Abstract
In June 2019, the Vatican published its first-ever document on gender theory. This document was directed at Catholic educational institutions and draws on theology and philosophy, while excluding science on gender identity and testimonies from transgender people, to suggest gender theory is an ideology endangering the family. The case of Jane, a practicing Catholic and teacher–leader in a Catholic secondary school, contributing to cross-disciplinary curriculum development, school accreditation, and student mentorship, is used to anticipate problems of practice which may emerge as this document’s guidance is applied at the school level. Ecological systems theory and communities of practice theory are used to analyze this case.
Keywords
Background
In June 2019, the Vatican published its first-ever document on gender theory: “Male and Female He Created Them” Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education (hereafter Document) (Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019). This Document draws on theology and philosophy to explain how gender theory is an ideology that endangers the family and provides guiding norms to respond to this ideology. It ignores established science on gender identity (Boskey, 2014; Young & Alexander, 2012), holding instead that humans are born male or female. Sex and gender cannot be separated, according to the Document, and furthermore, it asserts that it is in the best interest of youth that they be instructed in these matters clearly. Simultaneously, the Document recommends a spirit of dialogue and listening, in a manner consistent with human dignity and the “call to love” (p. 3). Many who work and teach in the Catholic community have praised this call to dialogue, while also questioning its nondialogical methods, which exclude from the Document the voice of scientists, gender theorists, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQ) people (Derouen, 2019; Ford, 2019; Martin, 2019).
Curiously though, none of the early English-language commentators remarked on what may be of greatest concern for educational leaders: This Document was written explicitly for educational institutions. Its guidance is intended to impact teachers, school leaders, and the communities where they teach by changing what and how students learn in Catholic schools, yet it does not have clear prescriptions for application locally.
This article presents a case illustrating problems of practice which emerge at St. Thomas Aquinas, a fictional American Catholic high school that has been tasked by the local Bishop with implementing the guidance found in the Document. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory (hereafter EST) and Lave and Wenger’s theory of community of practice (hereafter CoP) (Lave, 1996; Wenger, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 2000) are used to analyze the tensions raised by this case. EST recognizes humans are inherently social. The individual is impacted by, and impactful on its environment, and that environment is ecological in nature, meaning it is comprised of a complex system of people, organizations, economies, and ideologies which interact continuously (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, 1979, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Bronfenbrenner illustrated that ecosystem through concentric circles of influence. At its center is the human, which is most closely impacted by its family, school, and church—those communities which it interacts with on a daily basis. Systems that are more distantly related to the individual, such as government and business, exist in the “exosystem” and those “attitudes and ideologies of the culture,” which are far removed from but still influential, are illustrated as furthest from the individual, in the “Macrosystem.” See Figure 1.
Visualization of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.
This model coheres with Catholic teaching about human society, which also understands humans as social beings (Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019). Many of these ecosystem components may be understood as their own CoP, that is a community in which gradual, social learning takes place (Lave & Wenger, 1991). For example, in a church community one learns ways to participate in rituals, interact with sacred objects or texts, and enact moral beliefs. Lave and Wenger theorized that one way learning can be viewed is by examining the ways participation in CoPs changes over time (Morrell, 2004). In addition, Lave (1996) suggested that the identities of participants changed because their participation changed. All members of the community participate in the work or practice of the community, and as they gain competency, they move from “novice” to “old-timer,” assuming greater responsibility for community practice, over time. In this sense, members move from legitimate peripheral participation to more central membership (Lave & Wenger, 1991). So, in this church example, we would expect a child to participate in ritual prayer in peripheral ways and adults to participate more centrally (e.g., listening to scripture read aloud vs. being the scripture reader for the whole community). Similarly, we would expect an adult to take on more responsibility than a child in enacting the moral beliefs of the community. This movement is not necessarily linear. Rather, for a CoP to continue, newer members must gradually take over responsibility from older members, a process which often creates tension (Flores, 2007; Maynard, 2001; Verma, 2010; Zaffini, 2018).
Case Narrative
Jane is a veteran religion teacher at Saint Thomas Aquinas (STA), an American Catholic high school. For several weeks, she has been preparing her annual plans for the upcoming year. Jane is known for her student centeredness. Whether implementing a new unit or raising questions at faculty meetings, she has a reputation for putting students first. As a lifelong Catholic, Jane sees herself as a religion instructor. 1 This was not always the case, though. Before joining STA, Jane taught social studies in a public school for several years. During that time, she volunteered nights and weekends to lead the youth group at her Catholic parish. She cherished the way that youth ministry let her bridge her faith with teaching practice. Jane led young fellow parishioners in prayer, planning liturgies, and scripture study, all practices that she had learned as a young person growing up in the church. When her pastor told her that a nearby Catholic high school was seeking a full-time religion teacher, Jane was quick to apply.
Professional Learning Community Leader
Jane has now been teaching religion at STA for more than ten years and is considered a leader among the faculty. For the past two years, while she has chaired the religion department, Jane has led a professional learning community (PLC) open to all faculty and required of religion department and campus ministry staff. This PLC is dedicated to improving the Catholic character of teacher practice and school culture at STA. Jane got the idea for this PLC from a workshop on school climate and learning cultures that she attended at a local university. The facilitators had led participants through several exercises where they got to name the places, besides traditional classrooms, they learned the most. Jane took a lot of notes that day about her years participating in youth group, bible study, spiritual retreats, and service projects. When she went to her next department meeting, she led the other religion teachers and campus minister in a similar exercise, and like her, they talked animatedly about church groups and Catholic school functions. She had never considered how much community participation contributed to her learning, and realizing this, she wanted to pursue such learning intentionally. So, with the support of her principal and religion department, one of Jane’s first actions as Department Chair was to start the PLC.
As part of this PLC, faculty and staff read together at least one document a month. Then, they discuss it, including how it might apply individually or collaboratively to their respective practices. Meetings usually begin with check-ins, where participants report on how their practice had been impacted by what they learned in the last meeting. This sometimes takes a while, especially if faculty or staff had an incident since their last meeting, like when the school counselor started talking about a serious bullying issue that was driving “female identifying” students to her office. Some faculty didn’t understand what was meant by “female identifying,” while others understood but were uncomfortable with such concepts. Jane had gotten used to negotiating such moments, though. She set clear expectations for group process that kept participants focused on listening and learning rather than judgment. After the check-in, the meeting usually turns to discussion of the month’s document. Sometimes, these documents are articles from academic journals, but more often, they are written by leaders in the Catholic Church, like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (1986) letter Economic Justice for All or the environmental encyclical by Pope Francis (2015), Laudato Si. Meetings generally conclude with resolutions to apply insights from their discussion to their practice in the month ahead. Sometimes, participants even exchange invitations to collaborate.
After a member of the science department, the school’s biology teacher, attended a program on science and religion at a leading Catholic university, several faculty in the science department also became active in the PLC. This led to a series of readings and reflections, last spring, exploring how these disciplines intersect in particular ways at a Catholic school, including numerous curricular benchmarks across disciplines. Inspired by these conversations, partway through spring term, Jane began discussing a joint unit with the biology teacher to study human development in the upcoming school year. The biology teacher was eager to put these ideas into practice, and soon, he asked Jane to collaborate. Together, they began designing a joint unit about what it means to be human, through the lens of developmental biology and Catholic theology. This was one of the first items Jane built into her new annual plan, and as a culmination to this unit, she was eager to engage in cross-disciplinary conversations about human morality, together with the biology teacher and students, addressing contemporary topics of bioethics which would likely emerge from such a cross-disciplinary unit. This curriculum planning was well under way before the PLC ever read together the Vatican Document on gender theory, during their last meeting of the school year.
That was a particularly memorable meeting because the document sparked a debate. Several science teachers were upset by the lack of “valid evidence” in the Document. One religion teacher was quick to point out that you can’t prove everything; some things just have to be taken on faith. The biology teacher pressed, “How am I supposed to teach my AP students about embryo development and brain chemistry in first bell, and then send them Jane’s class to talk about sexual ethics?! They will see right through this!” Jane agreed that this was a paradox, and she wasn’t sure what to make of the Document yet. But, in an attempt to redirect the group, she reminded them that previous Vatican documents they had read together cited both empirical and spiritual forms of evidence, together, because the Catholic Church had embraced modern science. In addition, no one in the diocese had mandated STA to implement the guidance in this Document, and that would need to happen for them to incorporate this into the curriculum. So, there was no reason to panic. Nonetheless, Jane left that meeting feeling uneasy.
Bringing Missional and Institutional Knowledge to Accreditation
Early last school year, Jane’s principal invited her to join STA’s Catholic Accreditation Committee. He wrote her an email in which he laid out his reasoning for why she should join the committee. You have more experience with Catholic social teaching and religious instruction than any faculty member at Aquinas, and you’ve been helping staff learn for years, through that PLC you started. I can’t think of a better staff member to help us document our progress and define our goals for the years ahead.
Such experience would be important, her principal explained, because to be reaccredited, STA would need to document the past four years of living out the Catholic dimensions of the school’s culture and instructional practice, years that Jane had been a practicing teacher and leader in the religion department. This documentation would be vital to maintain affiliation with the Catholic diocese, 2 which was also a primary funder of the school. Jane had been around long enough to observe the last few accreditation processes, and though her principal didn’t emphasize this, she knew his request would take up significant amounts of time throughout the school year, work for which she would not be compensated or given a lighter teaching load. The budget was too tight to allow otherwise. For a moment after reading the email, she felt angry. The principal knew Jane’s children were still young. How much would this extra work impact their lives? But she reminded herself that when she joined the religion faculty years ago, she knew budgets would be tight and needs would be high, and since becoming a parent, Jane had felt supported by the school. STA was a community where she felt she could fulfill her calling as a religion instructor. After she reflected on her principal’s invitation and discussed it with her husband, Jane concluded that this would be a good way to model servant leadership for her students.
Jane agreed to serve on the committee, and soon, she learned about two key requirements for accreditation: annual cross-curricular collaboration between the religion department and other departments and fidelity to Church teachings in all instruction and school events. This first requirement motivated Jane to say yes, when the biology teacher approached her about collaborating in the upcoming school year. More than just wanting to model good curricular practices for her colleagues, she knew that such collaboration would serve the ongoing accreditation needs of the school. Indeed, by collaborating with a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subject, Jane thought it would be easy to meet the first requirement of accreditation, and before they left for summer vacation, she encouraged other teachers in her department to think about ways to do the same in their annual planning for the year ahead.
The Students’ Invitation
Several weeks passed, and though it was still July, Jane was back on campus preparing for the upcoming school year. Faculty weren’t supposed to return for another three weeks, but she wanted to get a head start prepping for the new year, while the copy room was empty. Jane opened up her computer and began sending documents to print, when she noted a new message in her inbox. It was an email from a rising junior with the subject line, “Fwd: Hey Teach—Happy Summer!” She smiled, remembering her student and clicked on their email. It was a request from two rising juniors—one of which openly identified as transgender and both of whom, Jane knew, had met repeatedly with the school counselor last school year, after being bullied by the boys’ basketball team. They told Jane as much, when they dropped by her classroom to chat after school last year. Not long after the students shared their stories with her, Jane was invited to attend a meeting with student–athlete families, after the counseling department brought the issue of bullying to the attention of school administration. Jane was asked to talk with parents about Catholic teachings on LGBTQ students, a presentation she gave before reading the Vatican Document on gender theory with the PLC.
In their email, the students were seeking advice on how to start a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at school. They were forwarding her the email, because the first faculty member they had approached suggested they reach out to her. Jane knew the referring faculty member well, having been part of the committee that hired him and serving as a mentor to him in his first year on faculty. She remembered that this teacher had come from a very unsupportive school, and when he had tried to start a theater arts club there, he confided that several colleagues had made disparaging remarks about the initiative, even insinuating things about the teacher’s lifestyle outside of school. It didn’t surprise Jane that the students had reached out to this teacher first, nor that the teacher had punted their questions to Jane. Jane had more social capital at STA and fewer reasons to fear retaliation from colleagues or the Bishop. Jane drafted a quick response to the students, “So good to hear from you! I’m proud of your initiative and want to give your questions some thought. I’ll be in touch again soon with responses. All the best!” Jane sent off the email to her students and then headed to the copy room.
The Bishop’s Newsletter
When she got there, Jane found her principal blocking her view of the printer. “Jane! I hoped you would be here today. I’m going to send you the Bishop’s July newsletter to administrators. It mentioned something about ‘Christian anthropology,’ and the diocese graduation test. It was definitely your wheelhouse. Can you read over it and circle back with me? I want to know whether we need to advise teachers or staff about whatever he’s talking about.” Jane agreed to read the message from her principal when she got back to her classroom.
As she read, her heart began to sink. The Bishop’s newsletter advised school administrators that all religious instruction should be grounded strictly in the “Christian vision of anthropology,” (Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019, p. 4) found in the Vatican document, “Male and Female He Created Them.” This was the same Document her PLC had discussed at the end of last school year. Furthermore, senior students would be assessed on the content of the Document, as part of the Catholic graduation test (CGT), in November. Jane knew that it was diocese policy that even if students passed the state’s graduation test, if seniors failed the CGT it would be at the school’s discretion whether students could walk at graduation or receive honors. The newsletter continued to explain that schools should be prepared to document compliance with this teaching, in and beyond religion curricula, and issue a description of graduation policies in future communications with the diocese.
When she got to the end of Bishop’s statement, Jane grabbed a legal pad and pulled her PLC binder from the shelf to begin taking notes as she re-read the Vatican Document. Indeed, as she read, Jane’s heart sank further. There could be problems with her annual plan and the collaboration she had designed with the biology teacher. This would absolutely impact faculty and staff, and the Accreditation Committee would need to be notified, too. What would she write to her students? What would the Bishop say if he knew a GSA was active at the school, led by a transgender student? Jane was going to need a long conversation with her principal.
Teaching Notes
In this case, Jane engages with multiple stakeholders, each of whom has a legitimate claim on her professional responsibility. Flores (2007) explains that understanding the priorities and interactions of CoPs can illuminate sources of conflict, which may emerge as individuals move between them. In this case, Jane is moving between two CoPs, STA and the Catholic Church. Jane’s second-guessing indicates she perceives these CoPs’ claims are in conflict. Within STA, Jane acknowledges responsibilities to the principal, fellow teachers, students, mentees, and the Catholic diocese/funder. Given her multiple leadership roles, we see she is considered an “old-timer” by her colleagues, someone highly experienced and trusted with community responsibility (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Furthermore, we see that Jane has a long and devoted involvement in a second CoP, the Church, which includes responsibilities to her local parish and, more broadly, to the moral teachings of the Church, as laid out by the Bishop. As a “lifelong Catholic,” the Church was certainly one of the first CoPs in which she participated. As a religion instructor, who has led and mentored other teachers at STA and youth in her parish, we also see that Jane is an “old-timer” in the Church, competent to practice, teach, and mentor others. Despite her expertise in both CoPs, Jane struggles to negotiate between these competing CoP claims.
A key reason that Jane would struggle to negotiate between these competing claims is that she understands that the Bishop’s directive has particular weight within her Catholic school context, because Bishops in the Catholic Church are vested with teaching authority, especially regarding matters of faith and morals, like described in the Document. Bishops exercise this authority over the specific region, called a diocese, to which they are assigned by the Pope. A Bishop’s authority includes overseeing religious instruction within the Catholic schools in his diocese. Such instructional oversight includes but is not limited to religious curriculum, like what Jane teaches. It may also include any dimensions of school life related to faith or morals, which contribute to the Catholic identity of the school, such as forms of worship, student organizations, and school policies. Within this hierarchically structured organization, a letter from the Bishop, as described in this case, could function for schools much like a policy decision from a public school board. While some discretion might be exercised by leaders at the school level, failure to comply with the directive would be viewed as unacceptable and could be penalized.
Jane’s reasons for starting the PLC, to explore school climate and build a particular school culture, make clear that she understands participating in school leads to learning, not only through written or verbal interaction, but through the entire learning environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Indeed, given her noted concerns, after reading the Bishop’s newsletter, it is clear Jane understands that crafting the culture of the school requires more than just a Document-compliant syllabus; it is also the staff, students, clubs, and conversations which are allowed to flourish (Teague, 2018; Boskey, 2014; Munoz-Plaza et al., 2002). In light of this Document’s guidance on gender identity, she worries that a GSA or even visible support for a transgender student could be interpreted negatively by the accreditation team at the diocese. A conservative reading of the Document seems to imply active and supportive engagement with gender identity by school staff to be outside the “domain of the sayable” (Butler, 1990; Teague, 2018). Thus, for Jane to take such actions, even if they serve students’ best interests, as her teaching philosophy aims, could compromise her community status and even her job (Kennedy, 2019).
Further complicating Jane’s deliberation is her own classroom instruction. The diocese requires cross-curricular collaboration, but given the Bishop’s instructions to comply with the Document going forward, she might be limited in the way she can collaborate. Jane had been accustomed to previous Church documents, which had employed science as a valid mode of human reasoning (Ford, 2019; Francis, 2015; Paul II, 1998). However, this new Document cites no scientific research. Where before, Jane felt safe to engage in these complex conversations at STA and plan for a joint unit on human development, we see the Bishop’s application of the Document functions to silence (DePalma & Atkinson, 2006; Teague, 2018) study and actions which might demonstrate support for LGBTQ students.
While this case may be fictional, the problems of practice it illuminates are very real for educational institutions, particularly Catholic ones, that face cultural and/or policy contexts hostile to LGBTQ identity. These include, but are not limited to, GSAs, school counselors, and curricular coherence. Regarding GSAs, evidence from Canadian Catholic schools suggests that as awareness of LGBTQ identity grows, teachers are increasingly invited to support the formation of GSA groups at Catholic schools (Sears & Herriot, 2016). Further research indicates the presence of GSAs is beneficial for the psychological well-being of all students, and visibility afforded by GSAs and LGBTQ presence in the curriculum are protective factors for LGBTQ youth (Higa, et al., 2014; Munoz-Plaza et al., 2002). Even though the Document denounces “bullying, violence, insults or unjust discrimination based on their specific characteristics,” (Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019, p. 10) Catholic school staff in many countries must read this in the context of a current litigious milieu, where examples proliferate of Catholic schools pursuing legal action to limit GSAs, state-mandated sex education, and LGBTQ staff (Herrera, 2019; Kennedy, 2019; Sears & Herriot, 2016). This suggests that some Church leaders may view compliance with this Document requires the disappearing of GSAs. 3
Counter to such a chilly position, professional ethics require, and American law maintains, school counselors provide a safe and supportive environment, acting as an advocate for LGBTQ students, even if the religious beliefs of the school or counselor contradict the sexual identity of the student (Byrd & Hays, 2012). This legal norm seems likely to create tension between school counselors, who are bound by these professional ethics of LGBTQ support, and their colleagues at Catholic schools, responsible to the Bishop, who may hold them accountable to a narrow reading of this Document. In Jane’s case, we see that she may be moving toward such a conflict over the matter of the school GSA.
The third problem of practice which this Document may prompt concerns student learning. Within the Document, the Vatican does not engage with current scientific research on developmental biology, making it easier to maintain the view that gender theory is an ideology. By this logic, to be transgender is a cultural choice, not innate biology. By contrast, developmental science evidences how sex is not a simple binary but can be expressed through variously gendered bodies and brains, which develop together over time (Boskey, 2014; Young & Alexander, 2012). Accordingly, Catholic high school and college teachers, whose curricula, at some point(s), are likely to include developmental biology and sexual morality, can expect their students to recognize inconsistencies across these subjects and challenge teachers on the verity of their claims. The Vatican leaves this problem of practice, like the others above, for educators to figure out on their own.
Discussion Questions
How should teachers at religious schools, who value curricular coherence across subject areas, respond to conflicting messages about human development?
How should a teacher, like Jane, respond if a student challenges faith-based claims, consistent with the Document or similar anti-trans positions, with conflicting evidence from their biology textbook? What principles should guide such a decision? How should a biology teacher respond if a student challenges biological claims, using faith-based evidence?
In this case, the Bishop communicates a significant policy decision, impacting multiple facets of school life, through a summer newsletter to school administrators. Is this an appropriate way for district or diocesan leadership to communicate policies to school leaders? Why or why not?
This case identifies several ways in which schools do/can foster warm environments for LGBTQ-identifying people. Which of these practices did you notice, and which should the school continue if it aims to create as warm an environment as possible for LGBTQ people? What does the Document contribute to such aims?
This case identifies several ways in which schools do/can foster chilly environments for LGBTQ people. Which of these practices did you notice, and which should the school avoid if it aims to create as warm an environment as possible for LGBTQ people? What does the Document contribute to such aims?
St. Thomas Aquinas school is a private Catholic school with specific faith-based identity and commitments, distinct from public or secular schools. Do such private religious schools, to which families choose to send their children, have greater/lesser obligations to engage families in discussions of LGBTQ-related practices/policies than public or secular schools? Is this the case for other dimensions of diversity, equity, and inclusion work, such as racism or sexism? Would your position change if the private school in question received significant public funding through vouchers or related programs? Explain your reasoning.
Research indicates that cultural context matters greatly for school leadership (Hallinger, 2018). In this case, how does Jane demonstrate awareness of and/or responsiveness to her cultural context? In your own professional life, how have you practiced, or seen others practice, effective school leadership that is responsive to local cultural context?
This case illustrates the tensions which emerge between legal mandates for certain professions (i.e., school counseling) and faith-based organizational expectations (i.e., promoting gender binaries and denying transgender identity). What responsibility do school leaders have to faculty and staff, who may find themselves directly impacted by these tensions? Should school counselors be made aware of and expected to engage with the Document’s teachings, by virtue of employment at Catholic schools? Should religion teachers, like Jane, be expected to be the voice of faith-based teaching, when there are incidents of LGBTQ bullying or tension? Should science educators at Catholic schools elide mention of contemporary understandings of sexual development from their curriculum, when the science contradicts religious teaching about gender binaries?
Educational Activities
These activities are intended to be relevant for both adults and youth, especially at the secondary school level. Some language modifications might be appropriate for use with youth:
Gender binaries, reflected in the Vatican Document, are part of the normative upbringing in many households and are reflected, as “natural” features, in the built environments and institutions that we create, and yet, as discussed in the teaching notes, such binaries do not reflect the lived reality of many in society. To raise awareness about gendered norms in school life, participants should engage in a “Think-Pair-Share” activity, in which they brainstorm individually as many instances of gendering in school life (e.g., bathrooms, pronoun use, legal vs. chosen names on school documents, and gendered sports leagues) as they can think of in a limited period of time. Participants should then share their lists with partners sitting near them, and after a short period of time, the partners should share out with the entire group, compiling a list of gendered places/practices/people in school life. Participants should then be invited to reflect on ways in which these norms contribute to the climate of the school from the perspective of different people (e.g., cis-bodied, heterosexual male student–athlete; trans-bodied, bi-sexual female student–athlete; cis-bodied, homosexual male teacher; and cis- and trans-bodied, homosexual, and married female couple). Are certain genders, sexual-orientations, or marital statuses more or less welcome in the community? Why or why not? What does that mean for the mission of the school? What does that mean for student wellness?
Consider the email that Jane received from her students. Imagine the case ended after Jane said she would give their questions some thought. Take 10 min to write a response that Jane might send her students, identifying at least three pieces of meaningful advice, based on the information in the case up to that point. Once participants have completed this activity, ask them to consider the same request in light of the full case and teaching notes. Give them another 10 min to write a response. (At any point, if participants struggle to identify at least three pieces of advice, participants may write questions or tensions which arise as they reflect.) Finally, ask participants to consider their own school community. How would they go about responding to students who posed the same question to them in their current role? Has such an event happened already in the life of the school? Has it not? What might this say about the school climate for LGBTQ students? After reflecting individually for at least 5 min, ask participants to form small groups to discuss their responses to all three exercises. What similarities and differences exist in your responses? What emotional reactions do participants have to this exercise? What practices or policies exist in your current school, which would impact the way that you do/should respond to such a student request? In your specific role, do you feel empowered and informed enough to participate in such a conversation? Why or why not? Facilitators may choose to wrap up this discussion by sharing responses in multiple ways (e.g., summarize insights on post-its, and place summaries around the room to consider later as part of a gallery walk; give every participant two note cards. On one, write one take away that will impact your practice. On the other, write one recommendation for the school community to enhance its practice. Submit each of these in a box/basket anonymously, to be privately read and considered by facilitators OR to be publicly read and considered by the group.)
EST and communities of practice theory feature significantly in this case study. By identifying specific ecological systems and CoPs in which we participate, we can better identify causes of tension in our lives as professionals and/or students. Invite all participants to brainstorm the characteristics of their ecological community. This can be done visually, using a series of concentric circles, like those found in Figure 1 above, or it can be done more simply by listing out specific characteristics of an individual and their microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Once participants have generated a meaningful list of characteristics of their ecological system, invite them to identify at least two communities of practice in which they are active (e.g., school and church, sports team and mock trial, scout troop and bible study). Once practitioners have generated such a list, invite them to identify areas of tension between these communities of practice. Do they have different expectations about gender roles or use of time? Are there legal or moral obligations that differ between the communities? Invite participants to identify how they negotiate any tensions they can identify. Name these as strengths and/or strategies that they are already using successfully in their various practices. End the exercise by inviting participants to consider how these strengths and/or strategies might be applied in Jane’s case, and/or in a similar example related to their specific school context.
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.
