Annotated Bibliography AU2020

Acuff, J. (2013). (Mis)information highways: A critique of online resources for multicultural art education. International Journal of Education through the Arts. 303-316.

Acuff’s purpose for this article is to shed light on the typical and prominent online resources many art educators use as resources. She asks the audience, who are most likely other art educators, when using these resources, are you unintentionally creating an “us vs. other” atmosphere within your student body? Are these resources inclusive or do they exoticize cultural groups (p. 303)? In my opinion, this article does not have an apparent bias because it is contradicting the mainstream resources that do have obvious bias. Like many of the articles from this semester, this article is giving a platform to a voice and perspective that is typically pushed to the side. The article concludes with a call to action to remind art educators to research and acknowledge the resources they are using. Use discussions, diverse artists, and resources that do not ostracize a group of people and damage student identities.

As a newer teacher, I am so thankful for the internet and the inspiration that I gain from looking at lessons on pinterest and connecting with other art educators via social media. I find myself wary of lessons that can be “crafty”, as I want my students to have the freedom and practice autonomy in making their own choices. With this in mind, I often find an end product that I like, and try to find ways to make it better. I agree that there is no comprehensive database, and a variety of sources are needed as starting points (Acuff, 2014). Can I add an artist who works with a similar style? Can I include a contemporary issue (this is something that is challenging for me)? I also avoid “crafty” lessons because I don’t want to appropriate a culture or embed harmful stereotypes that are already deep rooted into student minds. I did take notice of the vocabulary in this article (and our other one) about the word ​transformational​. I think it provides a jumping off point as a goal to keep in mind when planning multicultural lessons. Finally, I noticed the underlying concept that we have to to actively practice and teach to our students: to be informed and educated consumers.

Throughout my journey as a learning educator, I have been introduced with information similar to this article. I have been taught my lessons should be informational and deeper than teaching just about the elements and principles. Art education has become a tool for social justice/action and a way for students to test the waters of deeper thinking and understanding. I have been taught that appropriating a culture is wrong, and shown why. One thing I challenge about my past experience is that I was taught these things, but was never given an opportunity to essentially practice what I’ve been taught like the way your students were given the opportunity and challenge to change the lessons that were wrong. I find myself questioning: if the correct context is introduced and the right discussion is had, is the project still wrong? I then think: what are the right questions and discussions? I find myself going through my daily life thinking about a lot of these topics and issues that are being addressed in these readings. I’ve been finding myself lost in thought trying to answer if there are any lessons from our white “culture” that are antiquated? Do I ever teach a lesson that makes a custom we do feel primitive? So far, my answer has been no. I noted in the reading (p. 310) about teachers taking advantage of Day of the Dead sugar skull lessons. I have done similar lessons before and am worried that I did damage rather than bring to light the significance of this day for many people. I showed them an article/short documentary from National Geographic and talked about the importance of memory, love, and respect for passed loved ones. I remember when I was student teaching, my cooperating teacher created a lesson where she introduced day of the dead, and had students think of a loved one. The students created memory boxes. I think I also saw a similar lesson was featured in the School Arts magazine. Now I find myself questioning: is this wrong? If so, is there a way to make it better? How can I introduce information and practices that are different from our own in a way that does not exoticize the people? Should I only be introducing current practices from different cultures? Or does it help to introduce the practices of the past (I’m thinking of a rain stick project for example) and contrast it with current practices? I have found this article to leave me with many questions.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists. Color-blind racism & racial inequality in contemporary America. 3rd Ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Chapters 1&2

The first chapter starts with a section labeled: “Racism without “Racists”. This section starts off describing the colorblind ideology many White people live by, and how they do not consider themselves racist. This self proclaimed non racist way of life is contrasted by thy way White people act in a racist way, specifically with statements such as “race problem in our country”, “playing the race card”, and the notion of “working harder” (p. 1). The chapter continues to introduce how established racism is within our country by providing statistics on how Black and racial minorities lag behind White people. On page two, Bonilla-Silva asks the reader this: “How is there so much inequality in a system where white people claim race is irrelevant?” and “How do Whites explain the apparent contradiction between their professed views and the inequality that is happening?” This color blind racism is the new type of racism, instead of the older Jim Crow racism (p.3). Both chapters explain and label different types of racism that people have. For example, Laissez-faire racism which is described as the ideology that Black people are to blame for their poorer economic standing as it is a function of perceived cultural inferiority (p. 7). I don’t believe these chapters to be biased in the information they introduce (such as the types of racism that exist and prejudice that people have. The chapters also point out, on page 8, why so many people argue over racial matters. Tis is because racism has different meanings to different people. Whites are typically prejudiced, and People of Color see racism as systemic and institutionalized. Even though the idea of race is a social construct, it still has very real outcomes that affect people’s social reality (p. 9). I chose this chapter to annotate because it was an awakening for me to read it. So many of the topics discussed have touched on experiences and justifications I’ve heard.

I felt relief when reading these two chapters when Bonilla-Silva acknowledged this isn’t a challenge of making people out to be ‘good” or “bad”. This isn’t about labeling people as racist. The purpose of the writing is to examine and highlight the “collective practices that help reinforce the contemporary racial order” (p. 15). The challenge or goal to the reader is to then go from not being racist to being anti racist (p. 15). The author uses a clear tone, addresses their own biases and possible holes in their research. I would be interested to see the results of a larger study; specifically from Millenials and Gen Z. I’m not saying racism has disappeared, but through social media posts and Tik Tok videos, I am seeing a large group of younger (and typically those who are educated) people support movements such as BLM, publicly posting about and addressing white privilege and their privilege. There’s videos on tik tok of white people making fun of the privilege and through this jokin lens, pointing out how ridiculous it is. I’m specifically thinking about one user who creates videos from a point of view of a WASP (white anglosaxon protestant). I think even the labeling of someone as a “Karen” is pointing at the privilege we see typically in the Baby Boomer generation, making fun of it, and showing people the negativity behind it. Again, I do not think this means that there is no more racism, but I am interested to see if there is a significant shift within the next decade (maybe 2) and how the ability to share these experiences as a joke can shed light to privilege. This makes me think of a lot of the elected leaders (majority are old, white men) and how their “passing of the torch” will change when (hopefully) younger generations are elected. I might be reaching a little bit with all of this, but I think with the popularity of social media and the narratives you can share through different platforms play a huge role in the thought process of younger generations.

I’m linking some videos below if you’d like to reference what I’m talking about with some of the Tik Tok videos.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJAbRkdT/

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJAb6srK/

Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2018). Creativity for Whom? Art Education in the Age of Creative Agency, Decreased Resources, and Unequal Art Achievement Outcomes. Art Education, 71(6), 34-37.

This article focuses on “the idea of creativity in art education by putting forth a foundational definition of creative agency and exploring the question of whether creative agency is available to all students in art and design education with suggestions for curriculum that integrates concepts of creativity with social justice” (p. 34). Not included in the abstract is the discussion of unequal arts education and an achievement gap within the arts. To me, the statement “available to all students” doesn’t entirely translate to what the article is discussing. This article stood out to me because I am interested in researching play and creativity in the art room. I am not studying this while integrating social justice, but still thought the content was interesting and relevant. Katz-Buonicontro starts the article off by introducing the history of creativity and questioning whether creativity is a human act or a human right (p. 35). The idea of creativity as a human right suggests that students will be able to realize their creative agency. I think all authors have a slight bias, however I think this author does a good job of being factual. For example, when discussing the disparity of receiving arts education between African American students and Caucasian students, the author breaks down the reductions from different groups by percentages. They point out there was an increase with Hispanic Americans, but only by .7% (p. 35). The author concludes with a call to action to the audience, who are most likely social justice educators and arts educators. The call to action is this: “we should deeply care that there is a growing achievement gap in music and visual arts performance scores. ...We can design a curricula that integrates creative agency and social justice, which offer….connection between art and real life…” (p. 37).

I hadn’t considered creativity as a right. When thinking about teaching with the concept that students have a ​right ​to be creative, it changes everything from the way we teach to the layout of the classroom. I was also unaware of the disparity in delivery of arts education between black and white students. When analyzing the data about the reduction of art education, it seems that art education is viewed as supplemental, and is dropped when funding is cut. It makes sense that there is an achievement gap when programs are dropped (p. 35). The author questions (p. 35) “How can we as educators promote creative agency in a strained arts-based learning environment where there is an achievement gap and reduced resources?” I’ve been thinking about this question and I think the answer is simple to think of, but difficult to put into practice. I think art and creativity should be implemented in the classroom. I think instead of having students sit at desks and learn information that is only going to make them pass tests, they should be moving and learning in engaging ways that involve interaction, questioning, creating, and communicating. I think art classes then should be a requirement as a supplemental learning experience. With this put into practice, all students would be able to have access to the arts and art education. This article makes me challenge (more than I already have) how people in these positions of power are making decisions that affect the lives of millions of people. Educators are pushed to include different programs and different types of learning. I think our educational system needs to be “rebooted” and to start from scratch. There is so much research on different ways of learning and the positive effects of the arts and creativity in the classroom, and yet we are still teaching with kids sitting and learning how to fill in bubbles for standardized testing. I am also inspired even more to create a classroom that is open ended and relatable to students. I want them to have the opportunity to be creative and to learn through different materials. I underlined the statement “Teaching for creativity...would focus on learning in the arts as a vehicle for students to explore how students’ own lived experiences and educational goals might be supported or, by contrast, inhibited by the policies and practices of teaching and schooling” (p. 36). I want to make the skill of creating and thinking creatively a lifelong skill, and I want it to be relatable to my students' lives.

Kohli, R. & Solórzano, D. (2012). Teachers please learn our names! Racial microaggressions and the K-12 classroom. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 441-462.

The argument in Teachers please learn our names! Racial microaggressions and the K-12 classroom is that subtle racism can have lasting detrimental effects on students’ self perceptions and worldviews (p.441). The study was designed to “explore the racial microaggressions and internalized racial microaggressions of Students of Color in K-12 settings in regards to their names” (p.441). The data was collected through email, short answer questionnaires, and interviews. The study used qualitative research to collect empirical data. The study also used Critical Race Theory (CRT) to “centralize [their] analysis of race and racism within education” (p.444). Through this data, the authors found 3 themes: racial microaggressions and names in school, internalized racial microaggressions, and addressing these microaggressions in schools (p.441). I don’t believe the data is biased because they used the experiences of people of color to tell a “counter-story” (p. 445). I think this is extremely important because it is giving people of color the platform to share their voice, which is often pushed to the side. I found this article stood out to me because I enjoy reading about others experiences. It gives me a perspective that I am unfamiliar with. It also proves to me the importance of something as simple as learning someone’s name, and the way that simple act can set the tone for a classroom. This study did not particularly ask any questions, but rather pointed out the significance of names and long term effects of microaggressions.

This reading has reinforced for me that knowing names are so important. It has opened my eyes to the power I hold in my own classroom. I was actually shocked to read some of the experiences people have shared. The teacher naming a student Frank after himself, or a teacher calling a student shrub instead of their real name were moments that stood out the most to me. I find it hard to believe the educator and ​adult​ in the classroom didn’t realize the arrogance and harm behind the action. I can’t see someone having good intentions behind these situations. The rapport is immediately damaged and may be hard to build at all if a teacher can’t or won’t learn a student’s name. I was worried that asking a student how to pronounce their name or if I am saying it correctly would be embarrassing for them. If a student is already self conscious about their name, I would think having a person in a position of power putting the spotlight on them over their name would be nerve wracking. However, Kohli and Solórzano (2012) acknowledge that we should be asking for help and ​acknowledge that this is not the student’s fault we do not know how to say their name. I think this acknowledgement is crucial to this scenario. It takes the blame and weight off of the student and gives it to the educator. This is not to say that either party has done anything wrong, but acknowledges that the educator is learning and it is okay to not know something but be open to empathize and understand.

Love, B. L. (2019). ​We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom.​

Love begins this chapter discussing character education vs. civics education. As the author progresses further, this explanation of character education evolves into a practice in our educational system that is repressive and racist. As Love explains how the wording of character development in schools is detrimental to students as it focuses on grit and zest for students to be successful. Love alludes to a solution to this is by having a stronger community to support students. This can’t be just volunteer work, the community has to be close with strong relationships (p. 81). Chapter 5 starts off with the saying: “education can’t save us. We have to save education” (p.88). There is not one right way to do this, but trying to be an abolitionist educator is the only way to save education. As Love stated (2019), tweaking the system is not enough. Love continues to address the achievement gap that results from the way our schools are run, and the way it seeps into pop culture. Love concludes these chapters on a happier note. She concludes that joy is crucial for social change, and joy is crucial for teaching (p.119). I think Love brings a perspective that many educators are blind to. The only part of this chapter that I believe shows bias is the conclusion of joy being crucial for social change. I agree with this, but I think this is biased because it is much easier said than done to instill joy into educators. Our public education system is so wrecked (in my opinion), with little reform seeming to be planned, that I think it is quite difficult at times for educators to find their joy and keep it.

These chapters (and book) are a whirlwind of emotions for me. I have found this course at times to be mentally draining. However, everything I have read has made me think in ways I never have before, and I have been finding myself having conversations with friends and family based on the information I have read. It’s exciting to have information to speak about in an engaging way. Even if I have family members or friends disagree with points I deliver, a seed is planted and a conversation can spark change.

I’ve found myself checking my privilege a few times through these chapters. I’ve been going through waves of avoidance. I feel overwhelmed/pressured/mentally exhausted and drained and essentially “don’t want to look anymore”. That is a privilege I have. I also noted a privilege I have to never have considered my life being a civics project (p. 70). This leads me to a note I made in Chapter 5. Love talks about Abolitionist Teaching and how this isn’t a type of teaching, but a way of life. There is no set way it can be done as it depends on people, situations, and circumstances. Towards the end of the chapter, Love (p. 121) states “Recognizing and acknowledging white privilege is cute, but what does it mean without action?”. I am having conversations with friends, family, and slowly my students, but I want to make sure I am helping. A section of this chapter is titled “Tweaking the System is Not Enough”. Is it okay to start out as a tweak until I figure out what works? I might be overcomplicating the scenario in my head, but this is where I start to feel overwhelmed. I’m not in a position of power to change policies, and I don’t need to be this “savior” to the Black community. I’m hoping through my change in perspective, my actions and conversations are enough.

I also am challenging Love’s statement “new teachers walk into classrooms believing that inner city schools cannot have a strong community, caring parents, and brilliant, dark children” (pp. 92-93). I have to disagree with this statement as i think it can be a generalization. I know my experience is not everyone’s experience, ​but from my experience, I​ think there are a lot of new, young teachers who are excited to make a change and have this excitement to be involved. I think many of the new teachers don’t know how to establish a community in a place where there is not already a strong, interactive community. In my experience, I have established a community in my art room, but find it hard to branch out when I am surrounded by older teachers who tend to be biased and leave at their contracted time. I think to establish a community in any school environment, additional time is needed and many people don’t have the additional time or aren’t willing to give it. This leads me to another opinion: having a strong community is ​so ​important, and I think a lot of our societal problems would be solved or less severe if we weren’t such an individualistic society.

I want to end this section with a quote from Chapter 5 that settled my thinking a little. “Abolitionist teaching asks us to question the piece of the oppressor that lives in all of us” (p. 122). I am doing this because of this class and because of these readings (even though it hurts sometimes!). The key now is to never stop.