The readings of Gallagher, Christensen, and Emdin all addressed one central theme: empowering students in the classroom to take agency over the learning environment. Both Christensen and Emdin specifically touch on teachers’ inclinations to feel restricted by required curriculum, and how “co-teaching” with students engages students on a level unattainable in a scholar-academic ideology. Emdin specifically uses his experiences in predominantly African-American classrooms as evidence that when done effectively, this method gives the learners some control over their education. Despite not being in a traditional educational environment, I have seen this hold true in my own experiences. As a camp counselor working at a summer camp that serves a predominantly indigenous population, it was often difficult for me to overcome my status as an outsider to engage effectively with my campers. I found that it was often effective for me to delegate certain responsibilities to our Leaders-in-Training, who were our teenage campers. Providing campers the opportunity to share their knowledge about boating, hiking, etc. with other campers not only strengthened their own confidence and autonomy, but engaged the younger campers far more than us counselors ever could.

Christensen makes a point about wanting her students to consider their classmates as fellow teachers, and I believe this lends itself to the topic at hand well. I believe that many teachers attempt this: whether it’s through Socratic seminars or peer-review for assignments. Both of these practices lack one of the main points that lead to effective student involvement: student choice. Gallagher’s focus on student choice as a cornerstone of effective teaching is one that I most definitely agree with, and one that isn’t implemented enough in current classrooms. Student choice is threatening to a teacher who has been dictated a mandatory curriculum, as they want to direct students as much as possible.