For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood... and the Rest of Y'all Too: Reality Pedagogy and Urban Education (Race, Education, and Democracy)

by Christopher Emdin

improve. I argue that if aspiring teachers from these programs were challenged to teach with an acknowledgment of, and respect for, the local knowledge of urban communities, and were made aware of how the models for teaching and recruitment they are a part of reinforce a tradition that does not do right by students, they could be strong assets for urban communities.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples defines the indigenous as people whose existence in a certain geographic location predates the region’s conquering or occupation by a colonial or imperialist power, and who see themselves as, or have been positioned as, separate from those who are politically or socially in command of the region.

As long as white middle-class teachers are recruited to schools occupied by urban youth of color, without any consideration of how they affirm and reestablish power dynamics that silence students, issues that plague urban education (like achievement gaps, suspension rates, and high teacher turnover) will persist.

The work for white folks who teach in urban schools, then, is to unpack their privileges and excavate the institutional, societal, and personal histories they bring with them when they come to the hood.

to teach directly to the students. Every educator who works with the neoindigenous must first recognize their students’ neoindigeneity and teach from the standpoint of an ally who is working with them to reclaim their humanity.

Once educators recognize that they are biased against forms of brilliance other than their own, they can finally begin to truly teach.

I have found that the two most powerful elements of a Pentecostal service, as related to pedagogy, are the call-and-response exchanges between preacher and congregation, which results in focus and engagement, and the solemn call to the altar that moves them to be reflective. I share video clips of these parts of a Pentecostal service with teachers to demonstrate the power of effective teaching. Pentecostal pedagogy is an approach to teaching that reminds us that teaching is not just telling students what you know; it is about knowing how to share what you know so that it can be optimally received.

They both use call-and-response (e.g., asking the congregation the question “Can I get an amen?” and waiting for the audience to put their hands up and respond) to ensure the crowd is engaged, use the volume of their voice to elicit certain types of responses, actively work the room, and make references to contemporary issues or respond to cues in the immediate environment to enliven their planned/scripted sermons and performances. I argue that the use of these techniques, which fall under the umbrella of Pentecostal pedagogy, is necessary for teaching urban youth of color. Pentecostal pedagogy can be transferred into nonreligious or secular places by invoking the emotional responses that exist within the spaces that the neoindigenous inhabit together. If rappers can adopt the pedagogical approaches developed in the black church and use them to connect to audiences of young people, then teachers can and should do the same.

It considers the language of the students, and incorporates it into the teaching by welcoming slang, colloquialisms, and “nonacademic” expressions, and then uses them to introduce new topics, knowledge, and conversations. It acknowledges and provides an escape from everyday oppression (which may come from interactions with the criminal justice system or schools) by creating a space to vent these frustrations and escape them even temporarily in a powerful learning space, and it considers the ties the student has to the outside world (neighborhood/community), reaching beyond the classroom (place) to a shared community experience.

Once the students’ voice is valued, the educator can work toward fostering family—crucial for the neoindigenous. Within urban communities, particularly within socioeconomically deprived places, those who do not have traditional family structures often create their own with other members of their community. Consequently, the same social and emotional ties that exist within traditional families exist in neoindigenous communities among the wide range of people within these communities. This is seen in the “church family,” “family gatherings” at barber shops and beauty salons, and many other complex variations of family that exist within these communities. These families may not share biological bonds but they do share values, language, and experiences (often around negative encounters with authority figures) that forge bonds as strong as or stronger than blood connections.

In the chapters that follow, I describe the chief complement to Pentecostal pedagogy in the form of tools associated with reality pedagogy. This approach consists of what I call the “Seven C’s”—cogenerative dialogues, coteaching, cosmopolitanism, context, content, competition, and curation. I will use the frameworks developed earlier to make powerful points about the type of pedagogy needed to teach in the hood, and provide practical examples of ways white folks who teach in the hood can implement this pedagogy to improve their instruction.

These dialogues begin with a small group of four students who meet with the teacher weekly. The meetings are held “in secret,” and not shared with the rest of the class.

Teachers who are looking to engage in reality pedagogy in order to better connect with students should begin the cogen process by fully understanding that its primary goal is to elicit information from the students about the learning environment and gain direct feedback from them on all aspects of the teacher’s instruction.

Identify students as possible participants in the cogen based on the different social, ethnic, or academic groups of which they are a part (e.g., a first cogen could consist of a high-achieving and low-achieving student paired with an engaged and disengaged student).

To begin the selection process, the teacher must actively elicit information from students. A teacher may choose to have students fill out cards in the beginning of the school year asking them to respond to questions that would not come up during the course of a traditional class. Questions like What is your favorite subject? What is your favorite meal? What is your ethnicity? Who is your favorite artist? Where are your parents from? give insight into youth realities that the teacher can use to create cogen groups.

For cogen sessions, particularly the first one, it is imperative that the teacher ensures that the initial group of students is not homogeneous.

Research indicates that the selection of a wide range of students in the initial dialogue leads to more productive and long-lasting sessions in the future. Such diversity in the cogen also leads to more opportunities for the teacher to understand the different realities of students in the classroom. For example, a student who is successful on classroom exams experiences the learning environment differently from one who doesn’t know what that type of success feels like. Similarly, an English-language learner and a native English speaker will have very different experiences of the same classroom.

To assist in the process of identifying the “opposites” necessary for cogens, teachers might dedicate a notebook to their observations of the unique demographics in the classroom, as a path to understanding the various connections among students. I suggest that teachers create lists of categories from their first day in the classroom and continue to build these lists as the school year develops. The development of these lists should occur with a goal of uncovering as many variations as possible among students, which in turn allows the teacher to understand and appreciate the dynamic nature of the classroom. Furthermore, engaging in this process allows the teacher to tailor instruction to the individual students in the classroom rather than teaching to a generic “urban student.”

Invite students who are identified as possible participants to take part in the dialogues. The purpose of the selection of students who are opposites, or who represent the diversity of the clas...

The invitation process should be respectful of students, their time, and their status/reputation in the classroom.

Teachers must remember that the invitation is exactly that, an invitation; students should not be pressured to participate and should feel free to opt out.

Teachers should be mindful of putting students at ease and emphasizing that participation in the cogen is a privilege, not a punishment.

For example, the initial invitation from the teacher can be posed in a similar way to the following: “I would like to have a conversation with you and a few of your classmates for two to three minutes after class. No, you’re not in trouble [before the student even responds]; I just wanted to get your thoughts on a few things.”

Furthermore, requesting the student’s thoughts during the invitation and prior to the cogen positions the student as a person of value from the onset and affects their willingness to participate.

Teachers should expect a certain amount of skepticism and reluctance from students invited to participate in cogens.

Arrange the physical space for the cypher and establish the rules.

that the neoindigenous already engage in. This means that the seats in the meeting place are positioned equidistant from each other and in a circle so participants can make eye contact with each other much in the same way that rappers arrange themselves in the hip-hop cypher.

Ideally, during the cogen, there is music playing in the backdrop (like in a rap cypher) that provides a rhythm to the conversation and creates a classroom ambiance that promotes dialogue. Choose a space that ensures the cogen group will not be seen or overheard by other students or adults, an empty classroom or office space, for example.

Teachers should plan the cogen around a meal or a snack. This immediately sets the tone of the dialogue as one of sharing and fellowship. Teachers should make every effort to have food available for the students once they arrive, and create a space where students are comfortable breaking bread together. The teacher can either compensate the students for their time by supplying a snack, or have them bring their lunch to the cogen (if the meeting takes place at lunchtim...

During the initial dialogue, the students go over the “rules” that will guide their cogens. Ideally this should happen as participants eat their lunch or a snack, in order to create an informal structure for the conversation. It is important for the teacher to let students know that these rules are simply guidelines to ensure that the cogen is successful and that all voices are heard; they are not punitive. Students should b...

The first of these rules is that during the dialogue, no voice is privileged over another. This rule can be extended to include the group’s acceptance that all students have equal turns at talk and have ample opportunities to constructively challenge each other and the teacher. The second rule, which comes from neoindigenous practices during performances (and is most evident during the cypher), is that there is only “one mic.” This means that only one person has the floor at any given time. Others may support or affirm, but only one person at a time serves as speaker. The last rule, which is the most significant one, is t...

No voice is privileged over another, or, “Everybody eats, everybody speaks.” • One person speaks at a time; or “one mic.” • The cogen results in a plan of action for improving the classroom.

The teacher must impress upon the students that if the established “rules of engagement” are violated by any member of the group (for example if one person dominates the dialogue or is not respectful of another member), the cogen group is collectively responsible for addressing the issue. This is the case even if the person who violates the rules is the teacher. To address the violation of the rules of engagement in a respectful manner and to ensure that no person feels outnumbered or alienated by the group, all dialogues within the cogen adhere strictly to the neoindigenous “one mic” philosophy of hip-hop/rap cyphers. For example, when rappers perform to and for each other in cyphers, they engage with a general understanding that no voice is privileged. Participants have equal opportunities to rap, and one person at a time holds the mic (whether an actual microphone or an imaginary one). Phrases like “one mic,” used in everyday neoindigenous interactions, establish for the students that the cogen is not an extension of the traditional classroom but a dynamic learning space that reimagines what happens in schools.

The second goal of the initial dialogue is for students to experience positive results from being a part of the conversation.

Therefore, the teacher should present an issue that the group can solve together. The first cogenerated action should be one that focuses on a small issue and an obvious and easily answered one.

Some examples of dialogue topics that are suitable for the first dialogue and that lend themselves to the initial engagement of all students are • suggestions of something the teacher can do within the first or last five minutes of the next class to either open or close the lesson; • identification of a good/positive practice that the teacher enacts in the classroom that he/she can do more often; and • identification of a practice all students in the cogen group can collectively do (including the teacher) to engage the students in the next class.

After the initial cogen, and when the participants in the dialogue return to the classroom with their peers, it is not only important for the teacher to be deliberate in enacting the cogenerated idea or suggestion, but to be explicit in letting participants know that he or she is doing so. This does not require any sort of official announcement, but the enactment of subtle indicators to students who were part of the cogen group that the plan of action is being implemented. This is particularly challenging for white folks who teach in the hood who are unaware of the nonverbal modes of communication of youth. My suggestion is for the teacher to ask students about nonverbal cues that they can use in the classroom to signal that they are implementing a suggestion generated in the cogen. Students have suggested that the teacher give eye contact and a head nod or lightly place their hand on students’ desks to indicate the enactment of the cogen plan. Enacting these nonverbal cues allows students to recognize the moments when the teacher is attempting to connect to them, and valuing their voices as participants in the cogen. When the teacher enacts a specific action that the cogen members can associate with a plan generated by the group, an awareness of the need to follow through on the plan is created.

been successfully repeated at least three times. Therefore, it is important to enact this cycle (cogenerated plan agreed upon by group, classroom implementation of cogenerated plan) at least three times with the same initially selected students so that they begin to see the entire process as more than a passing fad and more of a ritual that is part of being a student in a classroom that values their thoughts and opinions.

The initial cogen group should meet at least three times so that the cogen is established as a ritual and so that students see the plans of action they cogenerated being implemented in the classroom. • During the third cogen with the original group of students, the teacher should ask one of the cogen participants to invite a friend from the class (outside of the initial group) to participate in the next cogen. • The fourth cogen should include members of the initial group (the original four students) and the newly invited student. The new student is introduced by the other students to the cogen process, and is reminded of the improvements in the classroom that have recently happened as a result of the previous cogens. The “secret” of how the teacher has improved or why the classroom is running better is revealed to the new student. • After this fourth cogen with five students, the student who invited the new member to the dialogue is asked to opt out of the next round of cogens and concurrently asked to take on an assigned role in the classroom (like video recorder). The teacher explains that this will help keep the cogen group small, and emphasizes the significance of the new role the student will be taking on. (See chapter 6 for further details on the roles a student can take on after opting out of the cogen group.) The next cogen will consist of student experts who are now in their fifth cogen and the new student invited by the former cogen group member. These studen...

TEACHER: We have had these cyphers for a while now, and I think we can do more to get other people involved. I need other students to be a part of this, don’t you agree? STUDENTS: Yes (almost in unison). TEACHER: I also need someone from this group to work more in the classroom on collecting and distributing assignments for the class so I can concentrate more on implementing the suggestions you guys come up with in the cogens. (At this stage, most if not all of the students raise their hands or volunteer to take on the newly introduced role in the classroom, because they see it as continuing on with the agenda of the cogens, which is to improve the classroom.) TEACHER: Well, I don’t want everyone to take on this responsibility in the classroom because it is a lot. In fact, the person who takes on this role will not be able to be a part of the cogen group while they have this role because it is so important. The thing is that this person can invite someone else in the class to be a part of the cogen. They then become an honorary member. Almost like they graduated. STUDENT A: I’ll volunteer. I can handle that. STUDENT B: I don’t mind doing it either. TEACHER: It’s your group and your class. I’ll let you guys decide and let us know what you decide later.

In response to the broken version of coteaching in special education classrooms in particular and in classrooms generally, I propose a reality pedagogy–based version of coteaching. This version deconstructs the ways that we previously have viewed coteaching by identifying and focusing on the transformative power of having more than one classroom leader/teacher in the classroom, and then extending the role of teacher/leader to students. This may require positioning the traditional teacher as a student in the classroom. Coteaching within reality pedagogy involves the transfer of student/teacher roles so that everyone within the classroom can gain the opportunity to experience teaching and learning from the other’s perspective. Furthermore, it requires a redistribution of power in the classroom that returns to the essence of teaching—privileging the voice of the student. The Coteaching Classroom: Student as Expert

The teacher has to present the students with the larger contexts/information that shape how and why they teach the way they do so that the students can model how to work with the existing structures/resources and still be effective. I argue that the resilience required for being neoindigenous in contemporary America equips young people for being able to navigate the challenges of urban teaching.

It also reminded me that when given an opportunity to teach with the same challenges that traditional teachers do, they will show how it can be done because they are well equipped to adapt to conditions that are less than ideal.

However, instead of having two teachers work together to create a lesson, two students or more are asked to not only teach the class but take on all the responsibilities that the teacher has for delivering the content effectively. This includes writing a lesson plan, aligning it to standards, identifying examples to be used during the lesson, finding teaching resources, arranging the seats in the class, and finding a method for the assessment of the teaching.

Given the responsibilities the students now have (that the teachers previously had), the teacher has to provide them with the same resources that other teachers have when teaching. This means that the teacher has to provide the students who are coteaching with previous lesson plans, teacher manuals, websites the teacher gathers resources from, and any other teacher materials that are used to supplement instruction. Once these materials are shared with students, they are given the full responsibility of teaching and are then graded by the teacher on the quality of their lesson plans and criteria that the teacher is usually assessed on. Rather than grading students for tasks like homework assignments and tests, the reality-pedagogy coteaching model assesses their content knowledge through how they design and teach their lessons.

For example, while students are teaching the class, it is important for the teacher to sit in a seat where a student normally does and not interrupt the teaching. While in the student’s seat, the teacher may takes notes on the ways that the students teach, document what they are doing differently from what the teacher would do, and pay attention to the content that is being delivered. Particular attention should be paid to the examples that students use and the ways they interact with each other; it is in these small expressions of neoindigeneity through words, expressions, and examples that the magic of teaching is revealed.

Reality pedagogy functions with the general principle that the work of raising rigor or guiding students to think more deeply is achieved through identifying phenomena that emotionally connects or motivates the student, and that the most significant emotional connections we have are to the art we consume1 and the most powerful and healthy emotional releases we have is through this art we create.2