Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Global south onto-epistemologies are rarely part of bilingual and early childhood teacher education programs. Most university courses, even those that are critically oriented, remain embedded in global north conceptualizations of theory and practice. In this paper, we offer critical examinations of how global north colonialism and its latest reiteration, neoliberalism, have produced hegemonic discourses which have shaped the education of teachers in the fields of bilingual and early childhood education. We then share our pláticas about our global south approaches to teacher education. In doing so, we offer ways in which to make sense of our role as teacher educators in challenging and navigating dynamic, and often all-encompassing neoliberal systems of oppression within bilingual and early childhood teacher/education.

Keywords

Transformative teacher education bilingual and early childhood education global south Chicana feminism Black feminism neoliberalism

Introduction

Global south approaches to engaging with university students preparing to teach in birth-12th grade settings are rarely part of teacher education programs. Instead, global north approaches—which are mostly informed by white men of European descent—are what persists. In an effort to shift the global north dominance in teacher education and the neoliberal discourses it produces,¹ our aim in this paper is to illustrate how centering global south perspectives in bilingual and early childhood teacher education (our content areas) can be important sites of action.

The global north is not just a geographical positioning or region of the world, rather a worldview that is dominated by Eurocentric, white male onto-epistemologies and “all their satellite oppressions…increasingly more specialized in transnationalization of suffering…” (de Sousa Santos, 2014, p. 10). For the most part, the global north represents European onto-epistemologies and knowledge bases that also include critical traditions found in many corners of the world (Grosfoguel, 2008; Quijano, 2007). However, there are other ways to understand the world that are not dominated by European fundamentalism; global south ways of knowing and being have indeed persisted but are often strategically and systematically ignored and marginalized. The global south represents voices and bodies that resist global north impositions, but also—and most importantly—continue in countless ways to produce valuable knowledge. Global south onto-epistemologies have the potential to decenter the European imaginary (de Sousa Santos, 2014). As women of color living in the global north, we have been concerned about the lack of global south voices and bodies in the foundations of birth-12th teacher education (Perez and Saavedra, 2017; Perez et al., 2017).

Global south onto-epistemologies stem from people of color and Indigenous peoples who have been historically colonized within the geographical global south/north and those who exist in the colonial global north due to apartheid (Trinidad Galván, 2014). For bilingual and early childhood education, global south perspectives can dismantle and reimagine neoliberal, individualistic constructions of childhood/s by centering the lived experiences of children and communities of color, making it impossible to ignore the larger collective or to separate ways of being from one’s cultural, socio-political, and glocal context. In bilingual education, this means possibilities for disrupting the “language-as-resource” neoliberal discourse that promotes a market mentality and viewpoint of language. In early childhood, global south perspectives challenge the neoliberal assumption that parents are best suited as consumers in a private market of “quality” and westernized childcare. For some global south peoples, educating children among family members, elders, and community members is the priority (Kaomea, 2005) rather than making sure children are reaching global north standards of childhood (e.g., developmental markers). Considering these important interrogations, and as Latina teacher educators with global south orientations, we draw from Chicana, Black, and other global south perspectives to conceptualize our bilingual and early childhood courses. In doing so, we disrupt and reimagine what is possible for teacher education.

To look more intimately at how we approach our teacher education courses from a global south perspective, in this paper, we engage in pláticas as a Chicana/Latina feminist methodology (Fierros and Delgado Bernal, 2016). By having pláticas about our work as teacher educators, we share how Chicana and Black feminist global south perspectives have informed course design, pedagogy, and our engagements with students. Pláticas also allow us to reflect critically on the ways we ourselves can harbor global north tendencies. From these reflections, we become aware of how global north discourses can seep into our pedagogies. This tension gives promise to challenge global north neoliberalism in bilingual and early childhood teacher education.

The dominance of global north neoliberalism in bilingual and early childhood teacher education

Global north neoliberalism

Neoliberalism assumes that individualism, capitalism, and privatization should be central to institutional and societal entities such as the government, prisons, and schools. In our current times, it has become so embedded in all facets of life that it is now part of our everyday reality (Lemke, 2001). This rationality, or coloniality of power (Quijano, 2007) has been internalized as an individual endeavor (Peters, 2005) that must be pursued. For example, in our neoliberal global context, the individual is responsible for making “sensible choices” for the sake of her best interest. In this way, the individual is solely accountable for her mis/fortune. The systems that create inequities through economic policies, institutionalized discrimination, and racism are absent from the debate (Darder, 2012; McLaren, 2005).

Neoliberalism is the global north, neocolonial mechanism that produces policies of economic interest and cultural appropriation throughout the world. Venugopal (2015) makes the clear link between neoliberalism as new a form of colonialism:

…wealthy industrialised countries impose liberal economic policy regimes on poor countries – from trade liberalisation and carbon emissions restrictions to ‘good governance’ and democratization – that they themselves never had to endure when they were at the same stage of development. Lurking behind the guise of technocratic policy advice is self‐interest, venality, and a broader agenda of preserving the privileged position of the north (p. 177).

Neoliberalism as a form of neocolonialism continues its seduction and creates a hegemonic relationship with global south peoples. Grosfoguel (2008) argues that this seduction stems from “making subjects that are socially located on the oppressed side of the colonial difference think epistemically like the ones in [global] north positions,” (p. 3) which in turn makes the neoliberal/colonial model of existence successful. This is true, as well, for those in Latin America. According to Quijano (2007), colonization through the “imagination of the dominated” (p. 169) makes it possible to sustain a global north Euro-American system of economic and cultural interest and rule through racialized categories imported from the USA and Western Europe. Quijano coins this the “coloniality of power” that is pervasive in Latin America.

Global north neoliberalism in education

Global north neoliberalism is embedded in education in a variety of ways (Lipman, 2007). Examples in the USA include government mandates such as no child left behind (NCLB), which have provided a basis for the movement to privatize education through charter schools, the multi-billion dollar testing industry (which relies on children, especially those of color, to fail in order to remain relevant and profitable), the intertwining of government and big business, and the textbook/packaged curriculum industry which embeds neoliberal propaganda at an early age, creating consumers for generations to come (Harvey, 2005; Pérez and Cannella, 2011; Ross and Gibson, 2007; Torres, 2009).

Interestingly, global north neoliberalsim is even entrenched in discourses of equity in the USA. Atasay (2015) examines neoliberal government policies such as NCLB and Race To The Top (RTTT), which policy makers have claimed were developed to combat educational inequities. However, these policies have only reinforced national standards and assessments that reify the same system that has produced narrow, one-size-fits-all curriculum standards and penalized schools. This has all been wrapped in a disguise of accountability to ensure “equity and excellence.” However neoliberal equity and excellence models do not challenge the deep roots of systemic colonialism, and in fact, exacerbate inequities (Darder, 2012).

We cannot forget that one underlying assumption in neoliberalism is competition in a “free” global market. At the school level, relying on the notion of “choice,” communities of color, working class and the poor are left to fend for (e.g., choose) their own education. But there is no guarantee that schools will choose them in a free-market approach to education. It is well known that charter schools often cherry pick from applicants so that they are best positioned to maintain high standardized test scores (Welner, 2011). Moreover, when schools and children “fail,” they are seen as having complete control of that failure. Marx and Saavedra (2014) emphasize that in the current climate of high-stakes testing, individuals are seen as succeeding and/or failing based on their “abilities,” completely ignoring “the racialized, inequitable, disinvested communities from which many minorities, including ELLs, reside” (p. 422). Systems of oppression and institutions that perpetuate inequities are considered immaterial in a global north neoliberal worldview.

Global north neoliberalism in teacher education

In teacher education, global north neoliberalism exists in a variety of ways. At the university level, funding cuts and market-based solutions at institutions of higher education are now commonplace and have had grave and adverse impacts (Saunders, 2010). The same neoliberal movement that has gained much currency in birth-12 reforms is also gaining ground in the preparation of teachers. Hinchey and Cardiero-Kaplan (2005) critically examine how educating teachers has become an enterprise unto itself. By providing different “paths” to certifying and licensing teachers, companies and “non-profits” such as Teach for America have quickly stepped in to “help” prepare teachers for the demands of today’s classroom under the guise of closing the achievement gap and increasing the supply of teachers (Osgood, 2014). Furthermore, textbook companies such as Pearson are creating a one-stop shop for all things teacher education from tests and textbooks to professional development training materials. Instead of entrusting educational researchers to construct the curriculum, much like the birth-12 education system, teacher education is increasingly becoming more privatized and technocratic. Just as concerning is the prominent focus on educators being skilled in teaching Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), a symptom of the neoliberal agenda that values future money-making careers of birth-12 students over education in the arts, social sciences, and humanities.

Yet another troubling aspect of neoliberal reforms in teacher education are attacks on social justice and multicultural education. Though neoliberalism flirts with “inclusivity” and eliminating the achievement gap, which has been racially defined (Delpit, 2012), it by no means creates a context for teacher candidates to be educated in ways that promote a reading of the word and the world (Freire, 2005; Souto-Manning, 2010b). To illustrate, Zeichner (2010) highlights the widespread belief that “multicultural education in teacher education programs is often equated with a lack of concern for academic standards” (p. 1549). Somehow, multicultural and social justice education are seen as incongruent with rigor, instructional practices, and excellence.

Global north neoliberalism in bilingual and early childhood teacher education

Global north neoliberalism can be found in dominant approaches to bilingual and early childhood teacher education. In bilingual education, Garcia and Wei (2014) point to Mignolo’s (2000) assertion that language and identities have been tied to the colonial design and creation of nation-state, meaning that language and nation have become synonymous even though language and identities are not so easily defined and directly connected to each other. Following this reasoning, in global north neoliberal approaches to bilingual teacher education, one teaches that the purpose of learning a language (in the USA, English) is to become part of the nation-state and fulfill its economic future and goals. Furthermore, studies in neoliberalism and bilingual education point to the discourse of marketability and entrepreneurialism that promotes a type of individual who manages herself in ways to advance neoliberalism. For example, Petrovic (2005) discusses how “language-as-resource” is used to promote a rationale for bilingual education. However, in doing so, the field inevitably succumbs to the needs and demands of the markets and economy—a neoliberal technique. Language, then, is no longer a right tied to the sociocultural and political needs of groups and individuals but rather serves only economic desires. As a result, the “neoliberal school culture has mediated the academic literacy experiences of emergent bilinguals” (Hickey, 2016: 15) and demands that teacher education continues to reproduce this logic.

In early childhood education, advocating for financial support is often positioned within an economic investment framework. Heckman (n.d.), a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, has become synonymous with such neoliberal rhetoric, suggesting that investment in early childhood education is “a cost-effective strategy for promoting economic growth” (p. 1). From a deficit vantage point, and in a condescending manner, he posits that “at-risk” children:

…come from families who lack the education, social, and economic resources to provide the early developmental stimulation that is so helpful for success in school, college, career, and life. Poor health, dropout rates, poverty, and crime—we can address these problems and substantially reduce their costs to taxpayers by investing in developmental opportunities for at-risk children. (p.1)

These deficit and neoliberal investment arguments are the most prominent tactics used to not only justify funding for early childhood education, but also to expand a “quality” workforce (Dahlburg et al. 2007) through teacher education programs that emphasize child development and assessment—two facets of early childhood known to stigmatize young children who exist outside of the “normalized” white, middle-class, monolingual, heterosexual, and able-bodied child (Burman, 2008).

Decolonizing neoliberal bilingual and early childhood teacher education through global south approaches

A call for challenging global north neoliberalism has come from the global south, which can be antithetical to neoliberalism. To be clear, not all global south voices are critical of global north epistemologies, as many have benefited from an epistemic global north positioning that has yielded power and economic wealth for a select few (Suárez Navaz, 2008). At the same time, global south epistemologies have made critical challenges that have opened new spaces of thinking and being that alter the global north dream world. De Sousa Santos (2014), Trinidad Galván (2014), Grosfoguel (2008), Suárez Navaz (2008), and many other global south postcolonial scholars situate active resistance and new imaginaries that stem from global south epistemologies in and outside the south.

As Chicana/Latina teacher educators situated in the global north, our work is highly influenced by the aforementioned scholars. The voices and bodies of critique, resistance, and healing that emanates from Other worlds in spite of the manifestation (in different forms) of white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchy (hooks, 2010) inspires and compels us to act, rethink, and reimagine teacher education. In particular, we draw from the visions and experiences of women of color from the global north with global south positionalities who offer feminista border thinking (Saldivar-Hull, 2000) and reclaim subjugated knowledges (Lorde, 1984). Consequently, our methodology in this essay reflects the work of Anzaldúa (1987) through her borderlands theorizing, as well as Collins’ (2000; 2008) Black feminist thought, which has elevated the knowledges of Black women and women of color through the generation of theory as inseparable from lived experiences. From these global south onto-epistemologies, we centralize facets of ourselves often discounted in neoliberal regimes, such as critical self-knowledge (hooks, 2010) and women of color feminista pedagogies. Often these concepts are invisibilized because they do not adhere to the global north critical perspectives that are sanctioned in academia and research.² However, when enacted through teacher education, global north practices, and in turn, neoliberalism, are challenged, allowing new imaginaries for how we approach pedagogy—from course design to how we engage with students.

Pláticas as a Chicana/Latina feminist methodology

To examine the process of centering global south epistemologies in our approaches to bilingual and early childhood teacher education, we engage in pláticas as a Chicana/Latina feminist methodology (Fierros and Delgado Bernal, 2016; Gonzalez, 2001; Saavedra and Preuss, 2014). Through pláticas, we honor the meaning making that transpires in everyday and mundane conversations and exchanges between mothers/daughters, teacher/students, and colegas, to name a few, that yield conocimiento³ (Anzaldúa, 2000; Trinidad Galván, 2001). This conocimiento comes from collective dialogue and inevitably challenges the impersonal and clinical methodologies that saturate even critically conceived research designs. Instead, we center the theorizing that happens at the kitchen table, over coffee, and in encounters between people. Fierros and Delgado Bernal (2016) claim that:

when the research process is grounded in decolonial/anticolonial Chicana/Latina feminist theories, pláticas are part of a methodology that is essential to the way we embody and perform research. Pláticas align with the strong feminist tradition of theorizing from the brown body, and therefore, the modes of interaction and analysis are collaborative and attentive to the many ways of knowing and learning in our communities (p. 116).

We begin our pláticas with a focus on colonialism. We then speak to the identities of ourselves, our students, and the children and communities with which we work. Finally, we speak about exposing our students to global south perspectives and the important knowledges these counter-neoliberal worldviews center in bilingual and early childhood education.

Starting 500 years ago

Michelle: How shall we begin?

Cinthya : How about with how we generally conceptualize our courses?

Michelle: Sounds good…

Cinthya : Working with predominately white students at my former university, I realized how my approach to multicultural education⁴ had to be different. It couldn’t focus on teaching my students about the oppression of people of color because most of my students couldn’t really connect to the plight of people of color. Chicana feminism, and in particular, Anzaldúa’s “path of conocimiento,” where she embarks on a journey to really understand the cultural scripts that tug at her, prompted me to think about how I could make my course about my white students while still centering social justice and critical education. I didn’t want to normalize whiteness; I wanted the focus to be on how the students and I are complicit. I felt the necessity to begin 500 years ago. This helped students contextualize their identity within a larger project known as colonialism. I truly believe we all need to reexamine our own participation in neocolonialism and neoliberalism as well as other parts of our culture that no longer really serve us. Therefore, my syllabus states:

In this course, we will begin a journey of understanding who we are, our positionality within the concept of multicultural education. To accomplish this, we will engage with various social theories of education (de/post/colonial, indigenous, feminist and others) that will allow us to examine the roots of our thinking, Western epistemology, in order to reflect in the ways we experience and view the world and in particular, education.

Michelle: In the past, I, too, have worked in university contexts where my students were mostly white. In my current context, however, I teach at a university in the USA situated near the border of Mexico; therefore, I work predominantly with Latina/women of color. Even though my current students possess minoritized positionalities, it seems whether I’ve taught in a predominately white context or at a “Hispanic-serving institution” (HSI), the experiences of most of my students (not unlike myself during my undergraduate studies) have proven they’ve had no exposure to critical perspectives on colonialism in the USA, globally, or even within our own Latina/o communities. Consequently, like you, I’ve started each of my semesters with discussions about colonialism, whether teaching about multiculturalism for early childhood educators or in my family and community collaboration course. A global south, Black feminist approach to teacher education has inspired me to use my classroom space as a “critical site for not just fending off hegemonic ideas from dominant culture, but [for] crafting counter-hegemonic knowledge that fosters changed consciousness” (Collins, 2000: 285).

In my attempts to foster a changed consciousness in myself and my students, during the first weeks of the semester, we’ve engaged in readings that have challenged Columbus as the person who “discovered” the USA. They read Once upon a genocide by Bigelow (2009), which explains how Columbus participated in the slave trade, committed genocide, and raped and pillaged Indigenous peoples and tribal nations—all in the name of power and fortune. We then read Kaomea (2005), who speaks about the coloniality of becoming a mother as a Native Hawaiian woman in the global north. She shares her journey from pregnancy, when she and her child were stigmatized as under-developing, and the pressure she later felt (but resisted) to place her child in an early childhood “educational” global north context, rather than in the care of her Native Hawaiian family and elders. As Collins (2000) explains, neoliberalism persists when children are situated as the individual “property” of a parent or guardian—disconnected from the community in which they reside. When we view the “larger community as responsible for children,” we challenge “prevailing capitalist relations” that disavow “othermothers’ and other nonparents’ ‘rights’ in childrearing” (Collins, 2000: 182).

In the first weeks of class, students also learn about neoliberal colonialism from global south scholars like Said (1978), Takaki (1993), and Viruru (2012). Finally, we watch the film Rabbit Proof Fence (Noyce et al., 2002), a poignant story about the colonial/imperialistic injustices that have occurred (and continue to occur) for Aboriginal peoples in Australia. This allows us to situate USA colonialism and economic imperialism within a larger global context.

Student/teacher identities

Cinthya: So what do you think this means in terms of identity in our fields?

Michelle: Well, in addition to learning about colonialism and economic imperialism, I’ve also found that it’s important for both myself and the students to explore more intimately our intersectional identities. As Russell et al. (2015) explain “multiple marginality and intersectionality both address and envelop the dynamic experiences reflected in the multiple threads of race, gender, and class in the lives of women of color (McCall, 2005)” (p. 50). To explore these and other dynamic multiplicities, I have used Nieto’s (2010) chapter on teacher identities to begin unpacking who we are as educators, individuals, and as a collective, and what privileges/points of oppression we experience, based on our social locations, systemic oppression, and interpersonal relations (Collins, 2000)—a discussion which is a sharp departure from understanding the world through neoliberal individualism. The objectives in my syllabi have said students will:

Explore the complexity and multiplicity of one’s own cultural identity(ies) and the roles one plays within a society of diverse cultural, linguistic, racial, gender, socioeconomic, etc. identities; [and to] reflect critically on the ways in which the identity and cultural awareness of early childhood practitioners can impact relationships formed with families that are socially, culturally, and linguistically marginalized in our society.

With my white students, I push them to think outside of the privileged and neoliberal understanding of identity as singular (e.g., “I’m just white”) and towards an understanding of themselves as intersectional (Crenshaw, 1991). These intersections become a point at which to make connections to each other (hooks, 2000). For all of my students, and especially my students of color, it’s often a chance to see the complexity in their intersecting identities and how neoliberalism produces systemic and everyday oppressions. In asking students to be vulnerable, I too share my feminist, global south awakening when I began to think more deeply about my intersecting identity as a Latina woman in early childhood studies. This awakening occurred for me when I first realized education was a mostly white, gendered field and what that means for how women of color are treated, and as a whole, how women are underpaid in a neoliberal system that purportedly ignores identity politics. I also share that this was just a beginning for me, as I am constantly reflecting upon and challenging myself to see points at which I am both privileged and oppressed. Collins (2000) reminds me that “depending on the context, individuals and groups may be…oppressors in some settings, oppressed in others, or simultaneously oppressing and oppressed in still others” (p. 246).

Cinthya : Yes, this is very important to do. And now that I, too, teach at a USA HSI near the Mexico border, I think that critical discussions of how our identities are influenced by global north and neoliberalism are indeed needed. For instance, just recognizing one is “Hispanic,” “Latinx,” or “Chicanx” does not mean one is able to critically examine one’s self knowledge or how one comes to know, understand and navigate the world—conocimiento. This is why I include the works of global south authors like Lugones, Quijano, and Grosfoguel, to name a few, to really push us to think about how our identity is caught up in the coloniality of power. Acknowledging that I am complicit in the ways global north epistemologies manifest in my pedagogy and research and especially in my personal life, I share with students that I’m not necessarily outside of partaking in the coloniality of power. I make a conscious effort to navigate and negotiate this force in my life. Without this, I find no way to transform myself and society. As Gloria Anzaldúa (1987) so profoundly captures, “I change myself, I change the world” (p. 70), a message I try to reiterate often for myself and my students.

Exposing ourselves and students to global south perspectives: Creating spaces for critical self-reflection

Cinthya : To provide some background on why I believe it’s so important for myself and my students to look within (Saavedra and Pérez, 2017), I remember that when I first started to learn about oppression and neoliberalism, I instantly felt my own participation in it. Not only was it happening to me as a Latina but that in some ways, I was contributing to it because of my mis/education, my life as a “Westerner.” But I also know that others tend to be defensive about this; they don’t want to be seen as “bad” people. Thus, I try to demonstrate to students that like them, I’m also wrapped up in neoliberal discourses and narratives that divide and impose ways to be because they seem “natural.” But it’s only natural because we’ve been conditioned through neoliberalism that things appear to happen in natural, uncontested ways. My students say “Asi son las cosas!” I respond that just because that’s the way things have been, doesn’t mean they have to continue this way. We then engage in discussions about how the past and even the present have always been contested by some segment of society, even by some in dominant groups.

To facilitate these discussions, I make sure my students are exposed to global south narratives and research from multiple geopolitical locations. I’m reminded of Anzaldúa’s (1987) plea in Borderlands:

To the immigrant mexicanos and the recent arrivals we must teach our history. The 80 million mexicanos and the Latinos from Central and South America must know our struggles. Each one of us must know basic facts about Nicaragua, Chile and the rest of Latin America. (p. 87)

Michelle : I agree with you and Anzaldúa. The very foundation of Black feminist thought is to elevate and share the lived experiences of Black women and global south peoples. This is not only an exercise in resistance to global north, neoliberal domination—to speak, sing, create, perform, and share counter-stories of the her-storical violence and injustices experienced by people of color—but also as a source of healing and empowerment. In Lorde’s (1984) words, “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood” (p. 40).

With this wisdom in mind, for my early childhood students and for my own continued critical un/knowing, we learn about the historical and contemporary struggles of Latina/o and Black communities, those labeled as having dis/abilities, Indigenous peoples, and those with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning identities. Through the sharing of marginalized lived experiences, we learn about cultural appropriation and how each of us (including myself) have at times participated in this through our global north upbringings. As an example, we share some of the costumes we may have worn for Halloween (e.g., Disney’s “Pocahontas”) and what we sometimes see in early childhood dramatic play centers (for instance, fast-food advertising and credit cards) that perpetuate capitalism and colonialist worldviews. Listening to Cinthya’s podcast on cultural appropriation (Saavedra, 2015) has prompted us to question and rethink how we all have participated in neoliberal colonialism when celebrating holidays like Halloween and Thanksgiving in the USA. We question, how has the marketing of such colonial discourses benefited the dominant?

As a class, we also engage in readings about the racialized, class-based, and language oppressions that children and communities of color experience when our neoliberal approaches to early education assume children who are economically under-resourced must be “saved” through programs like Head Start (Souto-Manning, 2010a). From a neoliberalist purview, the fault of poverty lies within individual children and families seeking Head Start services, something that must be deconstructed if we are to value and create meaningful partnerships with the families with whom we work. Engaging with global south perspectives in early childhood allows us to learn from and, at times, make connections to Others’ ways of knowing and being that inherently challenge global north neoliberalism.

Cinthya: This reminds me of how Anzaldúa has taught me about the importance of seeing a common (resistance) thread between and across different geopolitical boundaries as a way to examine the impact of global north onto-epistemologies worldwide. This allows us to “meet on a broader communal ground” (p. 87), one that goes beyond a common culture. To insight these discussions, I’ve had students read Stuart Hall (1996), bell hooks (2010), Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999), Ramon Grosfoguel (2008), Anibal Quijano (2007), Maria Lugones (2007), AnaLouise Keating (2007), Gloria Anzaldúa (1987), Paulo Freire (2005), Gregory Cajete (2000), and Manulani Aluli Meyer (2008). Joe Kincheloe⁵ (2006) is one global north critical voice I’ve used because he centers global south epistemologies.

Each of these authors draw upon global south onto-epistemologies—ways of knowing and being that challenge the normativity of white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, and capitalism. Through these readings, students and I deeply explore questions not often asked in traditional bilingual teacher education. For example, how did we develop an identity of the West/North? Why do we think in binary ways? How is colonialism still a part of our educational system and how does neoliberalism play a role in this colonialist participation? What is knowledge? And how does the construct of knowledge change, depending on geo-body-politics? How is educational research complicit in neocolonization? These questions lead us to develop conocimiento (deep awareness of epistemology) and understanding of our positionalities and roles as educators. My course design is intensely shaped by the concept of developing our own conocimiento and the influence of the global north on our (forced) inherited epistemology. This way, we can begin to tease apart where our disciplinary, cultural, and societal knowledges come from and how they inform our worldviews.

The pláticas continue

We must remember that global north colonialist discourses are intertwined and further fueled by neoliberalism. Because of this pervasiveness, we believe it is essential that global north neoliberalism be explicitly interrogated within teacher education, and we must also question the ways in which it is entrenched in ourselves as teacher educators. For instance, how have mechanisms such as testing and text book companies swooped in to provide universities the “resources” to foster “success” in our global economy?

For us, centering global south perspectives in bilingual and early childhood teacher education changes how we approach course development, pedagogy, and our engagements with students. We are compelled to rethink, reimagine and enact different ways to “do” education. This not only gives promise to challenge neoliberalism embedded in most teacher education programs, and therefore, the field of education itself, but also and most importantly, incites transformative action in ourselves as teacher educators. Important to acknowledge is how, even as supposed “experts,” we ourselves are part of the global north neoliberal regime. It is problematic to teach as if we are free of the influence of colonialism and neoliberalism. Some of us have jobs, grants, and research agendas because of it. It is imperative, then, for students to explore with us how global north neoliberalism seeps into our very being. As Freire (2005) suggests, we should move “from talking to learners to talking to them and with them” (p. 111).

We end this article with hopes that our pláticas have compelled you, the reader, to engage in your own pláticas about transforming your pedagogies and methodologies so that they draw from Other world, global south thinking.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Cinthya M Saavedra is an associate professor and academic director of the Mexican American Studies Program at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, USA. Her research centers Chicana/Latina feminist epistemology in the investigation of emergent bilingual, immigrant, and borderland experiences in education. In addition, her scholarship addresses critical research methodologies such as testimonios, pláticas, and critical reflexivity. Dr. Saavedra’s work is published in Equity & Excellence in Education, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Language Arts, and TESOL Quarterly. She has co-edited special issues in the Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies (JOLLAS) on Chicana/Latina pedagogies and methodologies and the journal of Global Studies of Childhoods on centering global south onto-epistemologies in childhood studies.

Michelle Salazar Pérez is an associate professor of Early Childhood Education at New Mexico State University. She uses critical qualitative methodologies and Black feminist thought to examine dominant constructions of childhood/s, particularly how they influence public policy and subjugate the lived experiences of marginalized people/s and communities. She is co-editor of the books Critical examinations of quality in childhood education and care: Regulation, disqualification, and erasure (Peter Lang) and Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures (Routledge). Her work has been published in the journals Equity & Excellence in Education, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Global Studies of Childhood, and Qualitative Inquiry.

References

Anzaldúa

(1987) Borderlands/la frontera. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books, pp.1–260.

Anzaldúa

(ed.) (1990) Making face, making soul/haciendo caras: Creative and critical perspectives by women of color. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Foundation, pp.1–402.

Anzaldúa

(2000) Quincentennial: From victimhood to active resistance. In Keating

(ed.) Gloria Anzaldúa: Interviews/Entrevistas (pp. 177–178). New York, NY: Routledge.

Anzaldúa

(2002) Now let us shift…the path of conocimiento…inner work, public acts. In: Anzaldúa

Keating

(eds) This bridge we call home: Radical visions for transformation (pp. 540–578). New York, NY: Routledge.

Atasay

(2015) Neoliberal multiculturalism embedded in social justice education: commodification of multicultural education for the 21st century. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 12(3): 171–204.

Bigelow

(2009) Once upon a genocide: Columbus in children’s literature. In: Au

(ed.) Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice (pp. 73–85). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Burman

(2008) Deconstructing developmental psychology (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge, pp.1–356.

Cajete

(2000) Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers, pp.1–339.

Collins

(2000) Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, pp.1–335.

10.

Collins

(2008) Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, pp.1–357.

11.

Crenshaw

(1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1299.

12.

Dahlberg

Moss

and Pence

(2007) Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). London, England: Falmer Press, pp.1–206.

13.

Darder

(2012) Neoliberalism in the academic borderlands: An on-going struggle for equality and human rights. Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association 48(5): 412–426.

14.

De Sousa Santos

(2014) Epistemologies of the south: Justice against epistemicide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp.1–240.

15.

Delpit

(2012) “Multiplication is for white people:” Raising expectations for other people’s children. New York, NY: New Press, pp.1–224.

16.

Fierros

Delgado Bernal

(2016) Vamos a platicar: The contours of pláticas as Chicana/Latina feminist methodology. Chicana/Latina Studies 15(2): 98–121.

17.

Freire

(2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. (Trans. Macedo, D, Koike, D and Olivera, A). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.1–184.

18.

Garcia

Wei

(2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York, NY: Palgrave, pp.1–165.

19.

Gonzalez

(2001) ‘Haciendo que hacer’– cultivating a Mestiza worldview and academic achievement: Braiding cultural knowledge into educational research, policy, practice, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 14(5): 641–656.

20.

Grosfoguel

(2008) Transmodernity, border thinking, and global coloniality: Decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies. Eurozine. Available at: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-07-04-grosfoguel-pt.html (accessed 2 January 2018).

21.

Hall

(1996) The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In: Gieben

Hall

(eds) Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 184–227). London: Blackwell Publishers.

22.

Heckman

(n.d.) Invest in early childhood development: Reduce deficits, strengthen the economy. Available at: https://heckmanequation.org/assets/2013/07/F_HeckmanDeficitPieceCUSTOM-Generic_052714-3-1.pdf (accessed 2 January 2018).

23.

hooks

(2000) Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, pp.1–123.

24.

hooks

(2010) Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, pp.1–191.

25.

Harvey

(2005) A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp.1–247.

26.

Hickey

(2016) “They always keep us in line”: Neoliberalism and elementary emergent bilinguals. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 14(2): 14–40.

27.

Hinchey

Cadiero-Kaplan

(2005) The future of teacher education and teaching: Another piece of the privatization puzzle. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 3(2): 1–19.

28.

Kaomea

(2005) Reflections of an “always already” failing Native Hawaiian mother: Deconstructing colonial discourses on indigenous childbearing and early childhood education. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being 2(1): 67–85.

29.

Keating

(2007) Teaching transformation: Transcultural classroom experience. New York, NY: Palgrave, pp.1–276.

30.

Keating

(2013) Transformation now! Toward a post-oppositional politics of change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp.1–262.

31.

Kincheloe

(2006) Critical ontology and indigenous ways of being: forging a postcolonial curriculum. In: Kanu

(ed.) Curriculum as cultural practices: Postcolonial imaginations. (pp.181–202) Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

32.

Lemke

(2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michele Foucault’s lectures at the College de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society 30 (2): 190–207.

33.

Lipman

(2007) “No Child Left Behind”: Globalization, privatization and the politics of inequality. In: Ross

Gibson

(eds) Neoliberalism and education reform (pp. 35–58). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

34.

Lorde

(1984) Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press, pp.1–190.

35.

Lugones

(2007) Heterosexualism and the colonial/modern gender system. Hypatia 22: 186–209.

36.

Maparyan

(2012) The womanist idea. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.1–388.

37.

Marx

Saavedra

(2014) Understanding the epistemological divide in ESL education: What we learned from a failed university—school district collaboration. Urban Education 49(4): 418–439.

38.

McCall

(2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1800.

39.

McLaren

(2005) Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, pp.1–352.

40.

Meyer

(2008) Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and the triangulation of meaning. In: Denzin

Lincoln

Smith

(eds) Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 217–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

41.

Mignolo

(2000) Local histories/global designs. Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.1–371.

42.

Nieto

(2010) The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities (10th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, pp.1–256.

43.

Noyce

Olsen

Winter

(Producers) (2002) Rabbit proof fence. Australia: Rumbalara Films, Olsen Levy, & Showtime Australia.

44.

Osgood

(2014) An open letter to Teach for America recruits. Rethinking Schools 28(3): 1. Available at: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_03/28_03_osgood.shtml (accessed 2 January 2018).

45.

Pérez

Cannella

(2011) Disaster capitalism as neoliberal instrument for the construction of early childhood education/care policy: Charter schools in post-Katrina New Orleans. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies Journal 4(1): 47–68.

46.

Pérez

Saavedra

(2017) A call for onto-epistemological diversity in early childhood education and care: Centering global south conceptualizations of childhood/s. Review of Research in Education 41(1): 1–29.

47.

Pérez

Saavedra

Habashi

(2017) Rethinking global north onto-epistemologies in childhood studies. Global Studies of Childhood 7(2): 79–83.

48.

Peters

(2005) The new prudentialism in education: Actuarial rationality and the entrepreneurial self. Educational Theory, 55(2): 122–137.

49.

Petrovic

(2005) The conservative restoration and neoliberal defenses of bilingual education. Language Policy 4: 395.

50.

Preuss

Saavedra

(2014) Revealing, reinterpreting, rewriting mujeres. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 27(7): 901–921.

51.

Quijano

(2007) Coloniality and modern/rationality. Cultural Studies 21(2): 168–178.

52.

Ross

Gibson

(eds) (2007) Neoliberalism and education reform. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp.1–312.

53.

Russell

Hobson

Taliaferro-Baszile

(2015) Rising Harriet Tubmans: Exploring intersectionality and African American women professors. In: Evans-Winters

Love

(eds) Black feminism in education: Black women speak back, up and out (pp. 49–59). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

54.

Saavedra

(2015) Cultural appropriation. Utah Public Radio Monday’s access. Available at: http://upr.org/post/cultural-appropriation-mondays-access-utah (accessed 20 February 2017).

55.

Saavedra

Pérez

(2017) Chicana/Latina feminist critical qualitative inquiry: Meditations on global solidarity, spirituality, and the land. International Review of Qualitative Research. 10(4): 450–467.

56.

Saavedra

Pérez

(2012) Chicana and Black feminisms: Testimonios of theory, identity, and multiculturalism. Equity and Excellence in Education 45(3): 430–443.

57.

Said

(1978) Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. New Delhi, India: Penguin Group, pp.1–368.

58.

Saldivar-Hull

(2000) Feminism on the border: Chicana gender politics and literature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp.1–214.

59.

Saunders

(2010) Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 8(1): 43–77.

60.

Smith

(1999) Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press, pp.1–208.

61.

Souto-Manning

(2010a) Challenging ethnocentric literacy practices: (Re)positioning home literacies in a Head Start classroom. Research in the Teaching of English 45(2): 150–178.

62.

Souto-Manning

(2010b) Freire, teaching, and learning: Culture circles across contexts. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

63.

Suárez Navaz

(2008) Colonialismo, gobernabilidad y feminismos poscoloniales. In: Suárez Navaz

Hernández

(eds) Descolonizando el feminismo: Teorías y prácticas desde los márgenes (pp. 31–73). Madrid, ES: Ediciones Cátedra – Grupo Anaya.

64.

Takaki

(1993) A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co, pp.1–282.

65.

Torres

(2009) Education and neoliberal globalization. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.1–150.

66.

Trinidad Galván

(2001) Portraits of mujeres desjuiciadas: Womanist pedagogies of the everyday, the mundane and the ordinary. Qualitative Studies in Education 14(5): 603–621.

67.

Trinidad Galván

(2014) Chicana/Latin America feminist epistemologies of the global south (within and outside the north): Decolonizing el concocimeiento and creating global alliances. Journal of Latino/Latin American Studies 6: 135–140.

68.

Venugopal

(2015) Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society 44(2): 165–187.

69.

Viruru

(2012) Postcolonial perspectives on childhood and literacy. In Hall

Larson

Marsh

(eds) Handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed.) (pp. 18–34). London: SAGE.

70.

Welner

(2011) Free-market think tanks and the marketing of education policy. Dissent 58(2): 39–43.

71.

Zeichner

(2010) Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 1544–1552.

Global south approaches to bilingual and early childhood teacher education: Disrupting global north neoliberalism

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The dominance of global north neoliberalism in bilingual and early childhood teacher education

Global north neoliberalism

Global north neoliberalism in education

Global north neoliberalism in teacher education

Global north neoliberalism in bilingual and early childhood teacher education

Decolonizing neoliberal bilingual and early childhood teacher education through global south approaches

Pláticas as a Chicana/Latina feminist methodology

Starting 500 years ago

Student/teacher identities

Exposing ourselves and students to global south perspectives: Creating spaces for critical self-reflection

The pláticas continue

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Notes

References