Teacher Leadership For Social Justice Building A Curriculum For Liberation Revised First Ed Edition Full Chapter

(eBook PDF) Teacher Leadership for
Social Justice: Building a Curriculum

for Liberation Revised First ed. Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-teacher-leadership-for-social-justice-bu
ilding-a-curriculum-for-liberation-revised-first-ed-edition/
05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social
Justice
2. CRITICAL SOCIAL JUSTICE
ISSUES AND TEACHER LEADERSHIP 85
READING 1 THE PEDAGOGY OF POVERTY 91
BY G LO R IA LA DS O N - B I LLI N G S
READING 2 GETTING REAL ABOUT THE “MODEL MINORITY” 101
BY CAROLL BRYDOLF
READING 3 CREATING SAFE SCHOOLS FOR QUEER YOUTH 109
B Y K I M B E R LY C O S I E R
READING 4 BATHROOMS AND BEYOND 133
BY CASSIUS ADAIR
READING 5 KILL SANTA 139
BY ÖZLEM SENSOY
READING 6 SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 151
BY C RYSTAL T. LAU RA
Spotlight167
Response173
3. CURRICULUM POLICY AND TEACHER

LEADERSHIP175
READING 1 TEACHER CANDIDATES RECONCILE “THE CHILD
AND THE CURRICULUM” WITH “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” 181
BY FRANCIS A. SAMUEL AND BERNADYN SUH
READING 2 COMMON CORE STANDARDS 193

BY CHRISTOPHER H. TIENKEN
READING 3 SELECTION FROM BAD TEACHER! HOW BLAMING

TEACHERS DISTORTS THE BIGGER PICTURE 201
BY KEVIN K. KUMASHIRO
READING 4 CRITICAL RACE THEORY, MULTICULTURAL

EDUCATION, AND THE HIDDEN CURRICULUM OF HEGEMONY 215
BY MICHELLE JAY
viii TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Justice
READING 5 COUNTER-MEMORY AND RACE: AN EXAMINATION
OF AFRICAN AMERICAN SCHOLARS’ CHALLENGES TO EARLY
TWENTIETH CENTURY K-12 HISTORICAL DISCOURSES 227
BY ANTHONY L. BROWN
Spotlight245
Response251
4. CURRICULUM POSSIBILITIES 253

READING 1 EAGLE ROCK SCHOOL: A “MIS-EQUATION” FOR
GREATNESS—HOW A CURRICULUM BASED ON 8 + 5 = 10
TEACHES AND TRANSFORMS 257
BY AMY FISHER YOUNG
READING 2 CENTRAL ACADEMY: LIVING A DEMOCRATIC

FRAMEWORK277
BY SUSAN L. M. BARTOW
READING 3 THE SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PROJECT 291
BY J U LIO CAM MAROTA AN D AUG U STI N E F. ROM ERO
READING 4 WHAT’S DEMOCRACY GOT TO DO WITH TEACHING? 305
BY DEBORAH MEIER
READING 5 TEACHERS AS LEADERS IN FINLAND 311
BY PASI SAHLBERG
Spotlight319
Response323
SELECTED READINGS 325
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix

Justice
NOTE ON LANGUAGE
A
s editors, we have worked to be very cautious about the
language choices we have made throughout this text.
We acknowledge language to be fluid, not fixed, and
ever-evolving. We have worked to use terms that most
accurately represent a critical social justice perspective from our own
positionalities. Other authors within the text also write from their
own positionality, so, for example, while we have chosen to not use the
term minority honoring Deborah Davis’s work, we recognize that other
authors may use this term in their writing. Here we offer an explanation
for our language choices:
• We have chosen to use the terms “Black,” “white,” and “people

of color” to represent races. We use terms specifically as they
relate to the topic at hand. Because language is a powerful tool,
we have intentionally have lowercased “white” as an effort to
decenter whiteness. We realize this is something that requires far
more than the (de)capitalization of letters, but for us this is a start
within out writing. Additionally, we acknowledge it is troubling
to discuss race without automatically “othering” people of color
(Leonardo, 2002). Historically, whites have assumed superiority,
xi

Justice
therefore when whites speak, they assume everything is in the context of themselves, something
we have not been able to avoid throughout this text, but remain cognizant, and ask our white
readers to keep this at the forefront as they read.
• We have chosen to use the term Latin@ as an inclusive gender-neutral term for people with
origins from a Latin American heritage. Some conflate this term with Hispanics, however
Hispanic is typically connected to governmental use of the term for statistical purposes. Those
from Brazil, Belize, and other indigenous people who live in Latin America often aren’t included
in the term Hispanic because of its exclusion based on language. Latin@ is intended to focus on
the geographic origins of people and not only language. We acknowledge that there are many
diverse and distinct experiences within the Latin@ community, such as Chican@s or Puerto
Ricans, who have been colonized by the United States and thus it is always encouraged to refer to
Latin@ communities as specifically as possible (Oboler, 1998).
• We use the term queer as an umbrella term for members within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
trans*community. As Kimberly Cosier explains in her piece, we acknowledge the term as histori-
cally negative, but that is has been reclaimed by many now to be used positively. We realize even
saying “LGBT” is not exhaustive of the many identities that might fall within this category and
always encourage people use terms as specifically as they can and in terms of how people wish to
be identified. More specifically, we use the term trans* to also complicate a wide array of identi-
ties often put upon transgender people and to be inclusive of all trans identities. We understand
that this term is not embraced by all, but we are explicit here with the reasons we have chosen to
use this term as cisgendered people.
• We use the term dis/ability instead of disability to disrupt understandings of ability. “Disability”
focuses on the specific inability to perform “culturally defined expected tasks” such as learning
or walking and defines individuals primarily on what they are not able to do (Connor, Ferri, &
Annamma, 2016).
As Matias (2016) explains, “the English language is an evolving and powerful tool to express myriad
points of view” (p. xvii) and thus we acknowledge that this use of terms are reflective of this point in time
and will continue to change.
We would live to give a special thanks to Dr. Z Nicolazzo, Dr. Hannah Noel, Dr. Lamar Johnson and Dr.
Elyse Hambacher for their input and conversations related to language.
xii TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Justice
REFERENCES
Connor, D. J, Ferri, B. A., & Annamma, S. A. (2016). DisCrit: Disability Studies and Critical Race Theory
in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Leonardo, Z. (2002). The Souls of White Folk: critical pedagogy, Whiteness studies, and globalization
discourse. Race, Ethnicity, and Education 5(1), 29-50.
Matias, C. E. (2016). Feeling White: Whiteness, Emotionality, and Education. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Oboler, S. (1998). Hispanics? That’s what they call us. In R. Delgado & J. Stefanic (Eds.), The Latino/a
condition: A critical reader (3-5). New York: New York University Press.
Note on Language xiii

Justice
NOTE FROM THE ILLUSTRATOR
E
very piece of art I have authored is a love letter to someone
special in my life. Except for one piece, every piece of art
I complete is given willingly and unreservedly to a person
that I care for. While collaborating in both the brainstorm-
ing and execution of this piece, every brushstroke that brought this
illustration to life was a concerted effort. It was born from love, admira-
tion, and fellowship. The inspiration behind this artwork comes from
the colleagues I engage with on a daily basis. People who choose to
advocate for their fellow brethren. Although it is impossible to live fully
in someone’s skin and walk in their footsteps, if we are to become true
advocates for social justice, we have to become comfortable with being
uncomfortable.
At times, choosing to resist, to forgive, to speak up, to challenge, and
most important, to love are not the easiest things to do. These actions
require that we check our implicit bias and come to terms with how we
came to have them in the first place. It is a commitment that requires
owning everything you are, everything you are not, and everything you
have the potential of becoming.
Esteemed colleagues, I leave you with a quote by César Chávez who once
said,
It is possible to become discouraged about the injustice we see

everywhere. But God did not promise us that the world would
be human and just. He gives us the gift of life and allows us to
choose the way we will use our limited time on earth. It is an
awesome opportunity.
I ask that you reflect on these words and breathe life into your own
dreams of making a difference in this world. Now, what would your first
step be in making these dreams a reality?
◆◆◆◆
xv

Justice
Esther Claros-Berlioz holds a BA in Communications and Graphic Design as well as a Masters of Science
in Organizational Leadership. She is currently a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership, Culture,
and Curriculum Program at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Claros-Berlioz is interested in the bio-
politics of immigration and the relationality between aesthetics, citizenship, and race.
Book Cover Discussion Questions
Images sometimes can provide just as much of a message as the text in a paper. After reading Esther’s note
on the cover illustration, we believe that there are many discussion questions that can be asked for you, as
a student of teaching, to reflect upon. This can either be done prior to taking your course assigned to this
text, or during … or even after. We encourage you to reflect upon the image on the cover and consider
your thoughts, emotions, reactions to this image throughout your time learning to teach. Below are a few
questions to guide you in this inquiry.
1. After reading the note from the illustrator, what does the “author” of this illustration expect you to
know and value?
2. What do the authors of this text/the illustrator want you to feel or think?
3. Describe the colors, hue, and lines. What do those communicate to you about the content of the
book?
4. Who, of all the authors in this book, do you associate most with this image? Why?
5. Who is this image designed for? Who is this image not for?
6. If you named the individual on the cover, what name would you give?
7. What does the individual see in the field of vision not available to us as the viewers? Why is it not
available to us visually?
8. How can we “read” this image for Tatum’s 7 categories of ‘otherness?’ Which categories are included,
and which are left out? (see page 43)
9. Do you see anything that is the same about yourself and this individual?
10 . If you had to describe this individual in 3 words, what would they be?
11 . After reading this image, how would you define social justice?
xvi TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Justice
PREFACE
T
eacher Leadership for Social Justice offers a critical interpretation
for what we believe is needed for educators to become leaders
for Critical Social Justice (CSJ) in schools. We open up this text
with a short piece by Margaret Wheatley called “Willing to Be
Disturbed.” This short yet brilliantly written text captures so many of the
early questions and positions that we want beginning teachers to consider,
particularly the assumption that knowing yourself is fostered, dialectically
and exponentially, by your willingness to consider multiple points of view
that challenge your own. Only then can we test what we think we know,
and then shift, adapt, and grow our beliefs. The themes of discomfort and
vulnerability permeate our text and we will continuously come back to this
in each section. While you might feel you are on an emotional roller coaster
at times, we ask you to stay committed in your journey to becoming an
educator for CSJ.
Our approach to CSJ begins with teachers examining their own beliefs,
biases, and worldviews. In Section I we introduce you to selections centered on
critical reflection, identity, and critical frameworks we believe will guide you
on your journey. Here we hope you begin to work through a healthy tension
between learning “techniques” in your teacher education and teaching from
your heart. In Section II, we unpack CSJ issues impacting schools. As teacher
leaders, you must have a contextual understanding of issues of oppression if
you aim to work against them. For some, this might be the first time grappling
with these issues, particularly if they don’t seem to relate to you in any way. It
is at this point that you must begin to ask yourself what new knowledge you
will need to gain to become a teacher for CSJ. Given that the teaching force

Justice
remains predominantly white, middle-class, and monolingual—while the student population continues
to diversify—race is an identity that intersects each of these issues and we ask that you keep them at the
forefront of your self-analysis and critique.
In Section III, we highlight critical issues impacting educational policy, both through historical and
contemporary lenses. The selections we offer in this section give a brief overview of these issues, but we
assert if you are truly committed to teaching for CSJ, you should do more homework to unlearn and
relearn your historical assumptions. As Adams et al. (2016) explain, “understanding these historical lega-
cies is essential for making sense of the maintenance and reproduction of oppression in contemporary
life, and provides inspiration and examples of resistance and activism that can encourage students and
participants to consider ways to take action in the present” (p. x). With that in mind, in Section IV, we
offer leadership examples through teachers and systems alike that aim to work toward CSJ in meaningful
ways. None of these examples are meant to be how-to models, for that is not the work of CSJ. Examples
are meant to be tools for inspiration and creativity. We believe that you must be creators of knowledge,
and for teachers, this is often done through pedagogy and curriculum. We need to learn from our past,
learn from each other, and then continue to find ways to create conditions that allow our students to
empower themselves.
We come to this work with a critical lens. We bring with us informed knowledge, convictions, and our
own biases. Rather than creating an illusion of objectivity, we wish to own the positions we are coming
from because we will ask you to do the same. In the interest of authenticity and our own vulnerability, we
share with you our brief positionalities that connect our personal identities to our teaching.
BRITTANY’S STORY
I believe that as much as we may try to be objective in our positions and perspectives, it is nearly
impossible to separate ourselves from the ideologies, beliefs, and experiences that have shaped who we
are. My personal lens will influence my standpoint and my ability to reflect on certain situations. My
own intersectionality includes the identity of a white, middle-class, cisgender/heterosexual, Christian
spiritual woman, former elementary teacher, and now a teacher educator. Each facet of my identity has
determined where I am today and how this will affect my future research and teaching. Growing up in
ethnically diverse South Florida, I never thought about having a white privilege. However, over time I
came to acknowledge the advantages my whiteness afforded me, but this is definitely something that I
did not accept after one reading or one class—in fact, I remember rejecting this notion in my first social
justice class when we read Peggy McIntosh’s (1989) “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.”
It was painful to realize my own role in the hegemonic project of white supremacy as I denied who I was
for so long. But it has also fueled my desire to work with preservice teachers who are grappling with their
own understandings of privilege and how we can transition from guilt to action. Other intersections of
my privilege include class, sexuality, and religion. Perhaps the most difficult thing I had to work through
was my own understandings of how sexual orientation was at odds with my “religious beliefs,” and this
took me time to reject what had been taught to me to come to my own understandings that were in line
2 TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Justice
with my commitment to social justice. I share this with my students because I do not come to this work
with the arrogance suggesting it’s been an easy journey given all the privileges I was born into. And I do
not suggest my journey is finished. As I have preached to students numerous times, we must continuously
teach ourselves. This often requires the unlearning of what has been taught to us, and the relearning of
it. For those who claim to love their students, and assert they aim to humanize their students, I believe
we owe it to them to deeply explore who we are—as teachers—particularly if we come from privileged
identities, so that we can continually work to be the best version of ourselves.
TOM’S STORY
I am a straight, white, male, middle-aged college professor. I have been married for almost 30 years and
have two adult sons. I have devoted my life’s work for the past 22 years to teacher education in higher
education in one form or another, with about half my time spent with beginning teachers and the other
half spent with veteran teachers doing graduate work. Before that I taught high school school and
coached sports. And before that I trained for the ministry in a seminary program. I have loved being in
education in all its forms for nearly 30 years, and remain hopeful and I hope, helpful, as society makes
its way forward in addressing some of the key issues of our time. I have thought a lot about growing up
in a relatively safe, middle-class, small town in Ohio, and wrote a book about it (Poetter, 2014). During
the process of telling that story, I realized the depths of my privilege, and the legacy of values and
strengths that accrued to me because of my upbringing. Both my parents were college educated, my
father a Protestant minister (he died at age 55 in 1976) and my mother an occupational therapist who
went back to work late in life to finish raising four children on her own. She put three of us through
college, and raised my oldest sister to adulthood; Anne, who passed in 2008, was born with Down’s
syndrome in the 1950s. My resolve is to help teachers and educators of all kinds to engage the work
more deeply, to look past perceived deficits in society’s structures and people, and to enjoy the work
of teaching and learning in such a vibrant, dynamic period in history. And ultimately, I intend to pass
along my life in service to others, paying forward, if you will, the great legacy of support that I have
received my entire lifetime.
Each section will provide five to six selections related to the theme as well as discussion questions at
the end of each piece. We also close each section with a SPOTLIGHT feature that includes a recent
op-ed, activist piece related to the topics at hand. These pieces are meant to be provocative and shed light
from various perspectives on how the many difficult topics we are introducing you to impact people
and communities. Section II is slightly different, as we provide student narratives from our classes as
a way to incorporate student voices into the process and allow you to see how they have grappled with
learning about these topics. We believe learning to be a reciprocal process and have learned much from
our preservice teachers as well.
PREFACE 3

Justice
REFERENCES
Adams, M., & Bell, L. A. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. (3rd ed.) New York:
Routledge.
McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and freedom, 49(4),
10–12.
Poetter, T. S. (2014). 50 Christmases. San Clemente, CA: Sourced Media Books.

Justice
WILLING TO BE DISTURBED
TURNING TO ONE ANOTHER: SIMPLE CONVERSATIONS
TO RESTORE HOPE TO THE FUTURE
BY Margaret J. Wheatley
A
s we work together to restore hope to the future, we
need to include a new and strange ally—our willingness
to be disturbed. Our willingness to have our beliefs and
ideas challenged by what others think. No one person or
perspective can give us the answers we need to the problems of today.
Paradoxically, we can only find those answers by admitting we don’t
know. We have to be willing to let go of our certainty and expect our-
selves to be confused for a time.
We weren’t trained to admit we don’t know. Most of us were taught
to sound certain and confident, to state our opinion as if it were true. We
haven’t been rewarded for being confused. Or for asking more questions
rather than giving quick answers. We’ve also spent many years listening
to others mainly to determine whether we agree with them or not. We
don’t have time or interest to sit and listen to those who think differently
than we do.
But the world now is quite perplexing. We no longer live in those
sweet, slow days when life felt predictable, when we actually knew what
to do next. We live in a complex world, we often don’t know what’s going
on, and we won’t be able to understand its complexity unless we spend
more time in not knowing.
Margaret J. Wheatley, “Willing to Be Disturbed,” Turning to One Another: Simple

Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future, pp. 38-43. Copyright © 2009 by Berrett-
Koehler Publishers. Reprinted with permission.

Justice
It is very difficult to give up our certainties—our positions, our beliefs, our explanations. These help
define us; they lie at the heart of our personal identity. Yet I believe we will succeed in changing this
world only if we can think and work together in new ways. Curiosity is what we need. We don’t have to
let go of what we believe, but we do need to be curious about what someone else believes. We do need to
acknowledge that their way of interpreting the world might be essential to our survival.
We live in a dense and tangled global system. Because we live in different parts of this complexity,
and because no two people are physically identical, we each experience life differently. It’s impossible for
any two people to ever see things exactly the same. You can test this out for yourself. Take any event that
you’ve shared with others (a speech, a movie, a current event, a major problem) and ask your colleagues
and friends to describe their interpretation of that event. I think you’ll be amazed at how many different
explanations you’ll hear. Once you get a sense of the diversity, try asking even more colleagues. You’ll end
up with a rich tapestry of interpretations that are much more interesting than any single one.
To be curious about how someone else interprets things, we have to be willing to admit that we’re
not capable of figuring things out alone. If our solutions don’t work as well as we want them to, if our
explanations of why something happened don’t feel sufficient, it’s time to begin asking others about what
they see and think. When so many interpretations are available, I can’t understand why we would be
satisfied with superficial conversations where we pretend to agree with one another.
There are many ways to sit and listen for the differences. Lately, I’ve been listening for what surprises
me. What did I just hear that startled me? This isn’t easy—I’m accustomed to sitting there nodding my
head to those saying things I agree with. But when I notice what surprises me, I’m able to see my own
views more clearly, including my beliefs and assumptions.
Noticing what surprises and disturbs me has been a very useful way to see invisible beliefs. If what
you say surprises me, I must have been assuming something else was true. If what you say disturbs me,
I must believe something contrary to you. My shock at your position exposes my own position. When I
hear myself saying, “How could anyone believe something like that?” a light comes on for me to see my
own beliefs. These moments are great gifts. If I can see my beliefs and assumptions, I can decide whether
I still value them.
I hope you’ll begin a conversation, listening for what’s new. Listen as best you can for what’s different,
for what surprises you. See if this practice helps you learn something new. Notice whether you develop a
better relationship with the person you’re talking with. If you try this with several people, you might find
yourself laughing in delight as you realize how many unique ways there are to be human.
We have the opportunity many times a day, everyday, to be the one who listens to others, curious
rather than certain. But the greatest benefit of all is that listening moves us closer. When we listen with
less judgment, we always develop better relationship with each other. It’s not differences that divide us. It’s
our judgments about each other that do. Curiosity and good listening bring us back together.
Sometimes we hesitate to listen for differences because we don’t want to change. We’re comfortable
with our lives, and if we listened to anyone who raised questions, we’d have to get engaged in changing
things. If we don’t listen, things can stay as they are and we won’t have to expend any energy. But most
of us do see things in our life or in the world that we would like to be different. If that’s true, we have to
listen more, not less. And we have to be willing to move into the very uncomfortable place of uncertainty.

Justice
We can’t be creative if we refuse to be confused. Change always starts with confusion; cherished
interpretations must dissolve to make way for the new. Of course it’s scary to give up what we know,
but the abyss is where newness lives. Great ideas and inventions miraculously appear in the space of not
knowing. If we can move through the fear and enter the abyss, we are rewarded greatly. We rediscover
we’re creative.
As the world grows more strange and puzzling and difficult, I don’t believe most of us want to keep
struggling through it alone. I can’t know what to do from my own narrow perspective. I know I need a
better understanding of what’s going on. I want to sit down with you and talk about all the frightening
and hopeful things I observe, and listen to what frightens you and gives you hope. I need new ideas and
solutions for the problems I care about. I know I need to talk to you to discover those. I need to learn to
value your perspective, and I want you to value mine. I expect to be disturbed by what I hear from you.
I know we don’t have to agree with each other in order to think well together. There is no need for us to
be joined at the head. We are joined by our human hearts.
We never know who we are

Margaret Wheatley and we all know to be there
one of us tells a dream
We never know who we are
(this is strange, isn’t it?) and we all breath life into it
one of us asks “why?”
or what vows we made
or who we knew and we all know the answer.
It is very strange.
or what we hoped for
or where we were We never know who we are.
when the world’s dreams

were seeded.
Until the day just one of us

sighs a gentle longing
and we all feel the change
one of us calls a name
Willing to be Disturbed 7

Justice
SECTION ONE
CRITICAL SELF-REFLECTION
AND TEACHER LEADERSHIP
O
ver the years while teaching a course on teacher leadership for preservice
teachers—working with students, coaching instructors, and struggling
to maintain central commitments to ideas, processes, and norms in our
courses—we have always come back to the central tenets that drive the
work we do. This work runs counter to the typically technical and position-oriented
notions of teacher leadership that dominate the literature and our discourse about it in
teacher education programs: Those who become teachers have to interrogate themselves,
their assumptions and beliefs, and their commitments, reasons for going into teaching,
and strategies for sticking with it when times get tough, in order to locate and nurture the
crucial spark that feeds the work and joy of learning with students for a lifetime.
This lifetime process of interrogation and questioning makes up the central project of
teacher leadership; that is, knowing yourself, cultivating strengths, working on recognized
weaknesses (then looking deeper at what we take for granted!), being open to self-critique,
growing, constantly learning, collaborating with colleagues, searching for answers,
moving—not standing still, as if a college degree and student teaching constitute the end
of the line for preparing to teach. Preparation for teaching is a lifetime endeavor, a joyful
one, a difficult one—a most rewarding one. But leadership is mostly about movement, not
stasis. Leadership is about what we do, our functions, and who we are as people, not so
much about the positions we hold or our titles.
In this day and age in which the notion of a teacher-proof curriculum, even a teacher-
proof classroom (as if a curriculum or teaching function could be supplied by just anyone

Justice
off the street, even someone unprepared for teaching, or artificial intelligence like a robot or computer),
not only crowds our future but actually constitutes the future of practice in some places (see, for instance,
the virtual online public schools or the rise of the home schooling movement), we must work as hard as
possible to claim and reclaim the function of teacher in the learning act, in the establishment of relation-
ships among students, families, and their communities, and in the cultivation of professional relations
among all staff in schools.
People need to live and work together in schools, sharing space and ideas and practices, in order to
serve all children and their communities well. Even as technology plays a more prominent role in our
work and in our social lives, growing seemingly exponentially in power, teachers need to work face-
to-face with children, their families, communities, and fellow teachers to fulfill several of the crucial
functions of public schooling. This not only includes the academic learning and personal becoming that
come with growth as we age, but also manifests in the critical commitments to citizenship in a democratic
republic, one that rests its future on the abilities of a public that can discern, deliberate on, and decide
its present and future. Citizens can gain these skills and qualities in schools, and they should. Teacher
leaders can help to grow them and strengthen society, and it is important for teacher leaders to nurture
this growth. But to do this, they must be aware of the contexts of their schools and the communities in
which they teach.
As a matter of fact, the demographic realities of schools are taking shape and shifting as we write
this book. By 2025 or so, students of color will become the majority in public schools, all while the
number and percentage of teachers of color continue to decrease (Cooper, Nava, & Huh, 2010; Rich,
2015). We realize then that we can’t take several things for granted. First, even though we know, histori-
cally, white teachers have been found to hold deficit views and have lower expectations for students of
color (Ferguson, 2003; Sleeter, 2001), we can’t assume that all white teachers will be culturally illiterate
or incapable of growth. That is, we can’t assume white teachers will never be able to learn, connect with,
and teach students different from themselves in terms of religion, sexuality, gender, and class, in addition
to race (Sleeter, 2016). Additionally, while we know that teachers of color can achieve higher results on
achievement tests from students of color (Goldhaber & Hansen 2010), we can’t assume that teachers
of color automatically embody a culturally relevant pedagogy that involves deeper learning for these
students. “Culturally relevant teachers are not all of color, and not all teachers of color are culturally
relevant teachers” (Durden, Dooley, & Truscott, 2014, p. 2). So how do we position ourselves, exploring
our experiences, to become teachers who are accepting, not merely tolerant, and continuously challenge
ourselves and our deeply held social and cultural biases and beliefs?
Within this section, Critical Self-Reflection and Teacher Leadership, we introduce these ideas through
five short pieces that interrogate initial questions about self and identity, and discuss how the notion of
difference plays a critical role in teacher leadership. To begin, Kate Rousmaniere introduces her explo-
ration of educational memory in “From Memory to Curriculum.” Kate is a colleague and educational
historian; when she began working on this manuscript, she wondered about the intersection of self-
development in terms of how memory informs teaching, especially when it comes to challenging our
long-held assumptions about the world, experience, and our lives in schools. She artfully connects her
early school memories with her interpretations of a different set of images held in the mind’s eye and life

Justice
experiences of her college roommate, Jessie, who had a different set of life and school experiences grow-
ing up. Her insightful closing lines surface key ideas about the value of autobiography and self-knowledge
for teaching:
That I was successful in school says more about tracking and classism in education than
about my own individual accomplishments and abilities. I suppose in some way I always
knew these issues personally, but it was autobiographical reflection that helped me turn the
lessons of my life into curricular objectives. (Rousmaniere, 2000, p. 97)
Since teachers are predominantly white (84%), and often come from middle-class backgrounds, their
educational autobiographies may not reflect the experiences or values of students of color and those living
in poverty. So Rousmaniere’s piece challenges us to consider how our memories are situated, particularly
in our own single narratives. This pushes us to consider the vast array of experiences that students have,
which Rousmaniere hints at. But, in the end, throughout your teaching career, you must explore more
critically your personal story of coming to teach.
Parker Palmer shares his classic exploration of the roots of teaching in “The Heart of a Teacher.” He
offers his famous adage, “We teach who we are,” suggesting the critical knowledge of self as the founda-
tion of teaching. In fact, Palmer argues, it’s not so much what we know about subjects and topics and
such, but more about the fact that when we teach we mainly communicate who we are:
Here is a secret hidden in plain sight: good teaching cannot be reduced to a technique: good
teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher. (Palmer, 1997, p. 67)
As we think about identity and integrity in teaching, we continue to realize that students of teaching
typically get a continuous diet of method and technique in their courses and field experiences in teacher
education programs, and even in their master’s programs, including our own. What we suggest is that
students question and critique this focus, especially as they struggle to connect their own positionality to
the positionalities of students and teachers in the settings they inhabit as educators. As professionals, we
have to mortgage this notion that we already know how to teach, and continuously explore new avenues,
new ideas, new approaches to teaching and learning. This is the process that never stops in teaching and
that feeds excellence.
Beverly Tatum introduces the reader to broad themes related to oppression, suggesting a turning point
in the section in terms of the role that self-reflection plays in becoming a teacher. Those occupying the
dominant classes—with racial, economic and gender superiority, as granted by the broader culture—must
attend to the issues related to difference, especially teachers, who may fall prey to a taken-for-granted
status, and thus become even further distanced from students and true self-knowledge: In the absence of
dissonance, the dimension of identity escapes conscious attention (Tatum, 2000, p. 11).
We must be in tune with our identities, not only inasmuch as they influence our ways of seeing the
world and acting, but also as they reflect what others make of us, the power they give us or deny us, and
the social role we play in pushing toward equity for all. Our goal, beyond the comfort that may come
Critical Self-Reflection and Teacher Leadership 11

Justice
with knowing ourselves better, is the possibility of connecting deeply with others, and building strong
connections with them, in the classroom and in communities:
Our ongoing examination of who we are in our full humanity, embracing all of our identi-
ties, creates the possibility of building alliances that may ultimately free us all. (Tatum, 2000,
p. 12)
In addition to the ongoing examination of ourselves, we must critically examine the assumptions we
bring with us to schools. In one example, Robert Cooper, Pedro Nava, and Cheong Huh reconceptual-
ize the idea of “parental involvement” that often emerges from deficit thinking and normative ways of
acknowledging families’ engagement in their child’s education. Yosso (2005) argues that communities of
color have other forms of cultural capital, which she calls community cultural wealth, that don’t necessar-
ily align with Eurocentric schooling practices. Yosso’s framework identified six forms of cultural capital
that students of color bring with them to school that do not align with white middle-class values, yet are
forms of capital beneficial in their communities.
Aspirational capital is “the ability to hold onto hope in the face of structured inequality and
often without the means to make dreams a reality” (p. 77)
Linguistic capital refers to “the intellectual and social skills attained through communica-
tion experiences in more than one language or style” (p. 78)
Familial capital encompasses a broad definition of family and extends this concept to include
other social networks and resources (p. 79)
Social capital includes “networks of people and community resources” (p. 79)
Navigational capital explains how people of color learn to navigate institutions that were
“not created with people of color in mind” (p. 80)
Resistant capital refers to the “knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior
that challenge inequality” (p. 80)
In this article, we see how Latin@ families often view educación differently from white families, and as
teachers, we need to be continuously reminded that our positionalities and values may not align with
our students’. How we respond to these interactions with students, the relationships we foster with them
and their families, and the curricular decisions we make will all impact our ability to dismantle deficit
thinking or to continue forcing assimilation and invisibility.
Lastly, Adrienne Dixson and Vanessa Dodo Seriki explore intersectionality, that complex meeting
point of race, class, and gender, among other aspects of difference, highlighting the deeper points that

Justice
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Whatever outward respect Charles may have voluntarily offered to
the prejudices and observances of Spanish ceremony, he, and
perhaps the blushing Infanta, thought it very cumbersome love-work
for young hearts. Words had passed between them, it is true, but
only through the medium of an interpreter, and always in the
presence of the king, for Philip “sat hard by, to overhear all,” and
understand if he could, the interpretations made by Lord Bristol.
Weary of this restraint, the prince soon found means, or rather an
opportunity, to break through the pompous obstacles which opposed
the good old plan of love-making, and he, with Endymion Porter to
attend him, did not fail to profit by the occasion. Near the city, but
across the river, the king had a summer-house, called Casa di
Campo. Charles discovered that the Infanta was accustomed to go
very often of a morning to gather May-dew. The knight and esquire,
accordingly, donning a silken suit for a spring morning, went out
betimes, and arrived without let or hindrance at the Casa di Campo.
Their quality was a sure passport, and doors, immovably closed to
all others, opened to them. They passed through the house into the
garden, but to their wonder and disappointment, the “light of love”
was not visible. The Infanta had not arrived, or had fled, and
disappointment seemed likely to be the probable reward of their
labor. The garden was divided from an adjoining orchard by a high
wall; the prince heard voices on the other side, perhaps heard the
voice, and hastened to a door which formed the only communication
of the two divisions. To try this outlet was the work of a moment; to
find it most vexatiously locked, was the conviction of the next. The
lover was at bay, and Endymion’s confused brain had no resource to
suggest. They looked at the wall. It was high, undoubtedly; but was
ever such a barrier too high for a king’s son—a knight and a gallant,
when it stood between him and such a “star” as the muse of De
Vega made of the Infanta? Charles was on the summit of the wall
almost as soon as the thought of climbing it had first struck him; with
the same eagerness he sprang lightly down on the other side, and
hastily made toward the object of his temerity. Unfortunately there
was an old “duenna” of a marquis with her in quality of guardian, and
the Infanta, who perchance expected to see the intruder, was
constrained, for the sake of appearances, to scream with well-
dissembled terror. “She gave a shriek and ran back.” Charles
followed, but the grim marquis interfered his unwelcome person
between the lovers. “Turning to the prince, he fell on his knees,
conjuring his highness to retire;” he swore by his head, that if he
admitted the prince to the company of the Infanta, he, the grisly
guardian of the dove, might pay for it with his head. As the lady,
meanwhile, had fled, and did not return, Charles was not obdurate.
Maria, though she had escaped (because seen) could not but be
pleased with the proof he had given of his devotion, and as the old
marquis continued to talk of his head, the prince, whose business lay
more with the heart, turned round and walked slowly away. He
advanced toward the door, the portal was thrown open, and thus, as
Mr. Howell pithily says, “he came out under that wall over which he
had got in.” Endymion was waiting for him, and perhaps for his story,
but the knight was sad, and his squire solemn. Charles looked an
embodying of the idea of gloom, and Master Porter, with some ill-will,
was compelled to observe a respectful silence.
The Infanta and her governor hurried back to the palace, while her
suitor and his followers were left to rail in their thoughts against the
caprice of the ladies, and the reserve of royal masters; and so ends
a pretty story of “how a princess went to gather May-dew.”
This solitary and unsuccessful love-passage was the last effort which
Charles made to engage the good-will of Maria. He, at once, retired
to his apartments in the palace; whence he seldom went abroad,
except for the purpose of attending a bull-fight. Buckingham was sick
a-bed, his offended nobility lay ill-disposed at court, and the palace
residence was gradually becoming irksome to all parties. Charles
could only have bedchamber prayers, and not possessing a room
where he might have attended the service of his own church, the
sacred plate and vestments he had brought over were never used.
Moreover, the Knights of the Garter, Lords Carlisle and Denbigh, had
well nigh set the palace on fire, through leaving their lighted pipes in
a summer-house. The threatened mischief, however, was prevented
by the activity of Master Davies, my Lord of Carlisle’s barber, who
“leapt down a great height and quenched it.” Perhaps a more
unfortunate accident than this, in the eyes of a Catholic population,
was a brawl within the royal precinct between Ballard, an English
priest, and an English knight, Sir Edmund Varney. The prince had a
page named Washington, lying mortally ill; to save his soul the
anxious priest hastened to the death-bed of the page; here, however,
he met Sir Edmund, an unflinching pillar of the English church. An
unseemly scene ensued; and while knight and priest passed from
words to blows, the poor suffering page silently died, and soon after
was consigned to the earth under a fig-tree in Lord Bristol’s Garden.
In the meantime, the Princess Infanta was publicly addressed as
Princess of Wales, and as an acquaintance with the English
language was a possession much to be desired by the bearer of so
proud a title, the Lady Maria began “her accidence,” and turned her
mind to harsh declensions and barbarous conjugations. Though
enthusiasm had somewhat cooled, the business continued to
proceed; the most serious interruption was occasioned by the death
of the Pontiff, as it entailed many of the ensuing obstacles which at
once began to rise. The unfinished work of Gregory was thought to
require a da capo movement from his successor Urban, and the new
Hierarch commenced a string of objections and proposals, which
were of no other effect than to produce mistrust and delay.
Buckingham too, recovering from his sickness, longed to return to
England, where it was now understood that the Pope’s tardiness was
founded on hopes of the prince’s conversion. The people of England
were alarmed and clamorous. Charles and the duke discontented
and impatient. The latter urged a return, and the prince, in
expressing his wishes to Philip, stated as his reasons, his father’s
age and infirmities, the murmurs of his people, and the fact that a
fleet was at sea to meet him. He added, a most close argument, that
the articles which had been signed in England bore, as a proviso,
that if he did not return by a specified month, they should be of no
validity. It honorably belied the suspicions against the Spanish
Cabinet, that not the slightest opposition was made to the return;
proxies were named, and on the termination of affairs with the Pope,
Maria was to follow Charles to England. The lady is said to have
remarked, that if she was not worth waiting for she was not worth
having. Charles must have felt the remark, but the duke was
paramount, and the wind, which favored their departure, as speedily
blew away the popularity of a prince whose knightly bearing, modest
gallantry, and high virtues, so particularly formed him for the favorite
of a romantic nation. The treaty for the Spanish match was broken.
The secret history of the French match possesses an equal interest
with that of the Spanish; but Charles only wrote to his bride on this
occasion, and met her, on her way to him, at Canterbury.
As a further instance of the chivalrous gallantry of Charles I., it
deserves to be recorded, that he it was who suggested a revival of
the custom of inviting the ladies to participate in the honors of the
Garter. I have elsewhere said, that at one time, the ladies were
regularly admitted, but nothing is known as to when this gallant
custom was first introduced. Dr. Barrington, in his excellent “Lectures
on Heraldry,” says, that “in the earliest notice of the habit of the order
having been issued to the ladies, immediately after the accession of
Richard II.,” they are said to have been “newly received into the
Society of the Garter,” and were afterward called “Ladies of the
Fraternity of St. George.” Who were admitted to this distinguished
order, or how long the practice continued, does not appear, though it
is probable it had fallen into disuse in the time of Henry VIII. Charles
remained content with merely suggesting the revival of the custom,
and “nothing,” says Dr. Barrington, “seems to have been done to
carry this suggestion into effect. If any one period,”—adds the doctor,
most appropriately—“if any one period were more fit than another for
doing it, it must surely be the present, when a lady is the sovereign
of the order.”
THE KINGS OF ENGLAND AS KNIGHTS.
FROM STUART TO BRUNSWICK.
Charles II. loved the paraphernalia of courts and chivalry. He

even designed to create two new orders of knighthood—namely “the
Knights of the Sea,” a naval order for the encouragement of the sea-
service; and “the Knights of the Royal Oak,” in memory of his
deliverance, and for the reward of civil merit. He never went much
farther than the intention. He adopted the first idea at another’s
suggestion, and straightway thought no more of it. The second
originated with himself, and a list of persons was made out, on which
figured the names of the intended knights. The matter never went
further.
At Charles’s coronation, the knights of the Bath were peculiarly
distinguished for their splendor. They were almost too gorgeously
attired to serve as waiters, and carry up, as they did the first course
to the king’s own table, at the coronation banquet, after a knight of
the Garter had been to the kitchen and had eaten a bit of the first
dish that was to be placed before his Sacred Majesty.
If the king was fond of show, some at least of his knights, shared in
the same feeling of vanity. The robes in recent times were worn only
on occasions of ceremony and service. The king revived a fashion
which his knights followed, and which sober people (who were not
knights) called a ridiculous humor. They were “so proud of their
coats,” as the expression went, that they not only wore them at
home, but went about in them, and even rode about the park with
them on. Mr. Pepys is particularly indignant on this matter especially
so, when told that the Duke of Monmouth and Lord Oxford were
seen, “in a hackney-coach, with two footmen in the park with their
robes on; which,” adds the censor, “is a most scandalous thing, so
as all gravity may be said to be lost, among us.” There was more
danger of what Pepys calls “gravity” being lost, when the Order, at
command of the Sovereign head, elected such men as the Elector of
Saxony, who had no other distinction but that of being a good
drinker.
I do not know what the rule now may be in St. George’s Chapel, but
in the reign of Charles II., a singular regulation is noticed by Pepys.
He went in good company to the royal chapel, where he was placed,
by Dr. Childe, the organist, “among the knights’ stalls, and pretty the
observation,” he adds, “that no man, but a woman, may sit in a
knight’s place, where any brass plates are set.” What follows is also,
in some degree, germane to our purpose. “Hither come cushions to
us, and a young singing boy to bring us a copy of the anthem to be
sung. And here, for our sakes, had this anthem and the great service
sung extraordinary, only to entertain us. Great bowing by all the
people, the poor knights particularly, toward the altar.”
Charles II. was the first monarch who allowed the Knights of the
Garter to wear, as at present, the star of the order on the breast of
the coat. Our present queen has renewed in her gracious person,
the custom that was once observed, if we may believe Ashmole, by
the ladies, that is, the wives of Knights of the Garter—namely, of
wearing the symbol of the order as a jewelled badge, or a bracelet,
on the arm. This is in better taste than the mode adopted by Lady
Castlereagh, at the gay doings attendant upon the sitting of the
Congress of Vienna; where the noble lady in question appeared at
court with her husband’s jewelled garter, as a bandeau, round her
forehead!
James II. has had not merely his apologists but his defenders. He
had far more of the knightly character than is commonly supposed.
For a long time he labored under the disadvantage of being
represented, in England, by historians only of the Orange faction.
Poor Richard the Third has suffered by a similar misfortune. He was
wicked enough, but he was not the monster described by the Tudor
historians and dramatists.
James, in his youth, had as daring and as crafty a spirit as ever
distinguished the most audacious of pages. The tact by the
employment of which he successfully made his escape from the
republican guards who kept him imprisoned at St. James’s, would
alone be sufficient proof of this. When Duke of York, he had the
compliment paid to him by Condé, that if ever there was a man
without fear it was he. Under Turenne he earned a reputation of
which any knight might be proud; and in the service of Spain, he won
praise for courage, from leaders whose bravery was a theme for
eulogy in every mouth.
Partisans, not of his own faction, have censured his going publicly to
mass soon after his accession; but it must be remembered that the
Knights of the Garter, in the collar of their order, complacently
accompanied him, and that the Duke of Norfolk was the only knight
who left him at the door of the chapel.
He had little of the knight in him in his method of love, if one may so
speak. He cared little for beauty; so little, that his brother Charles
remarked that he believed James selected his mistresses by way of
penance. He was coarsely minded, and neither practised fidelity nor
expected it in others. Whatever he may have been in battle, there
was little of the refinement of chivalry about him in the bower. It was
said of Louis XIV. and his successor, that if they were outrageously
unfaithful to their consorts, they never failed to treat them with the
greatest politeness. James lacked even this little remnant of
chivalrous feeling; and he was barely courteous to his consort till
adversity taught him the worth of Mary of Modena.
He was arrogant in prosperity, but the slightest check dreadfully
depressed him, and it is hardly necessary to say that he who is
easily elated or easily depressed, has little in him of the hero. His
conduct when his throne was menaced was that of a poor craven. It
had not about it the dignity of even a decent submission. He rose
again, however, to the heroic when he attempted to recover his
kingdom, and took the field for that purpose. This conduct has been
alluded to by a zealous and impartial writer in the “Gentleman’s
Magazine,” for November, 1855. “After the battle of the Boyne,” he
says, “the Orange party circulated the story that James had acted in
the most cowardly manner, and fled from the field before the issue
was decided. Not only was this, in a very short time believed, but
even sensible historians adopted it, and it came down to us as an
historical fact. Now in the secret archives of France there are several
letters which passed between Queen Mary and the Earl of
Tyrconnel, and these together with some of the secret papers,
dispose at once of the whole story. It has now been placed beyond a
doubt, that the king was forced from the field. Even when the day
was lost and the Dutch veterans had routed the half-armed and
undisciplined Irish, James rallied a part of the French troops, and
was leading them on, when Tyrconnel and Lauzun interposed,
pointed out the madness of the attempt, and seizing the reins of his
horse, compelled him to retreat.”
This is perhaps proving a little too much, for if the day was lost, it
was not bravery, but rashness, that sought to regain it; and it is the
first merit of a knight, the great merit of a general, to discern when
blood may be spilled to advantage. As for the archives in France,
one would like to know upon what authority the papers preserved
there make their assertions. Documents are exceedingly valuable to
historians, but they are not always trustworthy. The archives of
France may contain Canrobert’s letter explaining how he was
compelled to put constraint upon the bravery of Prince Napoleon,
and send him home, in consequence of severe indisposition. And yet
the popular voice has since applied a very uncomplimentary
surname to the Prince—quite as severe, but not so unsavory, as that
which the people of Drogheda still apply to James. In either case
there is considerable uncertainty. I am inclined to believe the best of
both of these illustrious personages, but seeing that the uncertainty
is great, I am not sure that Scarron was wrong when he said that the
best way of writing history was by writing epigrams, pointed so as to
prick everybody.
Cottington (Stafford’s Letters) tells us of a domestic trouble in which
James was concerned with one of his knights. The king’s perplexities
about religion began early. “The nurse is a Roman Catholic, to whom
Sir John Tunston offered the oath of allegiance, and she refused it;
whereupon there grew a great noise both in the town and court; and
the queen afflicted herself with extreme passion upon knowledge of
a resolution to change the woman. Yet after much tampering with the
nurse to convert her, she was let alone, to quiet the queen.” The
dissension is said to have so troubled the nurse, as also to have
injured the child, and never had knight or king more difficult task than
James, in his desire to please all parties.
It was one of the characteristics of a knight to bear adversity without
repining; and if Dodd may be believed, James II. was distinguished
for this great moral courage in his adversity. The passage in Dodd’s
Church History is worth extracting, though somewhat long: “James
was never once heard to repine at his misfortune. He willingly heard
read the scurrilous pamphlets that were daily published in England
against him. If at any time he showed himself touched, it was to hear
of the misfortunes of those gentlemen who suffered on his account.
He would often entertain those about him with the disorders of his
youth, but it was with a public detestation of them, and an
admonition to others not to follow his example. The very newspapers
were to him a lesson of morality; and the daily occurrences, both in
the field and the cabinet, were looked upon by him, not as the result
of second causes, but as providential measures to chastise both
nations and private persons, according to their deserts. He would
sometimes say that the exalted state of a king was attended with this
great misfortune, that he lived out of the reach of reproof, and
mentioned himself as an example. He read daily a chapter in the
Bible, and another in that excellent book, ‘The Following of Christ.’ In
his last illness he publicly forgave all his enemies, and several of
them by name, especially the Prince of Orange, whom he
acknowledged to be his greatest friend, as being the person whom
Providence had made use of to scourge him and humble him in the
manner he had done, in order to save his soul.” As something very
nearly approaching to reality, this is more pleasing than the details of
dying knights in romance, who after hacking at one another for an
hour, mutually compliment each other’s courage, and die in the
happiest frame of mind possible. Some one speaking of this king,
and of Innocent II., made an apt remark, worth the quoting; namely,
that “he wished for the peace of mankind that the pope had turned
papist, and the king of England, protestant!” How far the latter was
from this desired consummation is wittily expressed in the epitaph on
James, made by one of the poet-chevaliers, or, as some say, by one
of the abbés who used to lounge about the terrace of St. Germains.
“C’est ici que Jacques Second,
Sans ministres et sans maitresses,
Le matin allait à la messe,
Et le soir allait au sermon.”
I have noticed, in a previous page, the very scant courtesy which the
queen of Charles I. met with at the hands of a Commonwealth
admiral. The courtesy of some of the Stuart knights toward royal
ladies was not, however, of a much more gallant aspect. I will
illustrate this by an anecdote told by M. Macaulay in the fourth
volume of his history. The spirit of the Jacobites in William’s reign
had been excited by the news of the fall of Mons.... “In the parks the
malcontents wore their biggest looks, and talked sedition in their
loudest tones. The most conspicuous among these swaggerers was
Sir John Fenwick, who had in the late reign been high in favor and
military command, and was now an indefatigable agitator and
conspirator. In his exaltation he forgot the courtesy which man owes
to woman. He had more than once made himself conspicuous by his
impertinence to the queen. He now ostentatiously put himself in her
way when she took her airing, and while all around him uncovered
and bowed low, gave her a rude stare, and cocked his hat in her
face. The affront was not only brutal but cowardly. For the law had
provided no punishment for mere impertinence, however gross; and
the king was the only gentleman and soldier in the kingdom who
could not protect his wife from contumely with his sword. All that the
queen could do was to order the park-keepers not to admit Sir John
again within the gates. But long after her death a day came when he
had reason to wish that he had restrained his insolence. He found,
by terrible proof, that of all the Jacobites, the most desperate
assassins not excepted, he was the only one for whom William felt
an intense personal aversion.”
The portrait of William III. as drawn by Burnet, does not wear any
very strong resemblance to a hero. The “Roman nose and bright
sparkling eyes,” are the most striking features, but the “countenance
composed of gravity and authority,” has more of the magistrate than
the man at arms. Nevertheless, and in despite of his being always
asthmatical, with lungs oppressed by the dregs of small-pox, and the
slow and “disgusting dryness” of his speech, there was something
chivalrous in the character of William. In “the day of battle he was all
fire, though without passion; he was then everywhere, and looked to
everything. His genius,” says Burnet in another paragraph, “lay
chiefly in war, in which his courage was more admired than his
conduct. Great errors were often committed by him; but his heroical
courage set things right, as it inflamed those who were about him.” In
connection with this part of his character may be noticed the fact that
he procured a parliamentary sanction for the establishment of a
standing army. His character, in other respects, is not badly
illustrated by a remark which he made, when Prince of Orange, to Sir
W. Temple, touching Charles II. “Was ever anything so hot and so
cold as this court of yours? Will the king, who is so often at sea,
never learn the word that I shall never forget, since my last passage,
when in a great storm the captain was crying out to the man at the
helm, all night, ‘Steady, steady, steady!’” He was the first of our kings
who would not touch for the evil. He would leave the working of all
miracles, he said, to God alone. The half-chivalrous, half-religious,
custom of washing the feet of the poor on Maundy Thursday, was
also discontinued by this prince, the last of the heroic five Princes of
Orange.
Great as William was in battle, he perhaps never exhibited more of
the true quality of bravery than when on his voyage to Holland in
1691, he left the fleet, commanded by Sir Cloudesley Shovel and Sir
George Rooke, and in the midst of a thick fog attempted, with some
noblemen of his retinue, to land in an open boat. “The danger,” says
Mr. Macaulay, who may be said to have painted the incident in a few
words, “proved more serious than they had expected.” It had been
supposed that in an hour the party would be on shore. But great
masses of floating ice impeded the progress of the skiff; the night
came on, the fog grew thicker, the waves broke over the king and the
courtiers. Once the keel struck on a sandbank, and was with great
difficulty got off. The hardiest mariners showed some signs of
uneasiness, but William through the whole night was as composed
as if he had been in the drawing-room at Kensington. “For shame,”
he said to one of the dismayed sailors, “are you afraid to die in my
company?” The vehis Cæsarem was, certainly, not finer than this.
The consort of Queen Anne was of a less chivalrous spirit than
William. Coxe says of him, that even in the battle-field he did not
forget the dinner-hour, and he appears to have had more stomach
for feeding than fighting. Of George I., the best that can be said of
him in his knightly capacity, has been said of him, by Smollet, in the
remark, that this prince was a circumspect general. He did not,
however, lack either courage or impetuosity. He may have learned
circumspection under William of Orange. Courage was the common
possession of all the Brunswick princes. Of some of them, it formed
the solitary virtue. But of George I., whom it was the fashion of poets,
aspiring to the laureatship, to call the great, it can not be said, as
was remarked of Philip IV. of Spain, when he took the title of “Great,”
“He has become great, as a ditch becomes great, by losing the land
which belonged to it.”
One more custom of chivalry observed in this reign, went finally out
in that of George II. I allude to the custom of giving hostages.
According to the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, “two persons of rank were
to reside in France, in that capacity, as sureties to France that Great
Britain should restore certain of its conquests in America and the
West Indies.” The “Chevalier,” Prince Charles Edward, accounted
this as a great indignity to England, and one which, he said, he
would not have suffered if he had been in possession of his rights.
The age of chivalry, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, went out
before Burke pronounced it as having departed. I do not think it
survived till the reign of George II. In that reign chivalry was defunct,
but there was an exclusive class, whose numbers arrogated to
themselves that nice sense of honor which was supposed, in olden
times, to have especially distinguished the knight. The people
alluded to were par excellence, the people of “fashion.” The
gentlemen who guarded, or who were supposed to guard, the
brightest principle of chivalry, were self-styled rather than universally
acknowledged, “men of honor.”
The man of honor has been painted by “one of themselves.” The
Earl of Chesterfield spoke with connoissance de fait, when he
treated of the theme; and his lordship, whose complacency on this
occasion, does not permit him to see that his wit is pointed against
himself, tells a story without the slightest recollection of the pithy
saying of the old bard, “De te fabula narratur.”
“A man of honor,” says Lord Chesterfield, “is one who peremptorily
affirms himself to be so, and who will cut anybody’s throat that
questions it, even upon the best grounds. He is infinitely above the
restraints which the laws of God or man lay upon vulgar minds, and
knows no other ties but those of honor, of which word he is to be the
sole expounder. He must strictly advocate a party denomination,
though he may be utterly regardless of its principles. His expense
should exceed his income considerably, not for the necessaries, but
for the superfluities of life, that the debts he contracts may do him
honor. There should be a haughtiness and insolence in his
deportment, which is supposed to result from conscious honor. If he
be choleric and wrong-headed into the bargain, with a good deal of
animal courage, he acquires the glorious character of a man of
honor; and if all these qualifications are duly seasoned with the
genteelest vices, the man of honor is complete; anything his wife,
children, servants, or tradesmen, may think to the contrary,
notwithstanding.”
Lord Chesterfield goes on to exemplify the then modern chivalrous
guardian of honor, by drawing the portrait of a friend under an
assumed name. He paints a certain “Belville” of whom his male
friends are proud, his female friends fond, and in whom his party
glories as a living example—frequently making that example the
authority for their own conduct. He has lost a fortune by
extravagance and gambling; he is uneasy only as to how his honor is
to be intact by acquitting his liabilities from “play.” He must raise
money at any price, for, as he says, “I would rather suffer the
greatest incumbrance upon my fortune, than the least blemish upon
my honor.” His privilege as a peer will preserve him from those
“clamorous rascals, the tradesmen”; and lest he should not be able
to get money by any other means, to pay his “debts of honor,” he
writes to the prime minister and offers to sell his vote and conscience
for the consideration of fifteen hundred pounds. He exacts his money
before he records his vote, persuaded as he is that the minister will
not be the first person that ever questioned the honor of the
chivalrous Belville.
The modern knight has, of course, a lady love. The latter is as much
like Guinever, of good King Arthur’s time, as can well be; and she
has a husband who is more suspicious and jealous than the founder
of the chivalrous Round Table. “Belville” can not imagine how the
lady’s husband can be suspicious, for he and Belville have been
play-fellows, school-fellows, and sworn friends in manhood.
Consequently, Belville thinks that wrong may be committed in all
confidence and security. “However,” he writes to the lady, “be
convinced that you are in the hands of a man of honor, who will not
suffer you to be ill-used, and should my friend proceed to any
disagreeable extremities with you, depend upon it, I will cut the c
——’s throat for him.”
Life in love, so in lying. He writes to an acquaintance that he had
“told a d——d lie last night in a mixed company,” and had challenged
a “formal old dog,” who had insinuated that “Belville” had violated the
truth. The latter requests his “dear Charles” to be his second—“the
booby,” he writes of the adversary who had detected him in a lie,
“was hardly worth my resentment, but you know my delicacy where
honor is concerned.”
Lord Chesterfield wrote more than one paper on the subject of men
of honor. For these I refer the reader to his lordship’s works. I will
quote no further from them than to show a distinction, which the
author draws with some ingenuity. “I must observe,” he says, “that
there is a great difference between a Man of Honor and a Person
of Honor. By Persons of Honor were meant, in the latter part of
the last century, bad authors and poets of noble birth, who were but
just not fools enough to prefix their names in great letters to the
prologues, epilogues, and sometimes even the plays with which they
entertained the public. But now that our nobility are too generous to
interfere in the trade of us poor, professed authors” (his lordship is
writing anonymously, in the World), “or to eclipse our performances
by the distinguished and superior excellency and lustre of theirs; the
meaning at present of a Person of Honor is reduced to the simple
idea of a Person of Illustrious Birth.”
The chivalrous courage of one of our admirals at the close of the
reign of George II., very naturally excited the admiration of Walpole.
“What milksops,” he writes in 1760, “the Marlboroughs and
Turennes, the Blakes and Van Tromps appear now, who whipped
into winter quarters and into ports the moment their nose looked
blue. Sir Cloudesley Shovel said that an admiral deserved to be
broken who kept great ships out after the end of September; and to
be shot, if after October. There is Hawke in the bay, weathering this
winter (January), after conquering in a storm.”
George III. was king during a longer period than any other sovereign
of England; and the wars and disasters of his reign were more
gigantic than those of any other period. He was little of a soldier
himself; was, however, constitutionally brave; and had his courage
and powers tested by other than military matters. The politics of his
reign wore his spirit more than if he had been engaged in carrying on
operations against an enemy. During the first ten years after his
accession, there were not less than seven administrations; and the
cabinets of Newcastle and Bute, Grenville and Rockingham, Grafton
and North, Shelburne and Portland, were but so many camps, the
leaders in which worried the poor monarch worse than the Greeks
badgered unhappy Agamemnon. Under the administration of Pitt he
was hardly more at his ease, and in no degree more so under that of
Addington, or that of All the Talents, and of Spencer Perceval. An
active life of warfare could not have more worn the spirit and health
of this king than political intrigues did; intrigues, however, be it said,
into which he himself plunged with no inconsiderable delight, and
with slender satisfactory results.
He was fond of the display of knightly ceremonies, and was never
more pleased than when he was arranging the ceremonies of
installation, and turning the simple gentlemen into knights. Of the
sons who succeeded him, George IV. was least like him in good
principle of any sort, while William IV. surpassed him in the
circumstance of his having been in action, where he bore himself
spiritedly. The race indeed has ever been brave, and I do not know
that I can better close the chapter than with an illustration of the
“Battle-cry of Brunswick.”
THE BATTLE-CRY OF BRUNSWICK.
The “Battle-cry of Brunswick” deserves to be commemorated among
the acts of chivalry. Miss Benger, in her “Memoirs of Elizabeth,
Queen of Bohemia,” relates that Christian, Duke of Brunswick, was
touched alike by the deep misfortunes, and the cheerful patience of
that unhappy queen. Indignant at the neglect with which she was
treated by her father, James I. of England, and her uncle, Frederick
of Denmark, Duke Christian “seemed suddenly inspired by a
sentiment of chivalric devotion, as far removed from vulgar gallantry
as heroism from ferocity. Snatching from her hand a glove, which he
first raised with reverence to his lips, he placed it in his Spanish hat,
as a triumphal plume which, for her sake, he ever after wore as a
martial ornament; then drawing his sword he took a solemn oath
never to lay down arms until he should see the King and Queen of
Bohemia reinstated in the Palatinate. No sooner had Christian taken
this engagement than he eagerly proclaimed it to the world, by
substituting on his ensign, instead of his denunciation of priests, an
intelligible invocation to Elizabeth in the words ‘For God and for her!’
Fur Gott und fur sie!”
“Flash swords! fly pennons! helm and shield

Go glittering forth in proud array!
Haste knight and noble to the field,
Your pages wait, your chargers neigh.
Up! gentlemen of Germany!
Who love to be where strife is seen,
For Brunswick leads the fight to-day,
For God and the Queen!
“Let them to-day, for fame who sigh,

And seek the laurels of the brave;
Or they who long, ’ere night, to lie
Within a soldier’s honored grave,
Round Brunswick’s banner take their stand;
’Twill float around the bloody scene,
As long as foeman walks the land,
’Gainst God and the Queen.
“Draw, Barons, whose proud homes are placed

In many a dark and craig-topped tower;
Forward, ye knights, who have been graced
In tourney lists and ladies’ bower.
And be your country’s good the cause
Of all this proud and mortal stir,
While Brunswick his true sabre draws
For God and for her!
“To Him we look for such good aid

As knights may not be shamed to ask,
For vainly drawn would be each blade,
And weakly fitted to its task,
Each lance we wield, did we forget
When loud we raise our battle-cry,
For old Bohemia’s Queen, to set
Our hopes with God on high.”
The original superscription on the banner of Brunswick was the very

energetic line: “Christian of Brunswick, the friend of God and the
enemy of priests.” Naylor, in his “Civil and Military History of
Germany,” says, that the Duke imprinted the same legend on the
money which he had coined out of the plate of which he had
plundered the convents, and he adds, in a note derived from Galetti,
that “the greater part of the money coined by Christian was derived
from twelve silver statues of the apostles, which the bigotry of
preceding ages had consecrated, in the cathedral of Munster.” When
the Duke was accused of impiety by some of his followers, he
sheltered himself under the authority of Scripture; and pretended to
have only realized the ancient precept: “Go hence, into all parts of
the earth!”
Having seen the English Kings as knights, let us look at a few of the
men whom they knighted.
RECIPIENTS OF KNIGHTHOOD.
“The dew of grace bless our new knights to-day.”
Beaumont and Fletcher.
The Conquest was productive of a far more than average quantity

of knights. Indeed, I think it may be asserted without fear of
contradiction, that the first and the last William, and James I. were
more addicted to dubbing knights than any other of our sovereigns.
The good-natured William IV. created them in such profusion that, at
last, gentlemen at the head of deputations appeared in the royal
presence with a mysterious dread lest, in spite of themselves, they
should be compelled to undergo a chivalric metamorphosis, at the
hands of the “sea king.” The honor was so constantly inflicted, that
the recipients were massed together by “John Bull” as “The
Thousand and one (K)nights!”
William the Conqueror was not so lavish in accolades as his
descendant of remoter days, nor was he so off-handed in the way of
administering the distinction. He drew his sword with solemnity, laid it
on the shoulder before him with a sort of majestic composure, and
throughout the ceremony looked as calm as dignity required. William
is said to have ennobled or knighted his cook. He does not stand
alone in having so acted: for, unless I am singularly mistaken, the
great Louis tied some small cross of chivalry to the button-hole of the
immortal Vatel. William’s act, however, undoubtedly gave dignity to
that department in palaces, whence many princes have derived their
only pleasure. It was from him that there passed into the palace of
France the term “Officiers de Service,” a term which has been
appropriated by others of less elevated degree than those whom it
originally served to distinguish. The term has led to a standing joke
in such dwellings. “Qui vive?” exclaims a sentinel in one of the base
passages, as one of these officials draws near at night. “Officier,” is
the reply of the modest official in question. “Quel officier?” asks the
guard. “Officier de service!” proudly answers he who is thus
questioned; whereupon the soldier smilingly utters “Passe, Caramel!”
and the royal officer—not of the body-guard, passes, as smilingly, on
his way.
But, to return from Caramel to the Conqueror, I have to observe, that
the cook whom William knighted bore an unmusical, if not an
unsavory, name. The culinary artist was called Tezelin. The service
by which he had won knighthood consisted in the invention of a
white soup for maigre days. The hungry but orthodox William had
been accustomed to swallow a thin broth “à l’eau de savon;” but
Tezelin placed before him a tureen full of an orthodox yet appetizing
liquid, which he distinguished by the name of Dillegrout. The name is
not promising, particularly the last syllable, but the dish could not
have been a bad one. William created the inventor “chevalier de
l’office,” and Sir Caramel Tezelin was farther gratified by being made
Lord of the Manor of Addington. Many a manor had been the wages
of less honest service.
The Tiercelins are descendants of the Tezelins; and it has often
struck me as curious that of two recently-deceased holders of that
name, one, a cutler in England, was famous for the excellence of his
carving-knives; and the other, an actor in France, used to maintain
that the first of comic parts was the compound cook-coachman in
Molière’s “Avare.” Thus did they seem to prove their descent from
the culinary chivalry of William of Normandy.
But there are other samples of William’s knights to be noticed.
Among the followers who landed with him between Pevensey and
Hastings, was a Robert who, for want of a surname, and because of
his sinews, was called Robert le Fort, or “Strong.” It would have gone
ill with William on the bloody day on which he won a throne, had it
not been for this Robert le Fort, who interposed his escu or shield,
between the skull of the Norman and the battle-axe of a Saxon
warrior. This opportune service made a “Sieur Robert” of him who
rendered it, and on the coat-of-arms awarded to the new knight was
inscribed the device which yet belongs to the Fortescues;—“Forte
Scutum Salus Ducum,”—a strong shield is the salvation of dukes—
or leaders, as the word implies. The Duke of Normandy could not
have devised a more appropriate motto; but he was probably helped
to it by the learning and ready wit of his chaplain.
The danger into which William rushed that day was productive of
dignity to more than one individual. Thus, we hear of a soldier who,
on finding William unhorsed, and his helmet beaten into his face,
remounted his commander after cleverly extricating his head from
the battered load of iron that was about it. William, later in the day,
came upon the trusty squire, fainting from the loss of a leg and a
thigh. “You gave me air when I lacked it,” said the Conqueror, “and
such be, henceforth, thy name; and for thy lost leg and thigh, thou
shalt carry them, from this day, on thy shield of arms.” The maimed
knight was made lord of broad lands in Derbyshire; and his
descendants, the Eyres, still bear a leg and a thigh in armor, for their
crest. It is too pretty a story to lose, but if the account of these knight-
makings be correct, some doubt must be attached to that of the
devices, if, as some assert, armorial bearings were not used until
many years subsequent to the battle of Hastings. The stories are, no
doubt, substantially true. William, like James III. of Scotland, was
addicted to knighting and ennobling any individuals who rendered
him the peculiar pleasures he most coveted. Pitscottie asserts that
the latter king conferred his favors on masons and fiddlers; and we
are told that he not only made a knight of Cochrane, a mason, but
also raised him to the dignity of Earl of Mar. Cochrane, however, was
an architect, but he would have been none the worse had he been a
mason—at least, had he been a man and mason of such quality as
Hugh Millar and Allan Cuningham.
Although it has been often repeated that there were no knights, in
the proper sense of that word, before the period of William the
Conqueror, this must be accepted with such amount of exception as
to be almost equivalent to a denial of the assertion. There were
knights before the Conquest, but the systems differed. Thus we
know from Collier’s Ecclesiastical History that Athelstan was
knighted by Alfred; and this is said to have been the first instance of
the performance of the ceremony that can be discovered. Here
again, however, a question arises. Collier has William of Malmesbury
for his authority. The words of this old author are: “Athelstane’s

Teacher Leadership For Social Justice Building A Curriculum For Liberation Revised First Ed Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teacher Leadership For Social Justice Building A Curriculum For Liberation Revised First Ed Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(eBook PDF) Teacher Leadership for

Social Justice: Building a Curriculum

READING 2 GETTING REAL ABOUT THE “MODEL MINORITY” 101

READING 3 CREATING SAFE SCHOOLS FOR QUEER YOUTH 109

READING 4 BATHROOMS AND BEYOND 133

READING 5 KILL SANTA 139

READING 6 SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 151

3. CURRICULUM POLICY AND TEACHER

READING 2 COMMON CORE STANDARDS 193

READING 3 SELECTION FROM BAD TEACHER! HOW BLAMING

READING 4 CRITICAL RACE THEORY, MULTICULTURAL

viii TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

4. CURRICULUM POSSIBILITIES 253

READING 2 CENTRAL ACADEMY: LIVING A DEMOCRATIC

READING 3 THE SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PROJECT 291

BY J U LIO CAM MAROTA AN D AUG U STI N E F. ROM ERO

READING 4 WHAT’S DEMOCRACY GOT TO DO WITH TEACHING? 305

READING 5 TEACHERS AS LEADERS IN FINLAND 311

SELECTED READINGS 325

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

• We have chosen to use the terms “Black,” “white,” and “people

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

xii TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

Note on Language xiii

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

It is possible to become discouraged about the injustice we see

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

Book Cover Discussion Questions

xvi TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

2 TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

4 TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

Margaret J. Wheatley, “Willing to Be Disturbed,” Turning to One Another: Simple

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

6 TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

We never know who we are

when the world’s dreams

Until the day just one of us

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

10 TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

Critical Self-Reflection and Teacher Leadership 11

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

12 TEACHER LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

05/24/2020 - tp-a2e9e998-9dc1-11ea-8f7c-024 (temp temp) - Teacher Leadership for Social

Charles II. loved the paraphernalia of courts and chivalry. He

“Flash swords! fly pennons! helm and shield

“Let them to-day, for fame who sigh,

“Draw, Barons, whose proud homes are placed

“To Him we look for such good aid

The original superscription on the banner of Brunswick was the very

The Conquest was productive of a far more than average quantity

You might also like

READING 2 GETTING REAL ABOUT THE “MODEL MINORITY” 101

READING 3 CREATING SAFE SCHOOLS FOR QUEER YOUTH 109

READING 4 BATHROOMS AND BEYOND 133

READING 5 KILL SANTA 139

READING 6 SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 151

READING 2 COMMON CORE STANDARDS 193

4. CURRICULUM POSSIBILITIES 253

READING 3 THE SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PROJECT 291

READING 4 WHAT’S DEMOCRACY GOT TO DO WITH TEACHING? 305

READING 5 TEACHERS AS LEADERS IN FINLAND 311

SELECTED READINGS 325