Queer It Up: Embracing Transformative Learning in a Classroom of Young People
It may seem peculiar that terms such as “queer pedagogy”, “feminist theory” and “elementary school art education” could accompany each other in a classroom. The typical elementary art classroom has fostered students who emerge from a typical lesson with the ability to glue and cut construction paper projects that resemble concrete images; a standard university art history class uses a standard Westernized version of text to learn about the great masters, but the level of engagement and reflection during these processes does not lead to transformative learning.
Achieving a successful synergy between queer/feminist approaches in a learning environment is a challenging process, but many researchers believe that this interdisciplinary approach will transcend traditional educational practices for the future. By reconsidering and reviving the former processes by which we teach young people in order to incorporate queer perspectives and feminist thought, students begin to broaden their understanding of difference and question meaning-making in every discipline, including art. There are countless benefits to “queered” education, some measurable and others simply observable.
In the following article, I will argue for “queered” learning spaces encouraging educators to renounce the traditional processes of meaning-making and to revise their curriculum choices to incorporate queer teaching at an accessible level for their students. It is my hope this may serve as an introductory “guide” through which to consider one’s own competency and willingness to structure and maintain a queered classroom.
The first thing that educators must understand is that “queering” education is not simple; the innumerable factors working against queered curriculum almost offset the benefits, but not quite. The United States’ current political climate in conjunction with the pervasive societal stigma around LGBTQ folks has cultivated a standard code that deems the mention of queerness as taboo, though the term ‘queer’ has only just been reclaimed by the LGBTQ community from its previously pejorative function a short while ago.
There are certainly politicians, government officials, parents, and even educators themselves who would prefer less deviation from the routine and regimen of education for young people. There is, however, a way to integrate feminist theory, queer pedagogy, and intersectionality into any learning environment while circumventing the challenges that come with teaching young people about complex issues (Cranton).
The purpose of queering any subject is to provide the opportunity to account for all representative human experiences which have not been recognized (in the scholarship of art history and countless other disciplines). The restructuring of thought, and consequently teaching, begins by abandoning the Western, androcentric, cis-centric, heteronormative, white-centered version of history for an intersectional one.
The ongoing research in this area explores practical ways educators can teach students to recognize these limited accounts of history and attempt to diversify the curriculum to include all omitted accounts of human experience. This departure from “normalcy” in the classroom can be a liberating, immersive experience for educators and students alike; the opportunity to share personal anecdotes and stories encourages students to believe in the quality of their contributions and demonstrates their understanding in less evaluative ways. Standardized tests can often deter educators from pursuing more elaborate topics with their students, for fear of “wasting” instructional time on things students will not see on exams.
In her TED talk, Teaching Art or Teaching To Think Like An Artist?, Cindy Foley asks the audience to consider how art education has been affected by the “testing culture” of other disciplines, citing the ways educators have been conditioned to teach things that are concrete like elements of art, art history, and foundation skills. Foley’s message more broadly reminds us of the importance of art education to foster learners who can “think like artists.” It is essential for artists of any age, level, and ability to be creatively curious, and in keeping with an increasingly progressive society, the practice of creative curiosity also means accepting differences and challenging heteronormativity. To foster creative curiosity in the classroom, educators should be careful not to shut down conversations that seem difficult to tackle. Educators who assume their students are not mature enough or able to discuss these issues have been pleasantly surprised to find that they are eager to engage with the topics. In their 2009 article, Watch What You Teach, Sieben and Wallowitz state,
“[Our] curriculum this year reflected [our] belief that adolescents are fully capable and willing to engage in controversial conversations in which they expand their minds and challenge hegemonic social norming” (Sieben, 44–45).
There are many ways to teach tolerance as a value in the classroom. The research with their students posed questions of difference in relation to anti-homophobia vs. queer pedagogy. In Kathy Bickmore’s, “Why Discuss Sexuality in Elementary School?” she attempts to unpack the beginnings of homophobia in the classroom and she cites the combination of the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and religious fundamentalism for bringing homophobia into public consciousness. Anti-homophobia in the classroom stems from advocating acceptance and tolerance with words and actions whereas incorporating queer pedagogy into curriculum involves challenging the status quo and examining how labels police behavior and affect individual expression (Sieben).
First, educators must impress upon their students that the norms we live by are all socially constructed. Students’ understanding of this benchmark idea will help them tackle deeper understanding. Then they will be able to examine the problems with maintaining these structures, analyze how they can be broken down, and recognize privilege and assumptions in their own lives (Sieben). To challenge the norms, educators should use gender inclusive language like “all children can” rather than “boy’s don’t…girl’s don’t” (Garcia). In addition, all-encompassing “group” words like “everyone” or “you all” as alternatives to “you guys” can help break down the androcentric language children are accustomed to hearing. These small applications of inclusivity can impress upon students the importance of language, which they will learn simply by observing the teacher.
It is essential to distinguish the difference between teaching and learning in an educational space. G.E. Washington is a professor of art education at the University of Illinois at Chicago whose writing about uniting performance art with queer theory in a learning space has inspired this examination of “queering” elementary art teaching. He writes,
“Learning is not a direct result of teaching. Primarily, learning is a matter of risk taking. It is a process of coping with the uncertainty of perception and feelings of estrangement” (Washington).
Thus, this observation supports the idea that if learning is a process of making sense of perceptions, the sooner the process of meaning-making is diversified, i.e. queered, young people will learn “better.” Disrupting the normalized process of learning allows for new activities to take place in the classroom. Washington suggests a “re-examination of the activities that are typically cited as evidence of learning in the art classroom” calling the approach to art education an idle time-filler of “make-and-take activities devoid of any meaning in relation to students’ lives or the learning that is taking place”(Addison). A personal anecdote may help to illustrate what this looks like:
As I can recall, my elementary school art teacher came around every Tuesday and Thursday, and as she would roll her “art cart” into the room I always scanned up and down to notice any different materials than the usual crayons, construction paper, and glue sticks. I can never recall engaging with other students in the classroom, going outside to observe nature, or observing anything in the surrounding area to derive inspiration. Instead there would be a “model” of what we were to create, and by copying the way the teacher cut and glued her paper to look like a cat in a tree, we followed suit.
These predictable routines, Washington asserts, are unimportant and even hurtful to the learning process, for they do not encourage students to explore the self. Once “queering” as a verb is considered not as a destination, but as performance, there is limitless possibility to what can be learned (Addison).
Thus, learning is in the control of the student, who should be actively involved in shaping the curriculum. The educator acts as the facilitator of experiences, and the learner acts as the leader of the process. When a learner finds interest in a particular subject, it becomes the teachers’ duty to fulfill their curiosity and pursue the topic in the classroom. Often times this means abandoning lesson plans altogether in order to develop another activity with the students to meet their needs. This tactic encourages learners to preemptively seek topics of interest, raise questions, and hone in on their ability to communicate interests, thoughts, and ideas to others.
The idea of queering always comes back to the self, for it asks participants to see the self within the issue being explored (Addison); this will put students’ relationship to the work they create at the forefront and makes “knowing” a result of teaching.
“Knowing is an understanding that arises through a process of identification with and against identity”, which means that in the process of queered learning, one comes to understand one’s identity. This can occur by recognizing gender roles, privilege, race relations, gender performativity, and LGBTQ issues, etc. Author Kathy Bickmore is an avid proponent for the discussion of gender and sexuality in elementary schools stating,
“Young people’s self-determination as citizens depends on their opportunities to learn, to correct their misunderstandings, and to get along with diverse others in their communities” (Bickmore).
It is an educator’s duty to provide a safe space for these conversations to occur. The “knowledge-facilitators” can begin by asking, “is my classroom a queered space where each individual can find their own identity represented?” and additionally, do these representations regard those identities in accurate and respectful ways? The research has maintained that the more comfortable teachers are with queer and feminist topics, the more likely they are to intervene in conflicts among students (i.e. gender policing language or behavior, homophobic comments, micro-aggressive behaviors), with most educators citing their doubt and passivity as the largest inhibiting factors to mediating the situation and using it as a learning opportunity (Garcia). It can be challenging to know how to enforce standards of inclusion/acceptance into the classroom but it can help by being extremely clear with students that the lessons they embark on together will challenge their thinking in new ways.
Educators should remain steadfast in their attempt to disrupt the status-quo; though at times the isolation of this queered approach will seem daunting, many of the educators who have tried, succeeded with the support of administration in their schools. It is essential to engage with the resources in the area, equal opportunity committees, school forums, and curriculum board meetings, etc. to make the queered perspective heard and recognized. Though it is crucial for the future of our students to create a sanctuary for queer learning to take place, it may be dangerous to do so in isolation which is why this approach calls for collective action (Addison). The benefits of queered education will continue to cultivate a need for more educators to adopt these ideals into their curriculum.
As a result of queer education in elementary schools, students will become more conscious of the queer perspective, and therefore more tolerant and sensitive to difference in their lives. They will believe in the quality of their contributions because their voice is considered in the lesson, represented equally and fairly in books, stories, history lessons, and artworks. The classroom becomes less test-centered because students’ understanding is measured in less evaluative ways, through conversations and observations. Their ability to think like an artist is considered more valuable which develops their ability to think critically about the systems in our society. In a queered classroom, teachers and students can develop a new “standard” for the classroom in which each student learns to respectively ask others for their name and pronouns. It formulates an agreed-upon process because students realize that pronouns are essential to identity, which they come to examine daily in the classroom.
When students have increased exposure to various gender roles, they will be able to reconsider gender roles and expectations in their own lives. As a result, the classroom becomes a safe space for all gender expressions and sexualities because the educator can correct students by gently reminding them of past lessons. On a macro scale, students shape their own intercultural competency in a classroom where the integration of queer pedagogy is a focus.
Bibliography
Bickmore, Kathy. “Why Discuss Sexuality in Elementary School?” Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling, 1999, pp. 15–25.
Burke, Brianna and Greenfield, Christina. “Challenging Heteronormativity: Raising LGBTQ Awareness in a High School English Language Arts Classroom” English Journal, July 2016.
Cosier, Kimberly, and Sanders, James. “Queering Art Teacher Education.” International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 21–30.
Cranton, Patricia. Understanding and promoting transformative learning: a guide for educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
Downing, Dick, and Ruth Watson. School Art: What’s in It?: Exploring Visual Arts in Secondary Schools. Slough: NFER, 2008. Print.
García, Ana María and Slesaransky-Poe, Graciela. “The Heternormative Classroom: Questioning and Liberating Practices.” The Teacher Educator, Arcadia University, 2010, pp. 244–256.
Sieben, Nicole and Wallowitz, Laraine. “Watch What You Teach: A first-Year Teacher Refuses to Play It Safe.” English Journal, vol. 98, no. 4, 2009, pp. 44–49.
Stanley, Nick. “Preface: ‘Anything You Can Do’: Proposals for Lesbian and Gay Art Education.” International Journal of Art & Design Education, vol. 26, no. 1, 2007, pp. 2–9.
