Abstract
This chapter takes up the challenges as well as the possibilities associated with using queer critical pedagogy in early elementary classrooms. It centers on an event in a kindergarten classroom where the students and teacher engaged in what I call queer critical pedagogy. Throughout the chapter I grapple with the larger question, to what extent is queer critical pedagogy possible? This question requires that we explore the limitations of critical pedagogy for disrupting heteronormativity. Many of the queer critiques offered in this chapter (Barnard, http://www.exchangesjournal.org/print/print_1166.html, 2004; Bryson and de Castell, Educational Theory 43(3):341–355, 1993a, Bryson and de Castell, Can J Educ 18(3):285–305, 1993b; Gilbert, Sexuality in school: The limits of education, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014; Malinowitz, Textual orientations: Lesbian and gay students and the making of discourse communities, Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook Publishers, 92–107, 1995; Mayo, Gay-straight alliances and associations among youth in schools, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017; Wood, Cult Stud 19(4):430–438, 2005) are connected to the critiques of critical pedagogy put forth by poststructuralist feminists (Ellsworth, Harvard Educ Rev 59(3):297–324, 1989; Gore, The critical pedagogy reader, New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 331–348, 2003; Jones, Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence, New York: Peter Lang, 57–68, 2004; Orner, Feminisms and critical pedagogy, New York: Routledge, 74–89, 1992). I draw from this literature in order to discuss some limitations of critical pedagogy for disrupting heteronormativity, paying particular attention to the role of dialogue and student voice in this practice as well as the role of power in the classroom. In so doing, I highlight the ways that heteronormativity still exists in classroom spaces dedicated to disrupting it. I also discuss some pedagogical techniques educators have used to maximize the interruption of heteronormativity and minimize essentializing heteronormative reinscriptions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
All names, except for Riley’s, are pseudonyms. Riley is adamant that whenever I use examples from his experience in school in the classes I teach I use his real name so my students know that they are “kind of learning from him.” He feels similarly about my writing. My partner and I also recognize that providing him with a pseudonym when writing would do little to protect his identity as he already has a presence in the public arena with his own name. For example, he has given a speech at the Utah State Capitol, appeared in a documentary and a photo exhibit, been on the front page of statewide newspapers, and been part of the lead story on local newscasts.
- 2.
A cursory Internet search yields variations of this story (Dillon-Hreha 2007; Nagus 2010; Gavin 2014) and many links to lesson plans for elementary school teachers, particularly those working in grades K–2, to incorporate the book into their curricula. Many of the lesson plans suggest acting out/performing the wedding (Gavin 2014) of Q and U, and a number of news outlets around the country have stories about elementary school children doing so. Additionally, YouTube has a number of videos of these wedding performances. For news coverage, see for example: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/polk/marriage-of-q-and-u-022412, http://www.observernewsonline.com/content/q-marries-u-shuford-elementary, or http://savannahnow.com/west-chatham/2011-02-23/wedding-q-and-u#.T2EUtHj5bao
- 3.
Free thinker is a concept Riley uses to describe thinking that is free from the status quo, or as he puts it “free from having to think like everybody thinks you should think.” It is a common part of his vocabulary and has helped him articulate his feelings about friends who chide him for wearing pink socks or having longer hair. “I’m trying to help them learn how to be free thinkers, so they can wear what they want or have their hair how they want, without worrying about what other people will say.”
- 4.
Riley attends a public school in Utah, where the State Board of Education Rules prohibit “the advocacy of homosexuality.” Further Utah State Board of Education Rule R277-474-6-D states, “Utah school educators may … respond to spontaneous student questions for the purpose of providing accurate data or correcting inaccurate or misleading information or comments made by students in class regarding human sexuality. An educator may not intentionally elicit comments or questions about matters subject to parental consent requirements under this policy. Responses permitted under this section must be brief, factual, objective and in harmony with content requirements of this policy regarding the importance of marriage and family, abstinence from sexual activity before marriage, and fidelity after marriage.” At the same time, Rule R277-515-3 includes sexual orientation in the list of student identities that are protected from exclusion from programs or denial of benefits. Further, “an educator … may not engage in a course of conduct that would encourage a student(s) to develop a prejudice on these grounds or any others,” and Rule R277-515-4 makes educators responsible for preventing harassment or discriminatory conduct and for “demonstrat[ing] respect for diverse perspectives, ideas, and opinions and encourag[ing] contributions from a broad spectrum of school and community sources.”
References
Barnard, I. (2004). The pedagogy of diversity: The silence of sexuality [electronic version]. Exchanges: Online Journal of Teaching and Learning in the CSU. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from http://www.exchangesjournal.org/print/print_1166.html
Britzman, D. P. (1995). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight. Educational Theory, 45(2), 151–165.
Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1993a). En/gendering equity: On some paradoxical consequences of institutionalized programs of emancipation. Educational Theory, 43(3), 341–355.
Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1993b). Queer pedagogy: Praxis makes im/perfect. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 18(3), 285–305.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. D. (2003). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 1–21). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Dillon-Hreha, D. (2007) The wedding of Q and U. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.
Ellsworth, E. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address. New York: Teachers College Press.
Farley, L. (2018). Childhood beyond pathology: A psychoanalytic study of development and diagnosis. Albany: SUNY Press.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans. 20th Anniversary Edition). New York: Continuum.
Gavin, M. (2014). Celebrating a Q and U wedding in kindergarten. Kinder Craze: A Kindergarten Teaching Blog. Retrieved from https://kindercraze.com/celebrating-q-and-u-wedding-in/
Gilbert, J. (2014). Sexuality in school: The limits of education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gore, J. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies. London: Routledge.
Gore, J. (2003). What we can do for you! What can “we” do for “you”? In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 331–348). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hartmann, J. (2017). “Q has a best friend U.” Jack Hartmann’s Kids Music Channel. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCr7VPh7ym4
Jackson, J. (2010). “How do you spell homosexual?”: Naturally queer moments in K–12 classrooms. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(1), 36–51.
Jones, A. (1999). The limits of cross-cultural dialogue: Pedagogy, desire, and absolution in the classroom. Educational Theory, 49(3), 299–316.
Jones, A. (2004). Talking cure: The desire for dialogue. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence (pp. 57–68). New York: Peter Lang.
Kopelson, K. (2002). Dis/Integrating the gay/queer binary: “Reconstructed identity politics” for a performative pedagogy. College English, 65(1), 17–35.
Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Leap, W. (1999). Language, socialization, and silence in gay adolescence. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, & L. A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities: The gendered self in discourse (pp. 259–272). New York: Oxford University Press.
Malinowitz, H. (1995). The politics of outsiderhood go to school: Liberatory pedagogy. In Textual orientations: Lesbian and gay students and the making of discourse communities (pp. 92–107). Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook Publishers.
Mayo, C. (2017). Gay-straight alliances and associations among youth in schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McWilliam, E. (1997). Beyond the missionary position: Teacher desire and radical pedagogy. In S. Todd (Ed.), Learning desire: Perspectives on pedagogy, culture, and the unsaid (pp. 217–235). New York: Routledge.
Nagus, K. (2010). Congratulations Q and U. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Orner, M. (1992). Interrupting the calls for student voice in “liberatory education”: A feminist poststructuralist perspective. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 74–89). New York: Routledge.
Sears, J. T. (1999). Teaching queerly: Some elementary propositions. In W. J. Letts & J. T. Sears (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling (pp. 3–14). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Wood, L. (2005). Not a hetero: Confessions of a dangerous homo. Cultural Studies, 19(4), 430–438.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hackford-Peer, K. (2019). “That Wasn’t Very Free Thinker”: Queer Critical Pedagogy in the Early Grades. In: Mayo, C., Rodriguez, N.M. (eds) Queer Pedagogies. Critical Studies of Education, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27066-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27066-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27064-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27066-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)