Investing in Food Education

     The rise in childhood obesity and nutritional deficiencies among low-income families is a familiar narrative. Several research studies have explored the implications and causes of, as well as possible remedies for, childhood obesity. Children develop their taste preferences and their ideas about the food system early in life; the marketing forces of McDonald’s and other fast-food cultural ideologies can damage children’s food perspectives. The less familiar narrative is the disconnect between food, culture, responsibility that results in an inequitable, industrialized food system. My intention as a critical educator is to equip my students with the skills and tools to not only recognize injustices, but also to act upon those injustices so that they can be agents of transformation. This is why my unit is titled “Just Food?” because food is not just food – it is representative of systemic injustices that can be defined, investigated, and challenged.

     Nutritional literacy is a component of food justice. The national movement for improving healthy food access in school cafeterias and garden-based or nutritional-based curriculum is supported by numerous research studies that identify the merits of this model. The Center for Ecoliteracy (2004) in Berkeley found that innovative school food programs improve the social and mental health of students, help increase student performance, and encourage students and teachers to connect with their communities in an intimate and significant way. Allen and Guthman (2006) argue that farm-to-school programs are acts of social justice. They write:

          Innovative school food programs can be developed that pair the values of equity and universal access with the latest knowledge about the role of fruits   
          and vegetables in a healthy diet. Rather than concede the inevitable disparities of devolution, public funding, and state support should be used to    
          effect improvement across the board for all children, not just those who happen to be in ‘progressive’ or affluent schools. […] FTS advocates can seize 
          the power in this and develop healthy school food program that meet the needs of all children regardless of their class, circumstance, or political
          cachet (412).

My perspective on this issue aligns most closely with Allen and Guthman’s assertion that farm-to-school models further the struggle for social justice by equitably serving all children. This unit plan prioritizes discussions about food access and food culture, but nutritional conversations are embedded throughout. 

Critical Theory and Food Justice: The Unit Rationale

          As a freshman in college, living in Los Angeles, I always looked forward to going to a local farmers market with my roommate. We walked to the market and developed friendly relationships with the farmers. Access to nutritious, fresh food was something I had completely taken for granted until I interned in a small after-school program in Echo Park. The foods available in a mile radius from the center were limited to corner stores and a Pollo Loco. What systems allow (or encourage) this to happen? How is food marketed to children? How are families accessing fresh food? These questions have been lingering in my mind, and I would like to explore these food justice issues alongside children in a curriculum unit, “Just Food.” My teaching approaches are rooted in the theoretical tenets of critical pedagogy, and those tenets influence every aspect of my curricular choices.

          While a delineation of the role of critical pedagogy in education may never completely capture its elements, this theory has five major implications for my curriculum unit on Food Justice for second graders. First, the students and I will be positioned as co-investigators and co-creators of the knowledge and normative values supporting the learning experiences (Freire, 2005). Second, the participation structures within the unit will prioritize discussion and sharing with the classroom community (Anyon, 1980). Third, these discussions will model and encourage critical questioning after establishing a community within the classroom (hooks, 1994). Fourth, the materials and texts stand not as finite sources of knowledge; instead, students are called to challenge dominant narratives through “counter-storytelling” (Loewen, 2007). Fifth, the learning investigations and topics will be close to the students’ lived experiences and popular culture (Apple, 2011 and Morrell, 2002). The purpose of this unit is for students to (1) consider how food is present (and not present) in their lives, (2) connect labor rights with food production, and (3) to start becoming critically aware of advertising tactics aimed at young people.

            The enduring understandings for students in the unit closely align with the purposes of this unit. I want each of my students to hold on to the idea that food has an important role in our lives, and access to fresh food is right - not a privilege. It is worth noting that this is not a “healthy foods” and “nutrition” unit; the enduring understandings of this unit are aimed at much larger issues. Freire (2005) explains, “a deepened consciousness of [people’s] situation leads people to apprehend that situation as an historical reality susceptible of transformation” (p. 85). In other words, students will see how injustices are situated within various structures, and in understanding these contexts, they will be able to change those injustices. I am intentionally choosing a primary elementary grade because I feel that these conversations are pivotal at an early age. I do not believe that children are incapable of addressing food justice issues if they are presented in accessible ways. Some conversations will be guided by questions such as: What is food? What is justice? What is food justice? How does food come to my plate? Who makes my food? Why do we eat the food that we do? Students will learn from Cesar Chavez and his influence in food production labor rights, local farmers, and other community members. Students will cook together every week using locally produced ingredients.

          In a culminating project, students will have a choice between two projects. Students may choose to use photojournalism to share their learning with their families, school community, and neighborhood. Students will take a camera for a week and take food-related pictures, and include information about their photography. A second choice is for students to create a mural that captures some elements of food justice, with a video component. This mural will hang in the school building and will then be featured in a local farmers market. Ultimately, my hope is that students will not just accept the food culture advertised to them, but will regard food access as a tool for progress and justice. 

Annotated Bibliography: Critical Theory
My Teachers College colleagues developed an annotated bibliography of resources and texts that informed this unit.

Apple, M. W. (2011). Democratic education in neoliberal and neoconservative times. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 21-31.

In the article by Michael W. Apple, education is in greater need of critically democratic practices, as schools and students themselves are viewed as commodities in a competitive market. Education, under the neoliberal movement, is shifting away from the goals of public education towards a privatization that relies on ineffective reforms which center around rigorous accountability: testing, standardized curriculum and performance pay for teachers. As Apple argues, democratic schooling is not just about schools, but about what kind of society we want to be a part of. Therefore the marketing of students and schools must be disrupted by critical educators and the tasks they face as they participate in movements that challenge this process of education and instead promote the belief that “educational settings are not factories and reflect what is best in all of us and embody the practice of democracy.” In order to achieve this, critical pedagogy must stay connected to the realities of schools- the daily lives of students and teachers- and not be solely theory and academia.  Difficulty lies in the enactment of such practices, as teachers have the intuition for socially and democratic teachings but picturing this proves challenging. Yet this struggle of enacting practices that challenge dominance, cultivate a space for creating activist identities and serves as a powerful arena for change will ultimately prove whether schools can change society, demonstrating a democracy that is critically minded and schools as a space for political and educational action.  Therefore, there is a call to critical educators to make public any successes of transformation: how the unequal and repressive control of neoliberalism has been contested and how we can continue to perform to ensure a critical democracy in education and in society as a whole. Teaching practices must therefore reflect a stance that education is not a factory, and the role of educators is to create space for linking the classroom and critical pedagogy in active way. 

Questions:
●      As we work to contest these issues of “marketization” of schools and students, how is there a tangible proof to those opponents that a critical democracy is, in fact, a greater approach to a just society and just education?  If they only want to see “scores,” what is shown as an alternative? Does something have to be “shown?”
●      In the struggle to see the socially and pedagogically intuition played out in the classroom, what are the initial steps as educators that we take?


Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67-92.

In this essay, Anyon argues that there is a “hidden curriculum” in American schools that has different implications for the different social class communities. In the working class schools, Anyon illustrates that students have little to no freedom of self-expression and have to exactly follow the teachers’ instructions. Students graduating from these schools often develop obedient relationships toward capital, authority, and work. In the middle-class schools, she explains that the curriculum has little connection with students’ “interests and feelings” and graduating students end up working in bureaucratic middle-class jobs and are not rewarded for critical thinking. In the affluent professional schools, students are encouraged to be creative, create their work in multiple ways, and evaluate their own work based on their “satisfaction.” Students graduating from these schools will have substantial control of their relationship toward capital in their future jobs, but will usually not control physical capital. In the executive elite schools, students are extensively pushed to develop their “analytical intellectual powers” by reasoning and conceptualizing rules to solve problems. Students graduating from these schools are prepared to have “ownership and control of physical capital and the means of production in society.” Anyon concludes that these different ways of educating students will prepare and offer them different relationships toward symbolic and physical capital, authority, and the process of work. This is conducted through the use of a “hidden curriculum.” Hence, Anyon suggests that more research has to be conducted in the US to prove that there is a connection between certain practices of teaching and where and how one will be in a future occupation and what kind of relationship that occupation will have toward capital, authority, and control. This essay is connected to practices of teaching, because it illustrates how traditional non-critical education prepares students to have no or minimal control of (physical) capital while progressive critical education prepares students to have significant control of (physical) capital.

Questions:

●      What kind of steps can and/or should one take after discovering and proving that there is substantial evidence between certain practices of teaching and the relationship one will have toward capital, authority, and control?
●      How can developers of curriculum include such connections into a school curriculum without causing potential friction between the different social class communities?


Cho, S. (2010). Politics of critical pedagogy and new social movements. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(3), 310-325.

In this essay, Seehwa Cho explains how critical pedagogists are working to transform the neo-Marxist “language of critique” into the “language of possibility.” She argues that critical pedagogy looks at educational practices and curriculum through a critical lens in order to advance new ways of teaching that promote agency, independent thinking and resistance. She identifies three main projects that critical pedagogists are implementing in classrooms and in curriculum in order to meet this goal: the project of experience, the project of anti-system, and the project of inclusion. She roots these projects within the framework of culturalist politics, self/identity politics and grassroots politics. Cho emphasizes the transformative quality of critical pedagogy: not only must knowledge (curriculum) be examined and transformed, but so must the teaching practices in schools. Only then can there be democratization of knowledge and the empowerment of students. Cho concludes her argument with a warning against the use of idealistic language that can become meaningless rhetoric. These terms, such as hope, freedom, care, do not convey the complex systems of oppression. Instead, Cho recommends that critical pedagogy be firmly rooted in “practical positive steps” towards genuine transformation of the educational system. In the everyday realities of classroom teaching, this means that critical pedagogy does not shy away from discussions about the complex underpinnings of oppressive culture. Teachers must enter the classroom aware of their political status and be willing to distribute power and authority across all participants in the classroom.

Questions:

●      Has critical pedagogy lost its power of influence over time? Is this theory as powerful as it needs to be to confront the complexities of dominance and oppression in society?
●      How can we resist the tendency to use the “slogans” and “catch-words” of critical pedagogy?


Freire, P. (2005). Chapter 2. In Pedagogy of the oppressed (71 - 86). (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970).


Paulo Freire remains one of the most significant theorists in critical pedagogy. In the second chapter of this work, Freire compares two educational practices: banking education and problem-posing education. Like an empty bank account, students are vessels waiting for a “deposit” from the teacher. This passive stance requires that students “fit-into” the world, rather than questioning the social order. This banking method positions teachers as having all of the knowledge and therefore all of the power in the classroom. Freire contends that this “contradiction” between the teacher and the students is the process in which people are oppressed and the existing social order is maintained. Freire believes that problem-posing education will reverse this contradiction. Problem-posing education requires that there is a shift in the power dynamics of the classroom, so that teachers become teacher-students and students become student-teachers. This collaborative inquiry dynamic invites students to use their prior knowledge, cultural capital, and creativity to dialogue and discuss important issues. When students have developed a critical consciousness, they not only learn to question, but also are prepared to transform the structures that oppress them. To prepare students to develop their power to be agents of change, teachers must create opportunities for them to engage in dialogue that “unveils reality.”  In practice, this means that students should have decision-making power in the classroom.

Questions:

●      Biesta (1998) asks of Freire, “What guarantees [...] that the self-evident knowledge of the marginalized and repressed is less false that than which their oppressors hold as valid?” What assumptions is Freire making in his argument?
●      How do you assess understanding of this “unveiled reality” in the classroom?


Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2006). Challenging neoliberalism’s new world order: The promise of critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 6(1), 21-32.

In the essay by Henry A. Giroux and Susan Searls Giroux the pursuit of a critical pedagogy is one that offers a hopeful disruption to the current neoliberalism status of education: training students as workers and producing consumers. This current state of affairs, where standardized testing and rigid accountability drives education, is countered by critical pedagogy, which recognizes that education is a moral and political practice that is the basis for creating critical citizens. Schools now equate to supplier and customer, where skills and drills are deemed more valuable than critical thought. The public space of school is an example of how politics is defined by the function of policing (standards, accountability) versus an agency for peace and social change. As Giroux expresses, the work of critical pedagogy is imperative to link learning to social change, education to democracy and knowledge to acts of intervention. It is an opportunity to cultivate within students the sense of agency and ability to create conditions that promote democracy. This current crisis of education is part of the greater crisis of politics, power and culture, and therefore acknowledging the link between education and politics “is central to reclaiming the sanctity of education.” Rather than reduce students to future consumers, critical pedagogy as a practice encourages students themselves to engage in critical dialogue, question authority and prepare themselves for what it means to be critical and active citizens. Likewise, teachers take on the role of citizen-scholars, so that students are given the opportunity to engage in debate and provide the conditions for hope. A practice of teaching becomes the opportunity to offer students the understanding and confirmation that they can make a difference in shaping civic life. Giroux also argues that public education isn’t just about job preparation, but it is about supporting students as they develop an awareness of their own agency. Thus, critical education means that teachers and students alike recognize antidemocratic forces and work through the struggle for a better world. Education is not about test scores and job skills, but a space for reason, understanding, and dialogue in efforts to create a democratic public sphere. Thus, practices of teaching must include the provision of space for students to grapple with social questions and develop a voice for contributing to society in a way that challenges antidemocratic practices.

Questions:
●      What are the limitations of this stance? Is it possible to be overly optimistic?


hooks, b. (1994). Embracing change. In Teaching to transgress (35-44). New York, NY: Routledge.

In the third chapter of her book Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks argues that at the heart of transformative pedagogy is building a community that challenges the idea of being “safe”, and instead promotes a space where every individual feels a sense of commitment to engage and participate. Only then, she argues, can students take ownership of their learning. bell hooks argues that educators need to reevaluate the ideal of a classroom as a  “safe space”. Indeed, she argues that “safe” means “neutral”, a space where students are kept under control by avoiding all conversations about sex, race and gender because these topics would lead to students becoming “too passionate”, and out of control. Thus, critical pedagogy, or “transformative” pedagogy reminds educators that teaching is political, and that teachers need to reflect on their biases and prejudices, and not shy away from potentially disruptive topics so that they can build a community with their students in which every person is not only encouraged, but expected to contribute.

Questions:
●      What form does contribution in the classroom need to take?
●      Does this emphasis on the commitment to participate risk making students feel like they have to speak on behalf of a particular group? In what way is this good or bad? How do we avoid making students into “native informants”?


Loewen, J. W. (2007). What is the result of teaching history like this? In J. W. Loewen, Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong (340-354). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

In this chapter, Loewen argues that American history books assess students in ways that do not offer or invite students to make “important causal or logical connection[s]” between historic events. Nor do those books explain why major developments occurred in the past and, therefore, students cannot successfully use historic events to understand current events. Additionally, Loewen states that such books alienate “students of color and children from impoverished families” and girls in general since those books are presented from the “affluent white males” perspectives. Furthermore, he explains that the American educational system teaches “educated successful” Americans to have “allegiance” and a “vested interest” that American society is “fair” since it helped them to “be educated and successful.” Another aspect of the American educational system is “socialization.” This, Loewen explains, means that at schools students are frequently taught “what to think and how to act” in society. American history books apply this aspect of socialization without explicitly mentioning or explaining it. Hence, education teaches students not to be critical about society or to analyze or interpret societal issues “but merely to trust that it [society] is good.” Loewen concludes that we need to stop teaching history in a rote educational fashion and to start teaching history in interesting and important ways that invite students to connect history to their personal lives and to use history to understand the present and to make predictions for the future. This chapter is connected to practices of teaching, because Loewen shows how teaching in a non-critical or non-analytical way does not teach, nor encourage, students to connect theory with practice or to understand present time or events.

Questions:

●      How can lessons in history push against hegemonic thinking and give students the tools to disrupt traditional thinking?
●      What lessons from history can be drawn to learn how to effectively teach in a critical pedagogic method?

Morrell, E. [9] (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Literacy development among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(1), 72-77.

 Ernest Morrell applies the principles of critical pedagogy to literacy development in this article. He provides insight into what a critical pedagogy looks like in practice by discussing units of study in which he incorporated popular culture through hip hop, rap, television, media and popular film. Morrell argues that addressing popular culture, and letting it influence one’s curriculum design, builds a connection between the school culture, and the experiences of urban youth, which in turn motivates and empowers students because it gives them the chance to apply what they know to what they are learning. Students no longer have to feel disconnected from the classroom. The power dynamics in the classroom shift as a result; the knowledge and experiences of the students are integral components of the curriculum. In this way, the teaching practices are not only driven by mandated learning standards, but also by the interests and passions of the students. Morrell explains, “for critical education, the popular culture provides a logical connection between lived experiences and the school culture for urban youth” (p. 74).  For Morrell, a major goal of education is to raise the critical consciousness of people who have been oppressed, and he believes that students are motivated and empowered when they can address lived problems in the classroom.

Questions:
●      What does it mean to create authentic opportunities for students to develop critical literacy skills?
●      What elements of Morrell’s classroom could be used in primary school grades? How can popular culture be incorporated into younger grades?
●      Morrell says critical educators should not apologize for “innovative” teaching practices, but is there a limit to this?

Critical Theory and Food Justice: The Classroom Context

          This unit is designed to be explored over a six-week study in either a second or third grade classroom. I have included a variety of instructional strategies that may be present in any given classroom, but there is also space for the unit to flexibly address the variety of unique strengths, needs, and resources in a particular school community. To that end, the unit lessons follow the Universal Design for Learning model so that every student has multiple access points and opportunities to achieve the learning goal. Some of the strategies used in this lesson are listed in the following table:

Continue to Unit Plan and Culminating Project