L’éducation comme espace de réappropriation pour les peuples autochtones

Wiscutie-Crépeau, Nancy

doi:10.7202/1088587ar

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, despite an increase in “Indian control” of “Indian education” in both Canada and the United States since the 1970s (Brenna, 2014; Wiscutie-Crépeau, 2021), it is rare to find successful schools that have both Indigenized their organizational level (meaning schools are governed and administered by tribal/community members and the majority of the staff are tribally/community enrolled members), as well as Indigenized their infrastructure, meaning that the curriculum reflects the culture of the tribal/First nation, the language, the teachings, and the values (DeLong, 1998). According to the former superintendent for education for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dr. Loretta DeLong, “When they exist at all, cultural curriculum and language courses are added to the regular curriculum only through special program monies, which are short term and do not bring long-term change” (DeLong, 1998).…”

Section: Epistemological Controversy and Ontological Rebellionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue

Furrey

2023

Policy Futures in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper advances a theoretical analysis of the similarities and differences between critical theories of education and Indigenous theories of education along three main themes: epistemological and ontological groundings, the means of education, and political projects. While both schools of theory critique neoliberal and neoconservative tendencies in curriculum and in the political economy of education, and both promote pedagogies favoring freedom from oppression, respect, and sustainability divergences in the two schools of thought are important to grasp for theoretical and strategic reasons. This paper delineates these differences and arrives at the following broad conclusions: (1) while critical theories of education are epistemologically contentious, Indigenous theories of education are ontologically rebellious; (2) while critical scholars emphasize protecting and improving public schools in the name of preserving a public good, they largely ignore how the political economy of education and different political goals encourage Indigenous educators to turn towards options beyond the traditional public school for creating alternative educational spaces; and (3) while critical scholars promote a remaking of the public sphere to increase the participation and opportunities of all individuals within it, Indigenous scholars in education favor a model of schooling capable of raising citizens that are first citizens of their own communities, and then citizens of broader communities; this tension might be best illuminated by a liberal versus a communitarian political philosophy. This paper concludes in arguing that while the two bodies of literature have much in common, a pro-public school discourse, as well as new theories for intercultural pedagogy, should address the divergences evident in these themes.

show abstract

Section: Epistemological Controversy and Ontological Rebellionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue

Furrey

2023

Policy Futures in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

L’éducation comme espace de réappropriation pour les peuples autochtones

Cited by 1 publication

References 13 publications

Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue

Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About