and idiocy and the civilizing and radical imaginative possibilities of an educated mind capable of transforming the economic, political, and racial injustices that surround and bear down so heavily on public schools. Instead, teachers are stripped of their worth and dignity by being forced to adopt 709 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.709 Henry A. Giroux an educational vision and philosophy that has little respect for the empowering possibilities of either knowledge or critical classroom practices. Put bluntly, knowledge that can’t be measured is viewed as irrelevant and teachers who refuse to implement a standardized curriculum and evaluate young people through objective measures of assessments are judged as incompetent or disrespectful. Any educator who believes that students should learn more than how to obey the rules, take tests, learn a work skill, or adopt without question the cruel and harsh market values that dominate society ‘will meet’, as James Baldwin (1963) insists in his ‘Talk to Teachers’, ‘the most fantastic, the most brutal, and the most determined resistance’. And while the mythic character of education has always been at odds with its reality, as Baldwin notes in talking about the toxic education imposed on poor black children, the assault on public schooling in its current form truly suggests that ‘we are living through a very dangerous time’ (Baldwin, 1963). As the space of public schooling is reduced to a mindless infatuation with the metrics of endless modes of testing and increasingly enforces this deadening experience with disciplinary measures reminiscent of prison culture, teachers are increasingly removed from dealing with children as part of a broader historical, social, and cultural context. As the school is militarized, student behavior becomes an issue that either the police or security forces handle. Removed from the normative and pedagogical framing of classroom life, teachers no longer have the option to think outside of the box, to experiment, be poetic, or inspire joy in their students. School has become a form of dead time, designed to kill the imagination of both teachers and students. For years teachers have offered students advice, corrected their behavior, offered help in addressing their personal problems, and went out of their way to understand the circumstances surrounding even the most serious of student infractions. Couple this role of teachers as both caretaker and engaging intellectual with the imposition of a stripped-down curriculum that actually disdains creative teacher work while relegating teachers to the status of clerks. Needless to say, the consequences for both teachers and students have been deadly. Great ideas, modes of knowledge, disciplinary traditions, and honorable civic ideals are no longer engaged, debated, and offered up as a civilizing force for expanding the students’ capacities as critical individuals and social agents. Knowledge is now instrumentalized and the awe, magic, and insight it might provide is stripped away as it is redefined through the mindless logic of quantification and measurement that now grips the culture of schooling and drives the larger matrix of efficiency, productivity, and consumerism shaping the broader society. As testing has become an end in itself, it both deadens the possibility of critical thinking and removes teachers from the possibility of exercising critical thought and producing imaginative pedagogical engagements. One current example of the unprecedented attack being waged against teachers, meaningful knowledge, and critical pedagogy can be found in Senate Bill 6, which is being pushed by Florida legislators. Under this bill, the quality of teaching and the worth of a teacher are solely determined by student test scores on standardized tests. Teacher pay would be dependent on such test scores while the previous experience of a teacher would be deemed irrelevant. Moreover, advanced degrees and professional credentials would become meaningless in determining a teacher’s salary. Professional experience and quality credentials are also made irrelevant next to the hard reality of an empiricism that appears divorced from any semblance of reality. The real point of the bill is both to weaken the autonomy and authority of teachers and to force the Florida teachers’ union to accept merit pay for teachers. But there is more at stake in this bill than a regressive understanding of the role and power of teachers and the desire to eliminate the very conditions, places, and spaces that make good teaching possible. The bill also mandates that the power of local school boards be restricted, that new teachers be given probationary contracts for up to 5 years and then placed on a contract to be renewed annually. Moreover, salaries are now excluded as a subject of collective bargaining. This bill degrades the purpose of schooling, teaching, and learning. It is not only harsh and cruel, but educationally reactionary and is designed to turn public schools into political tools for corporate-dominated legislators while depriving students of any viable notion of teaching and learning. This bill is bad for schools, teachers, students, and democracy. It lacks any viable ethical and political understanding of how schools work, what role they should play in a democracy, and what the myriad forces are that both undermine critical teaching and critical learning. Moreover, it turns the curriculum into a tool box for ignoramuses. More importantly, this bill not only punishes teachers and underserved students while dumbing down the curriculum, it also promotes modes of 710 In Defense of Public School Teachers stratification that favor existing class, racial, and cultural hierarchies. In criticizing what he calls the tyranny of outcome-based high-stakes testing, David Price (2003) points to the forces at work in promoting such tests and how they are used politically. He writes: Today a lucrative industry of test designers (estimated to be worth between $700 million and one billion dollars a year) is followed by a kowtowing curriculum industry rolling across America like a fleet of ambulance chasers – pitching textbooks, worksheets and bric-a-brac designed to help districts more effectively ‘teach to the test’ ... Curricula are narrowed as under-funded districts struggled to meet external standards. The culture of American primary and secondary schools is increasingly dominated by the needs of standardized tests. These tests are no longer diagnostic aids helping teaches identify the status of individual students – they have become ends unto themselves, and as such they have taken on punitive roles in which test scores are assisting in the acceleration of stratification in America’s primary and secondary education system. (Price, 2003, p. 718) We need a new language for understanding public education as formative for democratic institutions and for the vital role that teachers play in such a project. When I first wrote Teachers as Intellectuals in 1988, I argued that education should be viewed as a moral and political practice that always presupposes particular renditions of what constitutes legitimate knowledge, values, citizenship, modes of understanding, and views of the future. In other words, teaching was always directive in its attempt to shape students as particular agents and offer them a particular understanding of the present and the future. And while schools have a long history of simply attempting to reproduce the ideological contours of the existing society, they are capable of much more and therein lay their danger and possibilities. At their worst, teachers have been viewed as merely gatekeepers. At best, they are one of the most valued professions we have in educating future generations in the discourse, values, and relations of democratic empowerment. Rather than viewed as disinterested technicians, teachers should be viewed as engaged intellectuals, willing to construct the classroom conditions that provide the knowledge, skills, and culture of questioning necessary for students to participate in critical dialogue with the past, question authority, struggle with ongoing relations of power, and prepare themselves for what it means to be active and engaged citizens in the interrelated local, national, and global public spheres. Defining teachers as public intellectuals and schools as democratic public spheres is as applicable today as it was when I wrote Teachers as Intellectuals. Central to fostering a pedagogy that is open and discerning, fused with a spirit of critical inquiry that fosters rather than mandates modes of individual and social agency is the assumption that teachers should not only be critical intellectuals but also have some control over the conditions of their own pedagogical labor. Academic labor at its best flourishes when it is open to dialogue, respects the time and conditions teachers need to prepare lessons, research, cooperate with each other, and engage valuable community resources. Put differently, teachers are the major resource for what it means to establish the conditions for education to be linked to critical learning rather than training, embrace a vision of democratic possibility rather than a narrow instrumental notion of education, and embrace the specificity and diversity of children’s lives rather than treat them as if such differences did not matter. Hence, teachers deserve the respect, autonomy, power, and dignity that such a task demands. The basic premise here is that if public education is a crucial sphere for creating citizens equipped to exercise their freedoms and learn the competencies necessary to question the basic assumptions that govern democratic political life, public school teachers must be allowed to shape the conditions that enable them to assume their responsibility as citizen-scholars, take critical positions, relate their work to larger social issues, offer multiple forms of literacies, debate and dialogue about pressing social problems, and provide the conditions for students to conjure up the hope and belief that civic life matters, that they can make a difference in shaping society so as to expand its democratic possibilities for all groups. Of course, this is not merely a matter of changing the consciousness of teachers or the larger public, or the ways in which teachers are educated. These are important considerations, but what must be embraced in this recognition of the importance of public school teachers is that such an investment is an issue of politics, ethics, and power, all of which must be viewed as part of a larger struggle to connect the crisis of schooling and teaching to the crisis of democracy itself. 711 Henry A. Giroux Teachers all over America now labor under the shadow of a number of anti-democratic tendencies extending from a ruthless market fundamentalism that mistakes students for products and equates learning with the practice of conformity and disciplinary mindlessness. On the other side are those anti-intellectual and residual religious and political fundamentalists who view schooling as a threat to orthodoxy and tradition and want to silence critical forms of pedagogy as well as eliminate those teachers who value thinking over conformity, teaching over training, and empowerment over deskilling. What all of these anti-democratic tendencies share are a disregard for critical teaching and a disdain for the notion of teachers as critical and public intellectuals. Against these anti-democratic tendencies is the challenge of redefining and re-imagining teachers as public intellectuals and the schools as a democratic public sphere, both of which provide an invaluable resource in reminding the larger society, if not teachers, and everyone concerned about education, of their responsibility to take ethical and risky positions and engage practices currently at odds with both religious fundamentalism and the market-driven values that dominate schooling. Educators now face the daunting challenge of creating new discourses, pedagogies and collective strategies that will offer students the hope and tools necessary to revive education as a political and ethical response to the demise of democratic public life. Such a challenge suggests struggling to keep alive those institutional spaces, forums, and public spheres that support and defend critical education, help students come to terms with their own power as individual and social agents, exercise civic courage, and engage in community projects and research that are socially responsible. None of this will happen unless the American public refuses to allow schools and teachers to surrender what counts as knowledge, values, and skills to the highest bidder. In part, this requires pedagogical practices that connect the space of language, culture, and identity to their deployment in larger physical and social spaces. Such pedagogical practices are based on the presupposition that it is not enough to teach students how to read the word and knowledge critically. They must also learn how to act on their beliefs, reflect on their role as engaged citizens, and intervene in the world as part of the obligation of what it means to be a socially responsible agent. As critical and public intellectuals, teachers must fight for the right to dream, conceptualize, and connect their visions to classroom practice. They must also learn to confront directly the threat from fundamentalisms of all varieties that seek to turn democracy into a mall, a sectarian church, or an adjunct of the emerging punishing state. What the concept of teachers as public intellectuals references, once again, is that the most important role of teachers is not only to educate students to be critical thinkers, but also prepare them to be activists in the best sense of the term – that is, thoughtful and active citizens willing to fight for the economic, political, and social conditions and institutions that make democracy possible. The reason why the public in education has become so dangerous is that it associates teaching and learning with civic values, civic courage, and a respect for the common good – a position decidedly at odds with the unbridled individualism, privatized discourse, excessive competition, hyper-militarized masculinity, and corporate values that now drive educational policy and practice. There are those critics who in tough economic times insist that providing students with anything other than work skills threatens their future viability on the job market. While I believe that public education should equip students with skills to enter the workplace, it should also educate them to contest workplace inequalities, imagine democratically organized forms of work, and identify and challenge those injustices that contradict and undercut the most fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and respect for all people who constitute the global public sphere. Moreover, public education should be about more than learning how to take a test, job preparation, or even critical consciousness raising; it is also about imagining a more just future, one that does more than replicate the present. In contrast to the cynicism and political withdrawal that screen and mainstream media culture fosters, a critical education demands that its citizens be able to translate the interface of private considerations and public issues, be able to recognize those antidemocratic forces that deny social, economic, and political justice, and be willing to give some thought to their experiences as a matter of anticipating and struggling for a better world. In short, democratic rather than commercial values should be the primary concerns of both public education and the university. If the right-wing educational reforms now being championed by the Obama administration and many state governments continue unchallenged, America will become a society in which a highly 712 In Defense of Public School Teachers trained, largely white elite will continue to command the techno-information revolution while a vast, low-skilled majority of poor and minority workers will be relegated to filling the McJobs proliferating in the service sector. The children of the rich and privileged will be educated in exclusive private schools and the rest of the population, mostly poor and non-white, will be offered bare forms of pedagogy suitable to work in the dead-end, low-skill service sector of society, assuming that these jobs will be available. Teachers will lose most of their rights, protections, and dignity and be treated as clerks of the empire. And as more and more young people fail to graduate from high school, they will fill the ranks of those disposable populations now filling up our prisons at a record pace. In contrast to this vision, I strongly believe that genuine, critical education cannot be confused with job training. At the same time, public schools have to be viewed as institutions as crucial to the security and safety of the country as national defense. If educators and others are to prevent this distinction between education and training from becoming blurred, it is crucial both to challenge the ongoing corporatization of public schools while upholding the promise of the modern social contract in which all youth, guaranteed the necessary protections and opportunities, are a primary source of economic and moral investment, symbolizing the hope for a democratic future. In short, those individuals and groups concerned about the promise of education need to reclaim their commitment to future generations by taking seriously the Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s belief that the ultimate test of morality for any democratic society resides in the condition of its children. If public education is to honor this ethical commitment, it will have to not only re-establish its obligation to young people, but reclaim its role as a democratic public sphere and uphold its support for teachers. Defending teachers as engaged intellectuals and public schools as democratic public spheres is not a call for any one ideology on the political spectrum to determine the shape and future direction of public and university education. But at the same time, such a defense reflects a particular vision of the purpose and meaning of public and higher education and their crucial role in educating students to participate in an inclusive democracy. Teachers have a responsibility to engage critical pedagogy as an ethical referent and a call to action for educators, parents, students, and others to reclaim public education as a democratic public sphere, a place where teaching is not reduced to learning how to master either tests or acquire low-level jobs skills, but a safe space where reason, understanding, dialogue, and critical engagement are available to all faculty and students. Education, if not teaching itself, in this reading, becomes a site of ongoing struggle to preserve and extend the conditions in which autonomy of judgment and freedom of action are informed by the democratic imperatives of equality, liberty, and justice while ratifying and legitimating the role of teachers as critical and public intellectuals. Viewing public schools as laboratories of democracy and teachers as critical intellectuals offers a new generation of educators an opportunity to understand education as a concrete reminder that the struggle for democracy is, in part, an attempt to liberate humanity from the blind obedience to authority and that individual and social agency gain meaning primarily through the freedoms guaranteed by the public sphere, where the autonomy of individuals only becomes meaningful under those conditions that guarantee the workings of an autonomous society. The current vicious assault on public school teachers is a reminder that the educational conditions that make democratic identities, values, and politics possible and effective have to be fought for more urgently at a time when democratic public spheres, public goods, and public spaces are under attack by market and other ideological fundamentalists who either believe that corporations can solve all human problems or that dissent is comparable to aiding terrorists – positions that share the common denominator of disabling a substantive notion of ethics, politics, and democracy. The rhetoric of accountability, privatization, and standardization that now dominates both major political parties does more than deskill teachers, weaken teacher unions, dumb down the curriculum, and punish students, it also offers up a model for education that undermines it as a public good. Under such circumstances, teacher work and autonomy are not only devalued; learning how to govern and be critical citizens in a fragile democracy are hijacked. As James Baldwin (1963) reminds us, we live in dangerous times, yet as educators, parents, activists, and workers, we can address the current assault on democracy by building local and social movements that fight for the rights of teachers and students to teach and learn under conditions that enable the necessary autonomy, resources, and respect necessary for successful classroom 713 Henry A. Giroux teaching. Democratic struggles cannot overemphasize the special responsibility of teachers as intellectuals to shatter the conventional wisdom and myths of those ideologies that would relegate educators to mere technicians, clerks of the empire, or mere adjuncts of the corporation. As Pierre Bourdieu and Günter Grass (2003, p. 66) argued, the ‘power of the dominant order is not just economic, but intellectual – lying in the realm of beliefs’, and it is precisely within the domain of ideas that a sense of utopian possibility can be restored to the public realm. Teaching in this instance is not simply about critical thinking but also about social engagement, a crucial element of not just learning and social engagement but politics itself. Most specifically, democracy necessitates quality teachers and critical pedagogical practices that provide a new ethic of freedom and a reassertion of collective responsibility as central preoccupations of a vibrant democratic culture and society. Such a task, in part, suggests that any movement for social change put education and the rights of students and teachers at the forefront of such a struggle. Teachers are more crucial in the struggle for democracy than security guards and the criminal justice system. Students deserve more than being trained to be ignorant and willing accomplices of the corporation and the empire. Teachers represent a valued resource and are one of the few groups left that can educate students in ways that enable them to resist the collective insanity that now threatens this country. We need to take them seriously by giving them the dignity, labor conditions, salaries, freedom, time, and support they deserve. This may be the most important challenge Americans face as we move into the twenty-first century. References Baldwin, James (1963) A Talk to Teachers, The Saturday Review, 21 December. Rich Gibson’s Education Page For a Democratic Society. http://richgibson.com/talktoteachers.htm Bourdieu, Pierre & Grass, Günter (2003) The ‘Progressive’ Restoration: a Franco-German dialogue, New Left Review, 14, March-April, 66. Price, David H. (2003) Outcome-based Tyranny: teaching compliance while testing like a state, Anthropological Quarterly, 76(4), 718. HENRY A. GIROUX holds the Global TV Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, Canada. His most recent books include: Take Back Higher Education: race, youth, and the crisis of democracy in the post-civil rights era (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) co-authored with Susan Searls Giroux; The University in Chains: confronting the military-industrial-academic complex (Paradigm, 2007), and Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: politics beyond the age of greed (Paradigm, 2008). His newest book, Youth in a Suspect Society: democracy or disposability? was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2009. Correspondence: Professor Henry A. Giroux, English and Cultural Studies Department, McMaster University, Chester New Hall, Room 229, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L9, Canada (girouxh@mcmaster.ca). 714 Sociology of Sport Journal, 2012, 29, 385-408 © 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc. Official Journal of NASSS www.SSJ-Journal.com FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF SPORT Oh Henry!: Physical Cultural Studies’ Critical Pedagogical Imperative Ryan King-White Towson University Over the past 30 years Physical Cultural Studies (PCS) (Andrews, 2008) has grown in the United States. This form of radical inquiry has been heavily influenced by the British Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies. PCS research has focused on the various ways the corporeal has been a/effected by, and, indeed, (re)informs the contemporary socioeconomic context. However, while theoretical rigor has long been the norm in American PCS, I argue that the critical (public) pedagogy that radically contextual Cultural Studies has always called for has been a little slower in developing. As such, I will demonstrate how Henry Giroux’s influence in, on, and for critical pedagogy has more recently become and should be an essential component of PCS—particularly in our classrooms. As such, I will provide examples outlining how critical pedagogy informs my classroom practices to begin the dialogue about what constitutes good pedagogical work. Au cours des 30 dernières années, les « études culturelles du corps » (Andrews, 2008) ont grandi aux États-Unis. Cette forme d’étude radicale a été fortement influencée par le Centre britannique pour les Études culturelles contemporaines. La recherche en « ÉCC » a mis l’accent sur les différentes façons dont le corporel a été affecté et par le contexte socio-économique actuel et vice-versa. Quoique la rigueur théorique a longtemps été la norme dans les ÉCC, je soutiens ici que la pédagogie critique qui a toujours été visée par les Études culturelles a été un peu plus lente à se développer. Je vais démontrer comment l’influence d’Henry Giroux sur la pédagogie critique est récemment devenue un élément essentiel des ÉCC, particulièrement dans nos salles de classe. Je vais donc donner des exemples décrivant comment la pédagogie critique informe mes pratiques en salle de classe afin d’entamer le dialogue sur ce qui constitue un bon travail pédagogique. In recent years, critical pedagogy has gained increased interest among sport sociologists. Several scholars have turned to critical pedagogues like Peter McLaren, Joe Kincheloe, Shirley Steinberg, Susan Searls Giroux, Stanley Aronowitz, Michael Apple, David Purpel, Paulo Friere, Nick Couldry, Christopher Robbins, and Henry Giroux to “get somewhere better” (Grossberg, 1997, p. 241). While these studies offer several different strategies for using critical sport pedagogy, in this article I focus specifically on the intersections of Physical Cultural Studies and critical King-White is with the Department of Kinesiology Towson University, Towson, MD.   385 386  King-White p­ edagogy. Their strategies for intervention, progressive social change, and the promise “of a democracy to come” (Giroux, 2008; Robbins, 2009) are so closely related that an investigation into what each offers the other is warranted (e.g., Giardina & Newman, 2011a, 2011b; Silk & Andrews, 2011). Further, while critical pedagogy has not been ignored by Physical Cultural Studies (PCS) academics, I argue that it has been insufficiently practiced in the University classroom1. Therefore, my purpose is to further examine the possibilities of a critical pedagogical approach to PCS by detailing how it has shaped my formal teaching practices. To advance my argument I will first outline how PCS scholars have previously used critical pedagogy. I will then specify how Henry Giroux has shaped what is commonly understood as Critical Pedagogy and demonstrate how it could work in the PCS classroom. Then I will discuss how critical pedagogical strategies informed the way I developed a study abroad course at Towson University. Finally, I will conclude by calling for other PCS academics to begin sharing their critical pedagogical practices in the classroom to improve classroom experiences as well as critical interventionist (public/border) pedagogies. Critical Pedagogy as a Strategy of Physical Cultural Studies Several scholars have called for the increased inclusion of critical pedagogy into and within the PCS project at various times over the last 25 years (Andrews & Silk, 2011; Atkinson, 2011; Giardina & Newman 2011a, 2011b; Kihl, 2007; Kirk, 2006; Lawson, 1985, 1999; Malloy & Agarwal, 2001; Malloy & Zakus, 1995; McKay, 1986; Rich, 2011; Silk & Andrews, 2011; Tinning, 2002; Wiest & King-White, 2011; Zakus, Malloy & Edwards, 2007). Early sport sociological work utilizing critical pedagogy focused on developing a critical curriculum within Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) (Lawson, 1985, 1999; McKay, 1986). Indeed, debates about how to introduce critical consciousness and praxis to research, writing, and teaching sociology of sport and physical education have been going on since at least the 1960s (cf. Gruneau, 1978; Ingham, 1976; Loy & Kenyon, 1969). John Evans (1993), Jim McKay (McKay, 1986; McKay & Emmison, 1995; McKay, Gore & Kirk, 1990; McKay & Pearson, 1984, 1986), and David Kirk (1992), in particular, have explicitly outlined ways to insert a critical pedagogical framework within Physical Cultural Studies (and the classroom). More recently Kirk (2006), Emma Rich (2011), and Richard Tinning (2002) contemplated the relationship between (critical) pedagogy, PETE/Physical Cultural Studies (PCS), and praxis. Kirk (2006) argued that connecting sport and critical pedagogy “are key features of an educational rationale for physical education” (p. 256). Rich (2011), based on a study on elementary and secondary-school aged children in Britain and Australia, argued that PCS practitioners need to carefully take on public pedagogy in spaces that academics do not regularly traverse. Finally, Tinning (2002) reflected on critical pedagogy’s (failed) promise(s) by considering the struggles others (Gore, 1990; Macdonald & Brooker, 2000) and, briefly, his own department endured while trying to implement it in the classroom2. By the early 1990s, Giroux’s research focus was shifting away from “traditional schooling” toward including popular cultural formations as powerful forms of pedagogy (Robbins, 2009). In PCS, Andrews (1996, 1998, 2001) echoed this turn PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 387 by using Giroux’s critical media literacy (1996, p. 126) in an analysis on the ways Michael Jordan’s celebritized body was used to promote and normalize neoliberalism. Giardina (2005) was able to further Andrews’ earlier efforts to suture critical pedagogical theory to critical sport (media) consumption in his book Sporting Pedagogies. Following Andrews and Giardina, several scholars use Giroux’s to share similar theoretical and empirical foci3. In summary, I would argue that PCS practitioners and sport sociologists have actively engaged with students and opened democratic dialogue in the classroom to develop critical theoretical and empirical understandings for and on the physical body4. However, reflecting on the limits of critical media literacy I suggest that more work needs to be done for critical pedagogy to provide a successful strategy for change. Presently, PCS scholars relying on critical media literacy have become exceedingly good at pointing to contemporary power structures. However, the collective has not been as successful providing sustainable avenues to actively subvert these structures (e.g., Tinning, 2002). Therefore, PCS has largely failed in taking up critical pedagogy’s call for intervention, social justice, and enacting change. For example, Giardina and Newman (2011a, 2011b) and Newman (2011) claimed that it is one thing to critically analyze a variety of empirical sites using a critical pedagogical perspective, but quite another to actually put oneself “out there” and try to help exact social justice. Moreover, Newman (2011) cogently pointed out a myriad of studies where PCS academics have researched particular celebrity athletes (including my study on Dominican youth baseball star/villain Danny Almonte), but very few authors have actually experienced the context from which the athletes emerged. In addition, PCS academics have produced several quality research projects from a critical pedagogical perspective, but with rare exceptions (e.g., Gore, 1990; Kirk, 2006; Macdonald & Brooker, 2000; Malloy & Zakus, 1995; Tinning, 2002; Wiest & King-White, 2011) have neither written extensively nor held discussions about ways they develop critical pedagogy within the classroom. Consequently, there is relatively little dialogue about how PCS academics can fashion a (not so) hidden curricula(s) that informs the public’s (un)conscience. I can think of three reasons why this may be the case: 1. We suggest that “others” should teach using critical pedagogy infused with Freirean/Girouxian methodologies, but do not actually practice this ourselves. We are satisfied to show pithy slideshows and videos that generate discussion but stifle action. Often these slick presentations excite students and many might find their professor’s course fun, but few actually take these lessons beyond the classroom. 2. We believe that because most of us write critical pedagogy into our PCS projects, its use in our classrooms is implied. This renders the use of critical pedagogy in the classroom a mystery. 3. We are too afraid to share how critical pedagogy is used in our classrooms, because it may generate (self-)critique about how uncritical our practices are, or because it is too critical for those on tenure committees in the corporatized University. Certainly there is work to do/be done to better implement critical pedagogy within the traditional halls of schooling. I do not mean to imply that other PCS/ 388  King-White critical pedagogical work is unimportant or irrelevant, but rather, the classroom is an important site that warrants further attention. To make the connections between critical pedagogy and PCS more explicit and to suggest how it could work in the classroom, I will explicate how Henry Giroux has theorized and shaped his version of critical pedagogy. Mapping (Giroux’s) Critical “Pedagogy of the Privileged” Because I am interested in adopting critical pedagogy as my approach to teach at the university level, I draw from Henry Giroux’s “pedagogy of the privileged” that is concerned with undermining power by raising critical consciousness in an audience that already has some level(s) of privilege. Those who engage in (as “teachers” in the broadest sense) or are engaged by (as “learners” in the broadest sense) critical pedagogy respect the notion that some social structures have provided them with privilege(s) while other social structures have served as obstacles5. Giroux’s critical pedagogy deconstructs the ways neoliberal power operates on, in, and through contemporary society, subverts power through critical conscious raising and the cocreation of knowledge(s), and ultimately leads to critical intervention by praxical political and public engagement. I will now discuss each of these as they relate to my project. Power Giroux saw power through several theoretical lenses that he “wrestles with as problems” (Hall, 2007 ¶43). Giroux, rejecting a rote Marxism that necessarily seats class at the center of debates over power, left room to use Hall’s assertion that “culture is central to understanding struggles over meaning, identity, and power” (Giroux, 2000, p. 158), Foucault’s belief that “relations of power weigh down more than just the mind” (Giroux, 1983, p. 95), Gramsci’s push for (oppositional) public intellectualism (Giroux, 2000, p. 134), Freire’s contention that education is a possible forum to upset power (Giroux, 2000, p. 137), and hooks argument for a “feminism that is self-consciously political” to (re)situate gendered and sexual norms (Giroux, 1991, p. 35) simultaneously and/or individually (when necessary)6. This complex and messy way to perceive the world allows for a more intricate means to understand how individuals behave in particular situations. The contemporary socioeconomic context works with and against the various ways cultural formations are (re)created, perceived, and remembered in knowledge, power, and teacherstudent relationships. Teachers are imbricated in and developed through a series of iniquitous power relations that work for and against their favor. For example, most are molded by an uneven and complicated mixture of the social location(s) they emerged from over time, the experiences they had with those who educated them, and the pressures associated with working in formal academia (the administration, tenure requirements, and the social identities that formulate their understanding(s) of and performance in the world). This context is further obscured by trying to engage with students who have their own complex life histories, desires, and dreams. These issues have had a profound effect on the way that I enter and perform in the classroom. More specifically, I was raised in a working-class family as the PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 389 oldest of eight children (six sisters and one brother) in two overwhelmingly white, and socially/politically conservative upstate-New York suburban towns (Watertown and Binghamton). Paying my own way through two years of community college at Broome Community College, three years of private school at Ithaca College, and six and-a-half years of graduate school at the University of Maryland have created major financial constraints for my own family—even after I married a woman who came from an upper-class background. Thus, in concert with much of my formal academic training, I also bring experiential knowledge(s) about racism, sexism, homophobia, and class oppression to the classroom. Many proponents of Giroux’s critical pedagogical examine dominant ways of being, knowing, understanding, and communicating information, feelings, beliefs, and ideas. For example, Apple and King (1983) argued that: the overt and covert knowledge found within school settings and the principles of selection, organization, and evaluation of this knowledge are valuative selections from a much larger universe of possible knowledge and collection principles. As valuative selections, they must not be accepted as given, but must be made problematic – bracketed, if you will – so that the social and economic ideologies and the institutionally patterned meanings that stand behind them can be scrutinized. It is the latent meaning, the configuration that lies behind commonsense acceptability of a position, that may be its most important attribute. (p. 84) Critical pedagogy forces both the teacher and student to consciously locate themselves within various power and privilege continuums, and to articulate it to wider social and cultural processes (Apple & King, 1983; Freire, 2006; Giroux, 1983, 2003, 2004b, 2007a; Giroux & Penna, 1983; Martin, 2008). For instance, when I walk into the classroom students see me as a white, heterosexual, upper-class man. Complicating matters is the fact that my autobiography would seem to reflect the “American Dream” mythology. Therefore, I actively speak up when my students assert their gender privilege in class and/or utter homophobic remarks, challenge the mythology by outlining that my family and friends worked as hard as me (if not harder) only to become neoliberal “failures.” Adhering to Giroux’s attempts to subvert power relationships I make it exceedingly clear that my classrooms are spaces where no one voice holds the ultimate “truth.” Furthermore, I admit that I do hold power in the classroom and thus, decide the directions we take. Similar to Tinning (2002), I also suggest that every student will have a very different outlook on the world around them based on the own social contexts from which they emerged or are emerging by the conclusion of the course. Simultaneously, as a junior faculty member at a state institution, I am also under pressure to appease the senior faculty, chair, dean, and provost to earn tenure. Within an era of educational fundamentalism whereby those running the modern University are more closely connected to market fundamentalism than fostering democracy Giroux laments that neoliberalism’s: attack on all levels of education is evident in the attempts to corporatize education, standardize curricula, privatize public schooling and use the language of business as a model for governance. It is equally evident in the ongoing effort to weaken the autonomy of higher education, undercut the power of faculty and turn full-time academic jobs into contractual labor. (2012c, ¶8) 390  King-White There are several instances where this has become evident in my experience at Towson University. For example, University documentation suggests that Towson employees should “tell and sell our stories” in the hopes that it encourages more students to attend (without an increase in tenured faculty). My program has seen the number of majors explode from 120 to 430 students within the last seven years, while the number of tenured and tenure track faculty has only increased from 5 to 6. This had lead to increased class sizes and several hasty hires of (sometimes) ill-prepared adjunct lecturers. The school has not awarded raises or cost-of-living increases to faculty during the last five years, but is spending $68 million on a new basketball stadium that has no locker rooms, classroom space, and is the same capacity as the current one (Sharrow, 2011). Moreover, faculty are bombarded with correspondence suggesting that we become “entrepreneurs” and secure corporate grant funding, or worse, corporately sponsored departments. These constraints (among myriad others) radically oppose to the goals I have in the classroom. As I do not actively seek corporate grant funding, teach replicable class material to train future laborers, provide “measurable” student learning outcomes, or otherwise engage in contingent intellectual amateurism described by Silk, Bush and Andrews (2010), my commitment to critical pedagogy often openly and discretely defies the very crux of neoliberal education and makes my work as an “educator” all the more dangerous and difficult. Raising Critical Consciousness Critical pedagogy embeds two main teaching, research, and writing strategies that provide tools to unsettle power. The first strategy is for the student and teacher to experience conscientization (Freire, 2006, p. 35) whereby both become aware of the various levels of power and privilege operating on, in, and through different aspects of their lives. This means engaging in open and political discussions between students and teachers about subjects that have no definitive “answers,” but may eventually generate student and/or teachers’ action that seeks to make the world a better place—no matter how seemingly insignificant the action. At the same time, both Freire (2006) and Giroux (1988) warn that this process must not slip into overt activism whereby the teacher “indoctrinates” students into agreeing with the teacher’s beliefs. This poses a difficult balancing act for teachers who are passionate about particular inequalities they see in the world but that can be met by opposition or, worse, indifference in various “classrooms.” More to the point, vocal opposition from students is good insofar as it serves as a starting point for a democratic dialogue in the classroom that drives critical pedagogy (Giroux & McLaren, 1986). Conversely, indifference may mean the teachers have to alter their teaching strategies or carefully change their focus to something in which students will actively engage. To combat indifference and foster conscientization most lectures and assigned coursework require my students to contextually situate their selves within various layers of power. Often this generates lively debates that reflects our varied worldviews, levels of (un)earned privilege, and hopes for the future. As the semester progresses, or after the class is completed (sometimes years later), many half-jokingly lament that I have “ruined sports for them” or ask if I “even like sports.” PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 391 According to Malloy and Zakus (1995), these responses to my teaching reflect the development of an existentialist philosophy in students who are more readily prepared to critically interrogate the results of (business) decisions. In other words: the individual (student) is capable of exercising and taking responsibility for one’s free will. The “agony of thinking” and the “torment of choice” associated with this philosophy spawn a character that is “better equipped to evaluate different ethical standpoints and applicability to specific contexts of action than the slavish rule-follower or the cool cost/benefit calculator” (Guignon, 1986, p. 88). (p. 45) By developing a critical consciousness my students often begin to reject the “American Dream” mythology and replace it with a deeper understanding of the consequences of being enmeshed in complex power relationships. Therefore, I regularly admit that I like the idea of sport, but that there are always ways to make it better, more productive, and responsive to the world around us. For some, this reply is sufficient, but for others the next logical step is to ponder: “How do we do that?” There are no easy answers within the powerful neoliberal cultural context. Giroux and Giroux (2008) even argued that because many students and faculty have only lived under a neoliberal order, they are so inculcated in its ideology they cannot think outside of it. The Nature of Critical Engagement The second goal for critical pedagogy is to inspire both the student and teacher to act praxically (Freire, 2006, p. 54) and use knowledge to actively challenge the myriad inequities in society. Praxis “represents the transition from critical thought to reflective intervention in the world” (Giroux, 1981, p. 117). Giroux argued further that while the aim of critical pedagogy is to create critical reflection, criticality can also lead to “a crushing pessimism” or “the inability to link, in a dialectical fashion the issue of agency and structure.” This can disable rather than enable “emancipatory hopes and strategies” (1983, p. 235). Therefore, those practicing critical pedagogy believe that a critical education should provide both a critical reflection and an ability to act out against social, economic, and ideological injustice(s) taking place in everyday life. In the US context, most high school and higher educated students are trained to copy and reproduce thoughts, opinions, and ideologies provided by the privileged rather than to challenge dominant power formations and seek to become more ethically and morally committed citizens (Giroux, 2003, 2007a; van Gorder, 2007; Wiest & King-White, 2011). Thus, many students do not challenge dominant power formations, be political, act morally and ethically, or step outside the technical (Giroux, 2004c; Wiest & King-White, 2011). From the perspective of critical pedagogy, those who only see the world through neoliberal eyes, dismiss individuals attempting to actively work for a more radically democratic society. For example, by NASSM and NASPE guidelines, accredited Sport Management programs are required to include Introduction, Communications, Management, Facility Management, Event Management, Research, Legal Aspects, Finance, Marketing, Accounting, Governance, Senior Seminar, and Internship in their CORE 392  King-White offerings (Marx, Walker & Weaver, 2009). Although there is room for critical pedagogy in each, they are often delivered using rational technocratic teaching style that disfavors critical thinkers. Furthermore, colleges and universities offering CORE courses that promote critical consciousness (Sport & Society, Sport in a Cross-Cultural Perspective, Sport History, Sport Film, Sport Media, and Cultural Economy of Sport) often rename their programs (e.g., Sport Management & Media at Ithaca College, Sport, Commerce, and Culture at the University of Maryland, and the newly suggested Sport Management & Culture at Towson University) or become separated from management (e.g., Center for Physical Culture at Florida State University). A neoliberal university structure appears more concerned with professional training and corporate funding than facilitating democratic student learning. In addition, many believe that there is no space for critical thinking within sport management. Many university teachers and administrators do not seem to critically reflect upon how they reproduce dominant power relations through their teaching. Giroux, nevertheless, argued that “teachers rather than students should represent a starting point for any theory of citizenship education” (1983, p. 194). Consequently, it is important to “construe a theoretical framework giving teachers and others involved in the educational process the possibility to think critically about the nature of their beliefs and how these beliefs both influence and offset the day-to-day experiences they have with students (1983, p. 194).” While Giroux’s theory underpins my project, my teaching is particularly inspired by Martin (2008), van Gorder (2007), and McKinney (2005) who have actually used critical pedagogy in the traditional classroom in three separate but related projects. Martin (2008) discussed the unique challenges that the American classroom presents for Freireian critical pedagogy, particularly to alienated working-class students. Though Towson University has an enrollment that holds more class privilege, Martin’s four-point schema (critical content, student-centered dialogic process, democratic process, self-reflective process) for developing his courses has proven useful. Given the class privilege of Towson students, I combined Martin’s themes with van Gorder’s (2007) work with “children of the oppressor.” van Gorder argues that “these students are often unwilling to surrender status, wealth, and privilege, often objectify the plight of the oppressed and deny that the privileged have any complicity in their plight” (p. 9). Teaching such students requires that I must always accept and “begin in the space where they are” (Freire & Shor, 1991, p. 61) and address the assumptions that (my) students bring to the classroom. Because teaching social justice among the privileged invariably involves the “de-colonizing of the mentalities,” educators must avoid both “the deception of palliative solutions” (Freire, 1970/1990, p. 164) and the “trap of essentialist arguments,” where “mindnumbing and universalizing” (Freire & Macedo, 2001, p. 19) reductionism downplays any systemic understanding of the underlying nature of oppression. (van Gorder, 2007, p. 23) While it is difficult to apply this in practice, van Gorder’s work provides a robust framework to engage students from a variety of social backgrounds. I follow this outline by helping students understand (and reminding myself) that not everyone should have or has the same outlook as we do, nor shares the same values or plans PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 393 for the future because of our various social locations. Simultaneously, I am also careful to help foster hope in underprivilege, because operating in times of need can be generative and not always restrictive. McKinney (2005) provides a more practical method through which to evaluate student learning. I used her critical approach to assess and respond to autobiographical essay assignments her students wrote about their perceptions of racial discord in America. Although my focus is much broader than just racial relations, her assignment(s) provided a means for students to express what they have learned about themselves and others in relation to the concepts presented in class. To demonstrate my critical pedagogical practice, I share my attempts to develop a study abroad course that reflects critical pedagogy’s call for both conscience raising and political activity. While not always faithful to Giroux, I believe that sharing the failures and small successes can demonstrate how difficult it is to practice critical pedagogy. The following section will outline designing and implementing the course, the (sometimes on-the-fly) changes, and some key learning moments that my students and I had on the trips. I hope these can start a debate over what constitutes critical pedagogical praxis in our field. Stealing Critical Pedagogy in My (PCS) Classroom I will trace my experiences of leading a study abroad trip comprised of 25 students from Towson, 7 from Goucher College, and 1 from Salisbury University to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic over the past two winter minimesters for Towson University. Based on self-reflection and documentation such as e-mail correspondences, written work, and informal discussions, I draw heavily from critical reflection and writing a teaching narrative for my third year-review tenure packet to illustrate how I have attempted to use critical pedagogy in my classroom7. I focus on the study abroad course for three main reasons8. First, the study abroad course provides a unique example of a use of critical pedagogy at the university level. Second, the continuities and differences between the two courses reflect Giroux’s call for responsiveness during and after course delivery (see Doyle & Singh, 2006; Robbins, 2006). Third, the study abroad course serves as a rejoinder to Newman’s (2011) critique that I had spent several years researching and writing about Danny Almonte’s plight as a young Dominican baseball player, but had never actually spent time (intervening) in the very context of his early life. While not my intention, my course closely resembles Sport for Development and Peace programs that have emerged globally since the United Nations “proclaimed 2005 as the International Year of Sport and Physical Education” (Hayhurst, Wilson & Frisby, 2011, p. 316). These programs have been critiqued for being more beneficial to the interns, volunteers, and students than for the populations they have engaged with (Darnell, 2010a, 2010b; Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011). Giulianotti (2011a, p. 223) asserted that most SDP programs are complicated by colonial and postcolonial discourses that work against the critical self-empowerment they hope to engender. I found that my course ran into similar issues which, perhaps, reflects the tremendous power neoliberalism holds over even those compelled by critical pedagogy. I will return to these issues during my discussion of the course. 394  King-White Developing a Critical Course Content with Critical Pedagogy I am committed to reaching “students” in ways that inspire progressive social change through critical pedagogical practices9. As part of my teaching practice I developed a study abroad course that would focus on Sport in the Global Marketplace in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Following the first part of Martin’s (2008) framework, the course “emphasized the identification, assessment, and deconstruction of dominant discourse and consideration of perspectives that question the status quo” (p. 39). At the outset I understood that I would be leading students into two economically contrasting sites (Puerto Rico has a fairly strong economy whereas the Dominican Republic has not). This would be quite different from my own undergraduate study abroad experience (London), or any of the other study abroad trips that the program at my University had led (Australia, New Zealand, and Italy). In addition, study abroad courses are popular among University administrators, because they can be marketed as a part of the University’s commitment to diversity. However, the students that can most often afford the time and money to participate in a study abroad trip hail from the most privileged social backgrounds (e.g., Che, Spearman & Manizade, 2009; Lewin, 2009). Study abroad courses can reinforce dominant social and political beliefs that situate the United States as the benevolent center to which all other nation-states should aspire. They can, therefore, be subjected to similar critique to sport development programs that “engage in “top-down” versus “bottom up” development projects” (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011, p. 184) to (re)inscribe (new) forms of neoliberal colonization (see also Darnell, 2010a, 2010b; Donnelly, Atkinson, Boyle, & Szto, 2011; Giulianotti, 2011a, 2011b; Hayhurst, Wilson & Frisby, 2010; Tiessen, 2011). Thus, sport development and study abroad programs that do not engage in critical self-reflexivity can simply devolve into glorified vacations where interns earn a useful line on their resume and students receive credit. Che et al. (2009) similarly argued that study abroad participants – especially those from dominant groups – that have not started to problematize their (ethnic, economic, social, or sociopolitical) status or critically examine privilege may not be prepared to constructively engage with experiences in stark contrast to their lived reality such as encountering apparently impoverished people. (p. 112) Enacting a Student-Centered, Dialogic Process While self-reflection is an important aspect of critical pedagogy, Klein (2008) argued that hands-on experience can help alter ethnocentric assumptions about underserved populations. Following Giroux’s pedagogy of the privileged that seeks to subvert power, raise critical consciousness, and praxically intervene, my initial course proposal sought to help students become critically self-aware of their relative level(s) of privilege and mindful that the needs, attitudes, and desires for the people we were going to meet may drastically differ from them, but through an engagement in practice. I followed Che et al. (2009) to seek “a balance between nurture and challenge to facilitate one’s engagement in an environment conducive for learning” (p. 103) PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 395 and organized predeparture contact with the students. During these in-person and online meetings I borrowed from Martin’s second teaching theme (student centered, dialogic process) whereby “students were encouraged to consider and expand the subject matter through detailed reflection on its relevance to their daily lives and thoughts” (2008, p. 39). We met once in person about two months before departure to establish relative ground rules for behavior and to discuss our backgrounds regarding previous coursework, experience(s) abroad, assumptions of the setting, and our expectations of the experience. In addition, I assigned George Sage’s (2011) comprehensive Globalizing Sport book, set up a message board to discuss it chapter by chapter based on open-ended prompts I prepared, and required a five-page report on a book of their choice that focused on globalization. These actions, I believe, reflected Giroux’s vision of a classroom that provides a safe space for learning through writing, encourages democratic conversation, and allows students to think actively, critically, oppositionally, and self-reflexively (Doyle & Singh, 2006). January 3–21, 2011 “The Good Left Undone” Initiating the Democratic Process Following Martin’s pedagogical outline I attempted to open up the democratic process while abroad. He asserted that teachers need to “openly encourage maximal participation in discussions, sharing of all viewpoints, student input concerning course policies and decisions, and student feedback concerning course processes” (2008, p. 39). Consequently, I organized the course organized around three four-hour morning lectures, and one five-hour full-day lecture during the first week to focus on the relation of (sport) histories, migration, labor to globalization. In addition, there were daily field trips to various sport centers, stadia, ecotourism sites, baseball games and guided tours of San Juan and Santo Domingo. Each night students were required to write diaries that made connections between the concepts presented in lecture and their experiences in the field. Giroux (2012b) further believed that: critical pedagogy opens up a space where students should be able to come to terms with their own power as critical agents; it provides a sphere where the unconditional freedom to question and assert one’s voice, however different, is central to the purpose of public education if not democracy itself. (¶4) To allow each student to assert his/her voice, I sat with the students for between 30 and 90 min to recap the day, help answer questions, and make connections between the course concepts and what we had seen before the writing sessions. This often led to spirited debate and discussion regarding the power of the United States (and its citizens) in relation to the two sites we visited. In addition, the following event demonstrates that the students gained critical reflection during the trip. We played a baseball game against local children in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The boys were anywhere between 13–22 years old, some were professional prospects, others just playing to avoid the difficult aspects of their lives. Here kids lined up to play baseball similar to urban youth trying to get basketball courttime in the United States (Klein, 1995; Mosher, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). The fields were poorly maintained, and the ball felt a little lighter than I was accustomed to. My 396  King-White female students were chided with catcalls like “rubia, rubia,” “china” (pronounced cheenah) or worse, and their pitcher threw slower assuming they had never played ball before. Conversely, my male students were to be defeated, and the opposing pitcher threw hard to try recording outs. Several students wrote extensively about this experience, but perhaps the most thoughtful was offered by Lance who wrote: After the lunch we finally headed to go play baseball…it was a sobering experience to see these kids who have two choices in life to succeed and that is to succeed in baseball or to marry an American woman in order to gain a Visa… Throughout the game there was a young Dominican boy, about 5 years old, who sat in our dugout from the moment we got there. He was very soft spoken and was nothing but skin and bones. At 5, or however young he was, he had obviously poor health and poor dental hygiene. All I wanted to do was make this kid feel welcomed and bring him some sort of enjoyment out of his life for the two hours we were there, but who knows how much enjoyment that kid has gotten even in the past week, month, or year. This kid stayed in our dugout the entire time and all of my classmates took to him and I even told him that he could be our “el capitan honoraro” or honorary captain. What really changed my thought of life and changed me for the better was when this kid came up to me and told me he was hungry. It completely broke my heart and I told this kid that after the game I would get him something from the concession stand. . . .Once I was on the bus, I was able to grab my wallet, come back out of the bus and give the kid 100 pesos. The smile on his face could not be duplicated and I will never forget how he ran towards the back of the bus, where I was sitting just to say goodbye one last time. (Journal Entry for January 14, 2011). During our daily discussion each of my students claimed that the experience was transformative. We talked about how different gender norms are in the United States and Dominican Republic, and the women stated how much better women are treated in the United States even if it is still far from any semblance of equity with regard to men. Lance and Kevin, while tears welled in their eyes, recounted their experience with the little child and asked what they could do to help. I told them that there are no easy answers. Following my second lecture and evening discussion, one student dejectedly remarked: “we learned yet another way that the United States is destroying the world” (field notes, January 4, 2011). I realized that the course was somewhat successfully revealing the social, political, economic, and ideological “great moving Right show” (Hall, 1979) defining contemporary life in the United States, but did not offer “a corresponding set of visions and strategies…to raise ambitions, desires, and real hope for those who wish to take seriously the issue of educational struggle and social justice in the future” (Giroux, 1988, p. 177). The focus of the course needed to change from strictly centering on my critical contextual understandings of the empirical settings (Andrews, 2002) to “reflectively frame our own relationships to the on-going project of an unfinished democracy” (Giroux 2012b, ¶4). Based on the students’ reactions after the baseball game, nevertheless, it is unlikely that we are going to be able to change the socioeconomic structure that defines Dominican life—at least not in the immediate sense (King-White, 2010; Klein, 1991, 1995, 2008). However, to simply blame the United States domination over the Dominican PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 397 Republic, and walk away from the disposable bodies (Giroux, 2006) populating the Dominican (baseball) landscape became unacceptable to the students. A few vowed to help in any way possible upon our return. The Self-Reflexive Process: Course (Re)development Following the First Study Abroad Course Encouraging students to become politically engaged means introducing both a new language of the relative levels of power and privilege and a commitment to listening to the needs and desires of the people (Giroux, 2007a, 2007b; McLaren, 1991). Our initial idea was to join for-profit corporations like (a local sporting goods company), but after much discussion we decided against it because of the risk of turning our initiative into a corporate social responsibility public relations campaign (cf. Jarvie, 2007; King, S., 2001, 2006)—much like the Cherry Hill project that my University already participates in10 and the Project Red SDP program described by Hayhurst et al. (2010) and Giardina (2010). Moreover, these sporting goods companies often employ the very population my students wanted to help in outsourced factories. Thus, we risked “repairing with the right-hand what he (sic) ruined with the left” (Zizek, 2009), because we would only be offering a secondary remedy to a deeply structural problem. Despite these concerns the students pressed on by forming an on-campus group to donate equipment. Unfortunately, this also failed, because some students graduated four months later, were employed, and moved. Another key figure was subsumed by time commitments related to his sport management internship. The latter student, nevertheless, was able to use his internship with the Baltimore Orioles to donate equipment through a preexisting program within the organization. In retrospect, I feel as if my class succeeded in fostering a self-reflexive critical consciousness as promoted by Giroux’s pedagogy of the privileged, but failed at progressive praxicality along many fronts. First and foremost, I was unprepared to help organize any donation program, because it did not occur to me that the students might actually be so deeply affected by their experiences. Second, the idea to simply deliver sporting equipment to young people was wrought with a problematic logic. Similar to the interns within the Commonwealth Games Canada’s International Development through Sport program (Darnell, 2010a), we supposed that “the enduring logic that sport participation supports social mobility within a competitive political economy…(thus) neo-liberal ideology precluded political radical engagements with inequality through sport” (p. 70). Clearly, there had to be a better, more nuanced, way forward. Following Martin (2008) “privately, I reflected on how classroom dynamics affected dialogic and democratic processes and then tried to make corresponding adjustments” (p. 40) to improve my course. As one strategy, I requested a supplemental service-learning component from the company organizing the trip, CISabroad for the second trip. I also required that the students read and discuss online my article featuring the Danny Almonte Little League World Series saga (King-White, 2010) to initiate critical discussion for sport as a means of upward social mobility. The second course mirrored the first with regard to raising our critical consciousness, but I focused on generating discussion and not discouragement. Interestingly, while both courses had their own personalities, the main difference 398  King-White was the service learning component. In the following I will critically reflect how this praxical component, I believe, fostered our ability to help others through respect and care for what they felt would best help them in a neoliberal context. January 2–18, 2012—“Your Word for Me Is Fusion but Is Real Change an Illusion?” Martin 2.0 As noted previously, CISabroad added a three-day experience working with Centro Cultural Guanin in la Piedra, Dominican Republic. Centro’s website (http://guanin. org/files/videos.html)11 describes the desperate conditions that the racially mixed Dominican and Haitian community live in. la Piedra’s (translated literally as “The Rock”) land is not currently arable, employment is scarce, there is little access to transportation, electricity, drinkable water, food, first aid, telephones, and internet. Moreover, Klein (2008) asserted that while formal education in the Dominican Republic does not necessarily translate to upward social mobility, it is important if the nation’s populace is to become more empowered. For la Piedra the closest school (which only offers classes until grade 4) is nearly 30 min away. One student, Jason, who had only visited Dominican resort towns, characterized his initial reaction to the community: We had the chance to visit a poor town in the Dominican Republic where hundreds of underprivileged citizens resided. I never once imagined any part of the Dominican Republic to look this way. I felt as if I was looking at infomercials on the poverty stricken family (sic) in Africa. (Journal Entry January 10, 2012) Fortunately, for the la Piedra community, Lynne Guitar, an American historian studying Taino Indians, discovered a cave series with intricate hieroglyphs that she plans to monetize over the next three years. She purchased the land for her research, but is developing a school12, basketball court, baseball field, swimming pool, water purifying station, staging area for films and (academic) presentations, housing for guests, wi-fi hub, and arable land for goats and hardy vegetables so that the community will be able to self-sustain well after her life ends (field notes, January 12, 2012). The choice to provide sport specific spaces in la Piedra (particularly a swimming pool in an environment desperately seeking drinking water) may still be construed as uncritically privileging physical activity over other land uses that could more effectively empower the population. However, I would argue that sport, in this context, serves as a means to bringing the community together, not for upward social mobility13. In addition, Guitar hopes to help provide support to build several new homes with and for the community through her foundation. The students in the course and myself were tasked with helping build one. More specifically, during our three-day experience we worked with the community to tear down a house for a large family whose mother has been stricken with tuberculosis (http://www.indiegogo.com/ My-Roof-Project-Help-build-homes-for-a-Dominican-Hatian-community), and build a new one. The work was arduous. We moved the family’s belongings, sheet PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 399 metal, plywood and two by fours, gathered rocks in fields with our bare hands, dodged snakes, bees, and fire ants in sweltering 85 degree heat, but the community, the students, and I were able to accomplish the task. Furthermore, many students made deep connections with the people. One student wrote the following about her experience: It was awesome to see a whole community come together to watch and even help build this house. The young boys were the best to watch and interact with. They were so energetic and eager to play and help all the time. The girls wanted to learn English. I think that is interesting because that is probably where girls would have the best chance in upward mobility. (Sheila, Journal Entry January 11, 2012) Most students asserted that their time in the community was unforgettable and wanted to contribute more. This feeling was so strong that two days later we returned (giving up a chance at watching a second Dominican baseball game in the process) after we purchased the family a stove for the kitchen, gas tank, and a bed. The surprise visit proved emotional, yet cathartic for both the community and my class. Jeanie described our last day at La Piedra as follows: The house building experience was the most rewarding thing I have ever done. It put so many things about my life and the way I live into perspective. It sounds cliché but that community really did change my life. Today we presented the family with a stove, propane tank, and mattress that we all bought for them. We each pitched in 300 pesos to buy those items for their new home. Their sense of gratitude was so fulfilling. We took pictures with the family at the house and listened to Silvia and her husband thank us and explain how they would never forget us. The house looked beautiful and was coming along really well. Cristina and Regita sang a song for the group that brought everyone to tears, even Sevi. The song made leaving really hard. We all had developed a love for that community and the group of people that live in it. I cried as the bus left and I watched Ian and a bunch of other children cry as we pulled away. They all ran after the bus just as they had done when we arrived. The entrance and exit were a whirlwind of emotions. It is truly indescribable. (Journal Entry January 14, 2012) Her journal entry reflected many students’ experiences—one even described it as a nonreligious mitzvah14 (field notes January 10, 2012). Building homes can be viewed different from donating sports equipment to an impoverished populace: we helped create tangible hope within the contemporary sociopolitical context. Although there are several potential issues that could undermine my students’ efforts15, in many ways our activities on this trip served as an answer to Giardina and Newman (2011a) and Newman (2011) who call for a need to take part in the communities of injustice we research to fully understand and begin to transform them. If and when the la Piedra project is complete 1000 people will become self-sufficient, bilingual Dominican and Haitian individuals. Taking part in this project helped the students and myself respect the privileges we enjoy as Americans. I assert that it did achieve my primary intention to raise critical 400  King-White consciousness with/for privileged students. Following Giroux’s critical pedagogical vision, we worked actively with the community to create change. At the same time, the course was not a complete success. For example, students stated that the experience was transformative, “opened their eyes to what need really was,” and that happiness and fulfillment in life could be achieved outside of consumptive activities. I, nevertheless, witnessed them purchasing a variety of alcoholic beverages, cigars, coffee, expensive hand bags, and sunglasses to bring home just hours after we returned from the site—good neoliberals indeed (Adams, 2011)! Similarly, several have added me as friends on Facebook and enrolled in my course this semester, and the information and activities they share would indicate that some of the lessons they learned on the study abroad have been left behind. When questioned they respond: “I know it’s wrong, but I can’t help it.” It is difficult to witness such attitudes. At the same time, Tinning (2002) asserted that believing the course would automatically create dozens of scholar-activists that follow my path is not good critical pedagogy at all. His vision for critical pedagogy, renamed modest pedagogy, allows for students to refuse to engage with and/or struggle through critical self-reflexivity without being forced to follow the teacher’s own belief system. Further, as I bear witness to my own contradictions as an aspirant critical pedagogue, father to a male toddler, and a white male raised in a conservative, working-class household (see King-White, 2012), it is hard to be completely dismissive of the power that the course had and will have with my students. When I was sitting in their seats many of my beliefs were shaken to their core, but those old beliefs still have a lasting “in the moment” residue that I cannot completely shake. A more realistic goal for pedagogy of the privileged could be to create awareness of our regressive actions and then actively work against them. As a result of the course, the students are, at least, consciousness of their “failures” which could be seen as a step to a “right” direction. Coda: “I’ll Stop Trying to Make a Difference – No Way”! Throughout this paper, I have argued that PCS scholars need to take chances (Silk & Andrews, 2011) to explore possibilities to practice social change. We all possess a chance to do this in the classroom, where we hold relative autonomy regarding what we teach, how we teach, and the intended learning outcomes from our courses. Giroux further argued that “what we do in our classrooms is easily extended into public spheres” (Giroux, Shumway, Smith & Sosnoski, 1988, p. 154) through the activities inspired by the critical reflections of a critical pedagogy approach. Simultaneously, to shape the direction of the courses, we need to encourage students’ voices. My students have (in)directly helped develop progressive change in a class that I teach through their responses to materials and experiences presented to them. Further, many students return with a more self-critical view about sports to question their role(s) in perpetuating iniquitous power relations in the world around them. In this sense, my study abroad course intended to differ from many SDP program directors that, according to Darnell, produced interns who were encouraged “to celebrate success stories, economic prosperity, or supporting the self-esteem of development partners through physical activity programs, but not situate such results materially and ideologically” (2010, p. 70)—even in cases where interns PCS’s Critical Pedagogical Imperative 401 were critical and self-reflexive. Following a critical pedagogical approach is not without problems, but we should not be discouraged to shape coursework toward creating a more “utopian society” (Giroux, 1983). Not all of my pedagogical practices use Girouxian sensibilities, but they are infused where it makes sense. For example, I still rely on the traditional direct instruction that often produces technocratic learning with the goal of creating better laborers in sport management. However, this type instruction is also necessary as it provides labor knowledge(s) of an occupation in the field. As I am still learning to practice critical pedagogy, more papers engaging in critical self-reflection on teaching could have much to offer to both critical pedagogy and PCS. Such reflections could also encourage action outside of the classroom (Rich, 2011). Further, a database like “a Resource for Teaching Sociology” (http://www.sociologysource. com/) for those teaching PCS could prove invaluable for getting our students and ourselves to the next best place in and outside the classroom. As my work demonstrates, moving forward will not be easy, but it cannot stall in favor of intellectual hand-wringing. Instead of being fearfully paralyzed, let us share the work we do in the classroom. Notes 1. To date out of the 50 journal articles in SSJ, JSSI, and IRSS none uses critical pedagogy in the University classroom. 2. Throughout the article Tinning points out the various ways critical pedagogy is difficult to practically actualize. Given the struggles he and others have endured over the years Tinning suggest that we turn away from critical pedagogy toward a modest pedagogy. While I appreciate the sentiment, and the nuanced argument he presents, I still choose to adhere to the utopian dreams critical pedagogy has to offer. 3. Notably, the initial forays using Giroux to understand black bodies in the media (cf. Andrews, 1996; Douglas, 2005; Kellner, 1996; McDonald, 1996; McDonald & Toglia, 2010) would later turn to critical studies about the various ways whiteness operates as both the invisible and visible center(s) in and through physical culture (cf. Brayton, 2005; Cosgrove & Bruce, 2005; Giardina, 2005; King, 2005, 2006b, 2009; King & Leonard, 2006; King-White, 2010; Leonard, 2009; Lewis, 2001; Newman, 2007a, 2007b; Newman & Beissel, 2009; Newman & Giardina, 2008, 2010; Walton & Butryn, 2006) 4. For instance, critical pedagogues have had an effect on students who work in the sport industry. Further, because numerous sport academics that have shared their research and critical outlooks in popular public sources (like ESPN, local newspapers, and community groups) they have influenced the focus of the cultural intermediaries that produce multimedia sport programming and information. Although many in PCS would dismiss the overly simplified Race and Gender Report Card that Richard Lapchik has published since the mid 1980s for various sports leagues the mere fact that it exists makes the public and those working for sport organizations aware of their (retrograde or progressive) hiring practices. In addition some popular sources have been openly questioning the ways that New York Knicks guard, Jeremy Lin, has been portrayed and marketed, contemplated the racism following a high school basketball game in Texas where predominantly white fans chanted “U-S-A, U-S-A” following a win against a predominantly Latino opponent, and questioned the logic in the University of Southern Mississippi band chanting “where’s your green card” to Kansas State’s Puerto Rican freshman, Angel Rodriguez. 5. Although Giroux’s critical pedagogy has its roots in Paulo Freire’s work on the oppressed, as Martin (2008) and van Gorder (2007) note, it is difficult to simply replicate Freire’s educational 402  King-White concepts meant for peasant farmers in 1960s Brazil to contemporary 2010s American student body. Interestingly, given the growing class divide in the United States, there are instances where more closely adhering to Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed to raise critical consciousness in oppressed and marginalized students makes more sense (see: Martin, 2008) than Giroux’s pedagogy of the privileged that I use at Towson University (see also: van Gorder, 2007). 6. In addition to these cultural theorists, Giroux has, as Robbins (2009) carefully details, has also borrowed from, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Zygmut Bauman, and Raymond Williams. 7. I will note that while the scenarios reflect actual classroom activities all names have been altered to create anonymity 8. Importantly, the study abroad course is not the only time that I use critical pedagogy in my teaching. I employ various critical pedagogical strategies in courses at Towson University (KNES 353 Sport & Society, KNES 456 Sport Governance, and KNES 460 Cultural Economy of Sport). Students in these courses have assignments that require them to experience sites in the greaterBaltimore area and attempt to intervene with a variety of injustices they see—with a modicum of success. 9. I will say that better is not necessarily unique and unique is not necessarily better. 10. For the last several years Towson University has worked on, not with, helping the Cherry Hill community to “better” themselves. Though little improvement has been made the University has spent a considerable amount of time marketing their philanthropic efforts. 11. We do organice (sic) every year summer camp for more that 150 kids in la Piedra. That is small community with at least 1000 people, divided in 2 communities, la Piedra 1 and la Piedra 2. Those communities are located near Bani de Toro in the Municipality of Guerra, Santo Domingo Province, Dominican Republic. It is one hour from the National District and 25 min north of Las Americas Airport. The community is composed of 60% Dominicans and 40% Haitians. This is a dry region, rough and rocky. The land is called karst and is considered to be too rocky to be of any agricultural value. The people of these communities live by raising chickens and a little food, but not even enough for local consumption, and by doing occasional work for hire, called chiripeo by the locals. They live in extreme poverty. About 60% earn less than US$2 per day for lack of employment, and one in three earns less than US$1 per day, thus our focus on helping them. a) Road access is very bad and the only available transportation is motorcycle taxies_b) Drinking water is only available for sale in 5-gallon bottles that cost US$1 each_ c) Only 10% of the residents have access to electricity_d) There are no telephone lines, no Internet or other types of technology available_e) The closest first aid center is a 45-min drive away_f) The closest school, which only has grades Pre-K through 4, is 30 min away_g) Sources of labor–none 12. English as a second language is taught here primarily so that the people from the community will be able to communicate with visitors to the site. Thus, they are trained to be laborers on the land that is monetized in a very different way than a sneaker-factory that simply destroys local farmland and instantly creates near-slave laborers in the process. 13. During our lunch breaks we gained...