THE BORDERS OF OUR MINDS:
A REFLECTION ON THE BORDER PEDAGOGY INITIATIVE
Jennifer Jeffries, Ed.D.
California State University, San Marcos
Abstract
This paper examines the potential that appreciative inquiry can have on developing a community
of educators who can learn together how to resolve some of the complex social issues and
concerns that are a part of the binational educational experience. During the Border Pedagogy
Conferences, educators had an opportunity to enter into dialogues that were more than just
collegial conversations, offering an opportunity to examine and explore the complexity of truly
educating children who are neither from here or from there.
Resumen
Este trabajo examina el potencial que una búsqueda con aprecio puede tener en el desarrollo de
una comunidad de pedagogos dispuestos a resolver algunos de los problemas sociales y
preocupantes que forman parte de la experiencia pedagógica binacional. Durante los Congresos
de Pedagogía Fronteriza, los pedagogos tuvieron la oportunidad de sostener diálogos que fueron
más que conversaciones colegiadas, y ofrecieron la oportunidad para examinar y explorar la
complejidad de cómo educar mejor a niños(as) que no son de aquí ni son de allá.
THE BORDERS OF OUR MINDS:
A REFLECTION ON THE BORDER PEDAGOGY INITIATIVE
There has been conversation galore about "the border problem." Politicians have used the topic to
further their political fortunes. Unemployed Americans have used it to vent their spleen in the
midst of their own desperation. Church leaders have used it to illustrate religious principles.
Academics have used it as the backdrop to intellectual inquiries. Teachers have used it to explain
why their work gets more difficult each year.
If ignored, the years of mutual sniping will take such deep root that the children in the border
regions-American, Mexican and all those traveling from points south-will be negatively
impacted for years to come by the interactions of adults who are caught up in the geo-political and
economic battles that are characteristic of border regions. In the interest of children, educational
leaders within the border region need to pursue new ways of engaging issues that affect parents
and children on both sides of the border. Interrupting the negative and false images and
stereotypes carried in the hearts and minds of those north and south of the border is essential in
order to protect the best interests of bicultural children.
The Border Pedagogy Initiative is a new and hopeful intentional effort to interrupt the past ways of
thinking about the border region. The creators of the Initiative have designed a container in which
a rich caldo of conversation can take place on behalf of the thousands of students who are
educated in the border regions and beyond. This "container" provides a "safe zone" in which
educators and community leaders from the border regions can gather and exchange ideas that
can advance the thinking and actions of adults involved in the education of children. This
advancement will hopefully take the form of reducing the damaging myths, stereotypes and
actions that dog the interactions among and between individuals from the U.S. and Mexico border
regions.
Heifetz (1999) describes this container as a "holding environment." He suggests that a key
leadership task is to shape a process in which a topic of great importance-one fraught with
volatility-can be tackled by those who wish to engage in the process of change. In order for the
process of change to be successful, leaders must take care to provide emotional, physical and
intellectual safety so that the hard questions can be asked and discussed without participants
feeling that they are in the bull's eye of the rhetorical arrows.. The Border Pedagogy Initiative is a
prime example of a "holding environment," that allows individuals to come together and discuss
issues of great importance for the border region.
Another leadership task is to shape what takes place in the "holding environment." Sergiovanni
(1992) challenges leaders to discern the difference between congeniality and collegiality. A culture
of congeniality is characterized by friendly, polite interactions. In its best form it provides a highly
interpersonal environment and, in its worst form, produces a "happy face" environment in which
little but chismes takes place. Many educational organizations are highly congenial, but have not
matured into a state of collegiality. Congenial cultures have little stomach for the hard work
required to crack open the difficult questions looming over the work of the organization. Collegial
cultures, on the other hand, are marked by engaged conversation around the shared work of
those involved in a given effort. In this culture, ideas are challenged, background assumptions are
uncovered, and new ways of thinking and doing are identified and embraced. Congeniality is
helpful to the effort, but it is not sufficient. It cannot do the heavy lifting of transformational change.
Collegiality needs congeniality in order to rein in unfettered and rapid ideologues from
overwhelming the discussion. However, it is within collegial cultures that the hard work gets done.
A successful holding environment allows for the presence and growth of both congeniality and
collegiality. With so much hanging in the balance-the future of children's lives-the lion's share
of the effort should go to building collegial relationships. The Border Pedagogy Initiative has, in its
infancy, shown great promise on both fronts, for it provides a safe place for discussing the difficult
issues.
The nurturing and sustaining of a collegial culture depends upon how the participants talk to each
other. Senge, et al. (1994) propose a conversation continuum in order to conceptualize how
talking can be transformed into powerful thinking.
Conversation Continuum
Raw Debate Polite Discussion Skilled Discussion Dialogue
_______I______ ______ I______ ______I______ ______I______
The history of borderland exchanges has been rooted in "raw debate." Senge, et al. (1994)
characterize this as, a complete advocacy on the part of each member engaged in conversation.
Each member holds his/her position in conversation. Participants listen as a matter of strategy.
There are winners and losers (p.386).
This "take no prisoners" approach does not have a place in the 21st century. Countries are too
interdependent for any one entity to try to overwhelm the interests of others. It is short-term
thinking, doomed to failure in our global village, since the ideals, goals, and values of other are not
validated within the confines of raw debate.
Siguiente parte
Página Anterior
|