Climbing walls: Attempting critical pedagogy as a 21st-century preservice teacher.

McGee, A. R. (2011). Climbing walls: Attempting critical pedagogy as a 21st-century preservice teacher. Language Arts, 88(4), 270-277.


This is the story of how a truly amazing student teacher tackled the challenge of getting sixth graders to think, read, and write about the difficult topic of illegal immigration from a critical stance, with a definite goal to teach for social justice. Most student teachers I know are so deeply absorbed in learning how to “do” teaching, and are so focused on surviving and fitting into the prevailing school culture, that they would not have had the mental space or the tolerance for risk and uncertainty that would be needed to launch an inquiry like the one McGee initiated with her sixth graders. She obviously is not your average student teacher, and though she hinted at some important life experiences that probably predisposed her to undertake such an ambitious project (she has been an advocate for immigrants in some prior context and is the child of an immigrant), I find I really would like to know a lot more about her. Even though she did more with her students to build truly authentic and significant kinds of literacy than most student teachers would attempt during the stressful time that student teaching is, still, she is hard on herself for not doing more, for not taking advantage of all the teachable moments she could have. As a teacher educator, I almost wanted to put my arms around her and tell her how remarkable she is, and how much more she probably gave those sixth graders than what they normally would have gotten in their language arts classes, even if maybe it wasn’t perfect. Even experienced teachers shy away from fully discussing difficult issues like illegal immigration in their classrooms. It is scary and uncertain to stir up issues that might be emotionally upsetting or produce painful moments. Parents might complain, mentor teachers might disapprove (although this mentor teacher seemed supportive), administrators might get nervous, university supervisors might evaluate one negatively, and most frightening of all, the student teacher might lose control of the situation, chaos might reign, and an opportunity for a career in education, and all of the preparation leading up to that, might be lost. Not many student teachers will risk that, and I am not sure I would advise them to, though in my experience I have known a few (and only a few) who would be up for the challenge at this stage in their careers. The school setting McGee describes seemed far from nurturing of English Language Learners, which makes her project all the more courageous.

McGee puts the cherry on top of an already impressive story by relating her experiences in beautiful prose and in great detail. I was especially impressed with the small but excellent list of children’s books and other references she used in developing her project, which was part of a classroom research project in her master’s/certification program in middle level education. Another helpful piece was Figure 1 (page 273), a four-column chart entitled “Categorizing Production of Knowledge” (which McGee credits to one of her college professors; I would like more information on the origin of the chart) which would be quite helpful to any teacher who might wish to organize a classroom inquiry similar to McGee’s. I wish McGee well as she grows and develops as a brave and caring middle level teacher.