Coming back from a self-imposed blog break for AERA and vacation, I’m back as
energized as ever. For the past few
months I have been in a now admitted post dissertation haze and
exhaustion. Going to the granddaddy of
them all of educational conferences, the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), seeing colleagues, attending amazing presentations by esteemed
academics, and seeing even a few friendly faces in Philadelphia, has recharged
this battery.
I have also come back with a renewed sense of antagonism and
anger aimed towards the current state of not only public discourse, but
academic discourse as well.
As a newly minted, fresh out of the box PhD, my experience
at my second AERA was somewhat at a
crossroads.
I am no longer a student, yet I am not a fully hired Professor
either. I sit at the intersection of
teacher/student as I have done most of my life, but this time, my student self (at
least in the formal sense) is the one that is slowly becoming a memory. This presented me with an interesting
perspective on viewing the sessions I attended. In fact, it also perhaps
influenced the sessions I choose to attend in the first place. 
In an unnamed session I attended, after several interesting
presentations on teacher diversity and teacher identity, I raised a question concerning
the teacher pipeline and perhaps ways in which we could increase the number of college
students of color who become teachers of color.
Rather than acknowledge that this is a challenging area in teacher
education programs, one of the presenters dismissed my inquiry as a “problem
for policy makers” and then proceeded to pontificate about the education policy
ills we have all heard an nauseam. I am
not exactly sure that her rant answered my question, but I am sure that it is an
explicit example of what is problematic about the current discourse surrounding
educational inequities, public education and education politics/policies. My take away from this encounter is that there
appears to be an academic (and public) hierarchy based on several factors. Let me lift the veil and say, perhaps I
should not, in my gender, race or age positionality, have been asking a question in a public forum that would
seem to be “challenging” the authority of the presenter.
Interesting considering this is an educational conference...
Regardless of my experience in that one session, I of
course, persisted in continuing to be curious and in asking questions, and even
making a few comments which garnered nods from some in the audience. Overall, my
biggest gripes with the conference was that most of the sessions did not allow
for time for insightful, meaningful and divergent perspectives from the
audience. Most sessions went right up to
the time it was allotted, and if there were a few minutes for questions, they
were usually few and did not provide time for follow up. I believe growth takes place in that messy
middle where disagreement lies.
Another gripe, was that there were too many sessions that
had a singular aim rather than a more multidimensional approach. What I mean is, for example, I attended a
colleague’s presentation on rites of passage programs of young black women and
upon leaving that session a group of noted scholars on black males were outside
waiting to enter the room. Why were
there two separate, but equal sessions surrounding the same issue/area. I am
eager to both see more sessions in which the confusing, muddled
interesctionality of topics is met head on, as well am eager to emerge as one scholar
willing to assist in creating such sessions and participating in such sessions.
I also found it problematic that there were so many sessions related to social justice that were of critical importance, perhaps only to me and the few other people
who were in attendance, on the last day. For example, the last session I went to was a
sparsely attended session on the “cradle to prison pipeline.” This was one of the best sessions I have attended
in my young academic career. This was a
session in which there were multiple perspectives, although not one in which
there was anyone in favor of the prison industrial complex, present and a
lively discussion ensued.
Lastly, my own presentation, yes held on the last day, went
well. It was interesting to be at the
table with several colleagues who were further along in their careers, as well
as a few who were still finishing their dissertation work. That made for an interesting mix of opinions,
collegiality and perspectives.
So what does AERA have to do with the public discourse of
education policy and politics? My
twitter
friend and Philadelphia education activist, Helen Gym, in a standing room only presentation with Dr. Diane
Ravitch, implored us as researchers to be more activists. In another session I attended which honored
the late Dr. Jean Anyon, Pedro Noguera noted the link between activism and
the academy, articulating how the research/perspectives both he and Dr. Anyon
have created have been strongly influenced by their activism prior to entering higher
education. 
It seems that between now and 2015 AERA,
which is home in Chicago, we as researchers and higher education folk need to
be more connected with what is going on in the trenches, and, where appropriate
and necessary, become activists in our own right. However, the caveat I have been imploring for
months for all of us, is that we need to do this work with a humility that
affords us to listen to various perspectives…not just the perspectives we
believe, or the perspective of someone with “years of experience,” a few
letters at the end of their name, or who look like us, but rather all
perspectives.
It is the only way we can successfully bind the intersection
of research, policy and practice.
