Education Reform as If Student Agency Mattered: Academic Microcultures and Student Identity

Abstract

Placing the self and student agency at the center of the educational process might make educators steeped in subject-matter standards uncomfortable, Mr. Jackson avers, but at some level most laypersons understand the importance of a school culture that encourages students to identify with academic work. Our thought, incessantly deciding, . . . chooses one of many possible selves or characters and forthwith reckons it no shame to fail in any of those not adopted expressly as its own. -William James, Psychology, 1892 The words of William James echo through the halls and classrooms of the urban high school where teach, resonating in the studied nonchalance of students like Devon,1 arriving at algebra class without paper, pencil, or textbook but with a meticulous attention to dress and demeanor that announces: I am coolest of the cool. Devon is telling us something we should try to hear. Student Agency Students are central to the educational process. It seems strange to write the obvious as if it were a revelation, but it's something education reformers keep forgetting. We (and count myself among the reformers) forget with the best of intentions. When students fail in our schools, we are leery of explanations that seem to blame the victims. No, it must be failing or underachieving schools, schools in need of higher standards and better teachers, perhaps even schools in need of reconstitution. Or it must be poverty, broken families, lack of social services, and the cumulative effects of prejudice, discrimination, and social inequality. Since all of these explanations carry grains of truth, we are easily led away from the students themselves, as if they were but passive players, pawns in games organized and controlled by adults. In short, student agency is buried beneath layers of well-meaning obfuscation. In my algebra classes, know that my own words and behavior, classroom organization, and lesson plans make a real difference in determining my students' success or failure. But education is dialogical -- and many factors beyond my direct control have a powerful impact on our classroom dialogue: student willingness to struggle with difficult concepts and vocabulary, to put in long hours on homework, to study for mastery of building-block math skills, to show up for tutoring sessions. If all of my students were willing to become serious math students for the duration of the course -- both full-time inside of class and part-time outside -- virtually all of them would pass. But the chances of this happening within the current social contexts of their lives are near zero, and I'll be lucky if 60% of my students pass algebra this term. have high hopes for Devon. He is bright and capable, and he'll have a head start: this is his second try at passing algebra. But worry about his mental attitude. The reality is that success in a college-preparatory math class depends so heavily on what students decide to do or not to do -- on planning and effort outside of the classroom -- that even my best teaching is close to useless if too many students decide not to invest in becoming serious about mathematics. To be sure, can influence these decisions, and doing so is in many ways my most important role as a teacher. But ultimately my students are in charge of how they spend their time, how they wish to be seen, who they wish to be. They are active agents, critical decision makers. When it comes to visible effort in public -- in front of peers and rivals for peer-group status -- student decision making becomes a high-stakes matter of self-definition in which academic behaviors may directly conflict with social identity needs. can design engaging lessons, but unless students are willing to be seen seriously engaged in mathematics, my efforts are futile. can assign homework, but student self-definitions dictate whether and how carefully it will be completed. …