Yosso (2002) states that critical race pedagogy is “an approach to understanding curriculum structures, processes, and discourses informed by Critical Race Theory (CRT)” (p. 98). Yosso (2002) continues her discussion about race in education by following the five tenets of
39
CRT, as outlined in this text, and the accompanying tenets of critical race pedagogy would be as follows:
(1) acknowledge the central and intersecting roles of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of subordination in maintaining inequality in curricular structures, processes, and discourses;
(2) challenge dominant social and cultural assumptions regarding culture and intelligence, language and capability, objectivity and meritocracy; (3) direct the formal curriculum toward goals of social justice and the hidden
curriculum toward Freirean goals of critical consciousness;
(4) develop counter discourses through storytelling, narratives, chronicles, family histories, scenarios, biographies, and parables that draw on the lived experiences students of color bring to the classroom; and
(5) utilize interdisciplinary methods of historical and contemporary analysis to articulate the linkages between educational and societal inequality. (p. 98) These tenets of critical race pedagogy highlight the need to consider all areas of possible tensions within the framework of school. If schooling is designed to support
students, it is clear, as Yosso (2002) points out, that this is not always the case. Curriculum is often designed from the Western perspective and negates the specific histories of other cultures. It is important to challenge this ideology and in particular within this study
challenge the dominant discourse surrounding language, intelligence, and meritocracy. There are many types of curriculum and how you view these matters a great deal.
Apple (2004) speaks about the role and goal of various curricula. The intended curriculum is what is expected to be taught, while the implemented curriculum is what is
40
actually taught. These are quite clear and apparent to most educators. The hidden curriculum is what is learned that is not an intended part of the actual curriculum. It could be thought of as the side effects or what is taught on the periphery. This may be the importance of lining up in the hallway, or it might be the need to raise hands when speaking. The hidden curriculum is often problematic for both Inuit educators and students as the hidden curriculum contains a code that is taught throughout life. This code however is written using middle class White values. Finally, the null curriculum is what is not taught. The choice of what to teach is just as important as what not to teach. So, when Inuit educators are asked to teach, but most curriculum is not written from their perspective, the juxtaposition is very challenging. Choices of curriculum, what is taught, the language used to teach, and what is not taught must be considered from the perspective of the Inuk.
Both CRT and critical race pedagogy consider the structures of the school. Zamudio et al. (2011) discusses that the structure of the school and how it is enacted and the process of educating the students is not neutral. It is not neutral as education, policies, and the
enactment of these are put in place for specific reasons and purposes. Often these purposes are organized to “legitimate (i.e., justify) the disadvantages of student who are unequally impacted by these inherently biased practices and policies” (Zamudio et al., 2011, p. 95). These policies, which include curriculum, are used to educate and assimilate students. Zamudio et al. (2011) asserts that once inequalities are put in place, ideologies are created in order to support these injustices and build the conception that the inequalities are in fact normal. Often low academic success of marginalized students in this paradigm is viewed through the lens of the deficit model, as well as the meritocracy model, where these students
41
are blamed for their lack of success, regardless of structure, programs, policies, or curriculum that could be more supportive.
Curriculum choices are often decisions made in order to preference one group over another. In any curriculum document, choices must be made about what to include and what to exclude. These choices are often made with the dominant group in mind. Perez Huber, Johnson, and Kohli (2006) state that:
Curriculum reinforces the hierarchical status-quo of White supremacy and renders the race and cultures of non-Whites as inferior. The constant bombardment of messages embedded in curriculum about the superiority of Whites and inferiority of non-Whites (which can be explicit or implicit) can indoctrinate students about their placement of the racial hierarchy in relation to their races. This can contribute to internalized racism and potentially damage the self-concept of non-White students. (p. 193)
This is the curriculum in which the Inuit educators teach and the Inuit students learn. While there have been great strides in working towards a more culturally relevant curriculum, the overlay of preference given to English (or French) classes, and the focus on Eurocentric educational protocols, creates a great divide. This also holds true in regard to language planning. As will be shown in section 2.2, power and politics intertwine within education.