By Fay Yokomizo Akindes, Director, Systemwide Professional & Instructional Development, University of Wisconsin System
NASH’s Equity Action Framework is a generative tool for sparking discussions at the system level. It is an especially good follow-up to USC’s Equity Scorecard which all 13 universities in the University of Wisconsin System completed and which inspires the framework.
In reviewing the questions associated with Essential Equity Practices #5 – Curriculum and Co-Curriculum – I find myself thinking of pedagogy. The questions are near identical to how we should be problematizing pedagogy – questions that assess a system’s commitment to developing, implementing, and expanding pedagogy for underserved students. Other questions come to mind: Does the system recognize the centrality of pedagogy in ensuring students’ academic success? Are there system goals for diversifying pedagogies across the curriculum? Are curriculum goals aligned with compatible pedagogical approaches that advance learning outcomes and meet the diverse needs of our students? How does the system support its universities in developing equity-minded pedagogies? What function does pedagogy have in advancing and implementing the overall goals of the system? These are some of the questions that would enhance the framework, at least for UW System. Whether we link pedagogy to curriculum or create a 10th essential practice, it will be included in our system’s discussion. Pedagogy is already present in the framework, just not by name.
When I first reviewed the framework, I believed there was an error. Curriculum was named, but pedagogy was missing. Curriculum – what we teach – is incomplete without considering pedagogy – how we teach. Curricular and pedagogical approaches are especially important to consider together when teaching for equity and anti-racist justice. This linkage was made clear during NASH’s equity-minded HIPs initiative. Moreover without pedagogy, there is no clear entry point – no front door – for faculty and instructors to enter the discussion. Pedagogy’s exclusion is akin to addressing equity without naming race. My advisory Executive Committee, comprised of Teaching & Learning Center Directors and faculty, believes that addressing equity in education necessitates engaging with pedagogy – the theory, practice, and philosophy of teaching and learning – what many of us claim as our raison d’etre in higher education.
I am reminded of my years teaching Ethnic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. The curriculum focused on Native Americans, African Americans, Latino/a, and Asian Americans. These historically underrepresented groups were marked, contained, controlled in reservations, removed to boarding schools, “internment” camps, holding cells. Communities of color fought for basic human and civil rights, including education, through collective struggle and activism. Teaching U.S. history using traditional pedagogy often others, marginalizes, or renders invisible each group, normalizing the status quo and avoiding the need for change. Conversely Ethnic Studies, when informed by culturally relevant and critical pedagogy, amplifies counter-narratives, voices, and histories. This is just one example of how pedagogy matters. There are other striking examples. Equity-minded professors Kelly Hogan and Viji Sathy at University of North Carolina adopt inclusive pedagogy to eliminate and reduce DFW rates among their Black, Latinx, and first-generation college students with extraordinary results. (They are leading a workshop on Inclusive Pedagogy for UW educators in April.)
I’m wondering how other systems view pedagogy and the role of faculty and instructors in their movement toward justice and equity-minded practices. fakindes@uwsa.edu