Abstract
Educational gag policies and restrictive curriculum mandates have limited teachers’ ability to engage students in critical literacy practices. These policies, which suppress discussions of race, power, and systemic inequality, pose challenges to educators committed to fostering critical inquiry and social consciousness. This study examines how teachers navigate, resist, and transcend these restrictions through resistance literacies, pedagogical moves that disrupt oppressive structures. Using a comparative case study methodology, we analyze the instructional approaches of two educators working in distinct educational settings. Findings reveal that teachers enact resistance literacies through three key strategies: connection, resistance, and transcendence.
Introduction
Recently, the education system has faced intensified scrutiny as numerous states enacted legislation aimed at limiting discussions on race and systemic inequality in K-12 classrooms (PEN America, 2024). These educational gag policies restrict teaching practices and curriculum perceived by proponents as divisive and ideological “indoctrination.” Critics, on the other hand, argue that these policies limit educators’ autonomy and impede students’ ability to engage in open inquiry and develop critical thinking skills (Applebaum, 2021; Jayakumar & Kohli, 2023).
Challenges to critical literacy are not limited to the U.S. but have surfaced around the world. Australia and Canada, for example, have faced resistance to the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives and antiracism education because it is perceived as politicizing the classroom (Haskell, 2022; Mambrol, 2019). Similarly, the U.K. has seen debates about the role of critical race theory in its public schools (Trilling, 2020). This global resistance to critical literacy and critical theory underscores the widespread struggle over how education systems address systemic inequities and historical narratives. By prescribing what topics may or may not be addressed, such policies shape the boundaries of acceptable discourse and reduce opportunities for students to explore diverse perspectives and their own identities (Hytten & Stemhagen, 2024).
The push for educational gag policies, alongside rising fears of indoctrination, reflects broader debates about the role of critical literacy in education and the values that should inform public schooling. Critical literacy, which encourages students to analyze texts through lenses of power, identity, and social justice, aims to foster a deeper understanding of how language and representation shape our perceptions of the world (Morrell, 2008). Opponents often view critical literacy as politically charged, arguing that it exposes students to divisive ideologies that could undermine a “neutral” educational environment.
However, many educators and scholars argue that critical literacy is essential for preparing students to participate fully in society (Freire, 1970; Vasquez, 2017). By engaging with complex social issues, it equips students to question dominant narratives and recognize bias. Restricting critical literacy limits students’ abilities to think independently and critically about the world, depriving them of the skills needed for active civic engagement and informed decision-making (Janks, 2010). We argue that critical education is not indoctrination, but that it is fundamentally in opposition to indoctrination.
This research article explores the ways teachers navigate these policies, ultimately finding opportunities to transcend or resist traditional ways of learning and teaching. Through acts of daily resistance, the teachers in this study adapt critical literacy practices in ways that honor students’ needs for critical engagement while complying with legislative restrictions and respecting the values in their communities. Our research question was: What moves are teachers making to create space for critical literacy in restrictive contexts?
Literature Review
This literature review draws on two interconnected bodies of scholarship: critical literacy and resistance literacies. Together, these frameworks offer a lens for analyzing how educators navigate and push back against restrictive policies while fostering critical inquiry and social transformation in their classrooms.
Critical Literacy
Since its introduction by Macedo and Freire (1987), critical literacy has sparked debates around its place in an education system that often privileges the language of power (Delpit, 1988). However, education is inherently political, and critical literacy pedagogy invites teachers to disrupt the status quo by questioning whose knowledge and experiences are valued in society (Lewison et al., 2002).
Critical literacy empowers students and educators to examine societal structures, work toward transformative change, and develop critical consciousness (conscientização), which encourages learners to recognize and challenge oppressive systems that shape their lives (Freire, 1970). Through examination of how language and power shape their community's position within the broader social fabric, students develop the tools to actively participate in creating a more equitable society.
Conscientização refers to the deepening of critical consciousness through reflection and action (Freire, 1970). It involves recognizing systems of oppression, disrupting the status quo, and understanding one's role in transforming society. In the context of critical literacy, conscientização is not merely an intellectual exercise but a practice that often leads students toward civic engagement and social change (Anzaldúa, 2015; Freire, 1970). When students critically connect their identities and lived experiences with broader sociopolitical realities, they develop a heightened sense of agency. This awareness can lead to action, such as proposing school murals, challenging policies, or joining social justice initiatives (Singer & Shagoury, 2005).
To nurture this activism and agency in the face of oppressive norms, it is vital to increase the representation of diverse voices in children's literature. Retelling traditional stories from nondominant cultural perspectives helps validate marginalized students’ lived experiences while enriching the literary canon (Young et al., 2018). This approach further fuels students’ critical consciousness and motivation to question the status quo. When students are invited to respond to texts through multimodal expressions of art, poetry, performance, or digital media, they become better able to articulate their critical perspectives (Crawford-Garrett & Riley, 2016; McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2020). These practices not only promote academic engagement but also empower students to see themselves as capable of shaping their communities. Ultimately, the goal of critical literacy is to foster a sense of agency that students can leverage to challenge inequity and contribute to a more just and equitable world (Freire, 1970).
Resistance Literacies
Extending critical literacy's reach are resistance literacies, the process of challenging oppressive norms and power structures. Meyers (2011) describes resistance literacies as families and communities harnessing collective power to resist hierarchical oppression. Furthermore, Stewart and Babino (2021) define them as “the sending and receiving of meaning in culturally embedded contexts framed by unequal power” and examine the ways teachers resist racism and xenophobia in society. Resistance literacies also connect to justice-oriented teacher agency by emphasizing how educators navigate sociopolitical tensions and take collective action through their pedagogy (Picower, 2011).
The education field is becoming increasingly contentious and restrictive. Teachers are limited by educational gag policies, book bans, rigid curriculum, and other restrictive policies which deprofessionalize them and limit their agency (Ahern, 2023; Murphy, 2023; Stepman, 2023). And in these oppressive contexts, students and teachers are finding and cocreating fugitive, emancipatory educational spaces (Garad 2021; James-Gallaway, 2022; Trafí-Prats, 2020). For example, these spaces might include using multimodal texts for critical conversations about race, identity, and history that expand the mandated curriculum, or creating community-based projects that empower students to investigate and address local injustices.
Teachers, as those who implement policy, are capable of appropriating and reshaping those educational policies within their contexts (Vandeyar, 2021). Teachers can adopt, adapt, or resist new policies, thereby transforming policy (Guerrero & Camargo-Abello, 2023). Therefore, there is significant power in the role of the teacher to interpret and adapt policy to their context.
Furthermore, there is evidence that teachers use this power to resist the oppression of their students. For example, Ollerhead (2010) describes a teacher in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom who overcame restrictive policy conditions to create engaging, student-centered lessons. Similarly, Gorlewski (2013) describes the way teachers and students push back against standardized testing and curriculum.
Likewise, several scholars describe teachers’ and students’ acts of resistance literacies through practices such as racial literacies (McArthur & Muhammad, 2020), family and community literacies (Trigos-Carrillo, 2019), subversive literacies (Kelly, 2020), and Black literacies (Richardson, 2019). Resistance literacies serve as a useful framework for understanding how individuals and communities can navigate and challenge oppressive structures.
The literature indicates that while restrictive educational policies pose challenges, teachers possess the agency to navigate these constraints through appropriation, adaptation, and resistance. When teachers fight, defy, or struggle against the status quo, they are engaging in resistance literacies (Gorlewski, 2013; Stewart & Babino, 2022). This struggle, this conceptualization of resistance literacies, is informed by Foucauldian power.
Theoretical Framework
This study is framed by several of Foucault’s (1982) conceptions of power. Specifically, we leverage the ideas that power is not concentrated in institutions or systems but is ubiquitous, that resistance is an integral part of how power operates, and that power is negotiated in daily life. Those negotiations of power/resistance are an enactment of resistance literacies (Stewart & Babino, 2021).
There is power in systems and in the ideologies that pervade those systems. This power and these ideologies often operate silently and cause material harm to people. However, power is not solely concentrated in institutions and systems. Foucault (1982) framed power as ubiquitous, diffused, and embodied in discourse, knowledge, and everyday social interactions and practices.
For example, in a school, the power is not held solely in the district administration; power is embedded in every aspect of schooling. There is power in the physical layout of the classroom: who is the center of attention and who appears to be the keeper of knowledge. There is power in expectations of hallway behavior. Who sets the expectations? Who is allowed to decide when to speak? Power is present in dress codes, in the texts selected for study, and in the language that is on signs and accepted in assignments.
Resistance, for Foucault’s (1982), is not separate from power but part of the network of relations that constitutes power. Therefore, power can be remade and is constantly being remade in our actions and discourses. Power is not possessed, it is exercised, and that exertion includes resistance (Gorlewski, 2013). The small, daily moves that either uphold or renegotiate power relations are micro-powers (Foucault, 1982).
For example, a teacher might stretch aspects of a mandated daily schedule to allow more room for student voice. A student may test the bounds of the dress code. Another teacher may search for alternate texts than those put forward in curriculum, looking for texts that represent the lived experiences of underrepresented groups. When individuals make these daily moves to renegotiate power, they are enacting resistance literacies (Stewart & Babino, 2021).
Methodology
This study employs a comparative case study (CCS) design to explore how two educators navigated structural constraints and enacted critical literacy in distinct educational contexts. CCS is a qualitative approach that emphasizes comparisons across cases (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). It analyzes data through three, interrelated dimensions: horizontal (between individuals), vertical (between individuals and institutions or policies), and transversal (within broader sociopolitical landscapes) (Stewart et al., 2023). The two cases featured here stemmed from independent studies that, upon recognizing thematic convergence, were brought together through CCS to examine pedagogical negotiations in differing environments.
Participants and Contexts
Participants in this study included one educator-researcher and one purposefully selected teacher participant, both of whom engaged in critical literacy within politically and demographically distinct settings. One participant, Christina, is a White-passing Latina with 10 years of teaching experience in Title I schools. For the past 6 years, she has worked as a librarian at a diverse elementary school in a Texas urban–suburban district. The district serves a student population that is 62.6% Hispanic, 25% African American, and 8.4% White. Nearly 35% receive English language learner (ELL) services, and 85% qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Christina's professional context is influenced by recent Texas legislation that restricts how educators can address race, history, and systemic inequality in the classroom.
Within this environment, Christina facilitated an after-school club called “The Upstanders,” open to all fifth-grade students. Ten students returned permission slips and participated in the program, which met twice weekly, for 1 h, across 5 weeks. Christina served as both facilitator and participant-researcher. Her dual role required ongoing reflexivity, including journaling and memoing, to consider how her positionality shaped interactions with students and interpretation of data.
The second participant, Rebecca, is a White high school teacher with over 30 years of classroom experience and a PhD in Educational Studies. She teaches Honors American Literature and AP Language and Composition in a large, suburban Midwestern district. Cassandra used purposeful sampling to identify educators in predominantly White and politically conservative areas who actively incorporated critical literacy into their instruction. Rebecca's school is located in an area that leans more politically conservative, with 48% of precincts going for Trump in the 2020 election. In this context, curricular choices are closely monitored, and critical perspectives are often met with resistance. The school's student population is 22% Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), 1% ELL, and 21% qualify for free or reduced lunch, reflecting a relatively homogenous learning environment. Table 1 compares the participants.
Participants, Settings, and Data Sources.
Note. BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; ELL = English language learner.
Data Sources
Data collection occurred during the 2023–2024 academic year at both sites. At Christina's school, data sources included field notes from observations during book club sessions, audio recordings of group discussions, a reflective journal, and student-created artifacts. Group interviews were also conducted during the first and final meetings of the book club and later transcribed for analysis.
At Rebecca's site, Cassandra conducted five classroom observations, taking field notes, across the school year (Emerson et al., 2011). Four semistructured interviews were conducted at different points in the academic year to explore Rebecca's instructional philosophy, professional context, and pedagogical strategies. Curriculum artifacts, such as reading selections, assignments, and assessments, were also collected to understand how critical literacy was embedded in her teaching.
Data Analysis
Our data analysis followed a multistep process consistent with qualitative and CCS research traditions (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Our approach was informed by the concept of resistance literacies, which positions students’ and teachers’ practices as potential forms of counter-power within confining environments (Meyers, 2011). Drawing from Foucault’s (1982) theorization of power as relational and productive, we attended closely to moments where participants challenged dominant discourses, exercised agency, or created alternative spaces for meaning-making.
In the first cycle of coding, we applied methods aligned with each data type. In vivo coding was used for interview transcripts to foreground participants’ voices and preserve their original phrasing (Saldana, 2016). Open, descriptive coding was applied to observational field notes and artifacts to capture identification of categories grounded in the data (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Saldana, 2016).
We each independently coded our dataset to preserve situational specificity and minimize premature cross-case interpretations. Upon completing first-cycle coding, we met to compare categories and discuss emerging patterns. In the second cycle of analysis, we collaboratively conducted qualitative coding to explore relationships among codes and refine categories across cases (Saldana, 2016).
Following thematic analysis, we turned to Stewart et al.’s (2023) CCS framework to structure our cross-case interpretation. In this framework we analyze data across three axes: horizontal, vertical, and transversal. We conducted horizontal analysis to compare participant experiences and strategies, vertical analysis to examine how institutional structures shaped pedagogical choices, and transversal analysis to contextualize findings within larger societal and political discourses. This multidimensional approach helped us surface both the commonalities and distinctions in how each educator enacted critical literacy in restrictive environments.
To enhance the trustworthiness of our study, we incorporated multiple strategies aligned with qualitative research standards. Both researchers maintained analytical memos throughout the data collection and coding process to track insights, theoretical connections, and evolving interpretations (Emerson et al., 2011). We employed methodological triangulation (Creswell & Poth, 2018), drawing on a variety of data sources to strengthen the integrity of our interpretations through cross-verification. As a participant-researcher, Christina engaged in ongoing reflexivity, using journaling to critically examine the influence of their dual role and positionality on both data generation and analysis. Additionally, peer debriefing occurred through continuous dialogue between the authors, enabling us to refine categories and coconstruct an analytical framework (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These layered strategies helped surface the complex and context-specific dynamics that inform each educator's critical literacy practice.
Findings
Through this study, we aimed to examine what negotiations of power teachers made in order to implement critical literacies within restrictive contexts, what resistance literacies teachers enacted. To explore this across cases and contexts, we conducted both thematic analysis and axial analysis.
We organize these results by theme and then include axial analysis therein. This structure allows us to present each participant's enactment of resistance literacies before synthesizing horizontal (cross-case), vertical (contextual), and transversal (sociocultural) dynamics through axial analysis; centering cross-case synthesis and highlighting both shared and divergent patterns across cases. Through thematic analysis, we identified ways participants enacted resistance literacies.
Connection
The first theme we identified was connection. Both participants leveraged connection to resist and transcend the oppressive context of the educational system in the United States and the heightened restrictions of recent years. Participants relied on connections with students, with colleagues, with families, and with administration. Of these connections, relationships with students and their families were the most significant in supporting critical aims.
Both participants built open relationships with students and families as a deliberate rejection of claims that critical teaching is a form of indoctrination. Indoctrination is defined as an unquestioning education, but there is also an implication of subterfuge that often accompanies claims of indoctrination. By opening discussions with students, families, and other stakeholders, the participants were able to reject notions of indoctrination while also ensuring democratic, critical educational spaces.
Christina began this relationship with a letter, informing parents and guardians that students would be inquiring into social issues of their choosing, that she could not predict what issues would arise. This served to inform parents of the scope of the work, but also forewarned about the possibility of so-called controversial topics. The letter included information about club activities and also included contact information so families would both be informed and feel able to contact her as questions arose.
Following the letter, Christina conducted a family meeting to address any potential concerns that guardians might have. Ultimately, parents in this context were not concerned about the potential topics and preferred to discuss practical considerations during the meeting. She had multiple points of contact with families after this meeting in the form of one-on-one conversations. Every contact consisted of family members sharing pride in the work of their student in the club.
In addition to the connection with families, Christina created an intentionally inclusive environment for students. One way she did this was through an inclusive application process. First, she included applications to the club that were in English and Spanish. This bilingual application is an act of intentional inclusivity and connection with students. Furthermore, all students who applied to be in the club were accepted. Christina, when faced with multiple applications, could not determine an equitable way to limit participation. The field notes state, “We took everyone. Some of their writing was incredible, and some wasn’t. We didn’t want to exclude anyone for not being able to show the traditional markers of literacy.” This was another intentional move to create a space of belonging and connection.
Cassandra's work with Rebecca also found that the successful implementation of critical literacy is a direct result of the familial connections she creates within the community. Rebecca reflects on this, saying, The parents taught me a lot…I have to understand their culture…so I’ve learned that families are essentially good. They’re just mama bears and papa bears trying to protect their kids. And I just have to let’em know that, hey, I’m on your side. I care about your kids. I love them…I’m not trying to change your foundational teaching. I’m not trying to tell your children to believe something that is against whatever your family preaches and teaches.
As a young teacher, Rebecca acknowledges that she did not always practice open communication, which led to challenges from administration and families. Initially, she assumed that curriculum materials used in her classroom, being on the district-approved list, did not require additional communication. She did not consider emailing parents about upcoming topics. However, since adopting the practice of informing parents and “let[ing] them know that there are delicate moments and I’m going to give the kids a heads up, and let them know those pages…I’ve had no issues.” This proactive approach has not only smoothed interactions with parents but also fostered a stronger sense of trust and collaboration between home and school.
Axial Analysis of Connection
We compared the two cases using axial analysis. Horizontal analysis directly compares the findings in both cases. Both Rebecca and Christina relied on connections with families to create space for critical literacy in their contexts. Furthermore, this connection was an intentional alliance in both cases.
Vertical analysis included considerations of context. Rebecca's context was a classroom, while Christina was operating an after-school book club. This variability in context creates a differential experience for the teachers. Christina did not experience any issues with parents because, conceivably, parents who did not want their students to participate in the club, would not have signed the consent form. Rebecca had to connect with all families, including those who may have taken issue with the content of her courses.
Transverse analysis considers the larger sociocultural and historical contexts in comparing cases. Christina's context is just outside of a large urban area and is more left-leaning than conservative. The city is mostly People of Color, and Christina's students are all students of color, either Black or Latinx. Christina is a Latina and, therefore, aligns culturally with several of the families with whom she was attempting to connect.
Rebecca's students are majority White, as she is, and therefore also align with her context culturally. However, the differing sociocultural histories of their contexts affect the possible attitudes of the families in their regions. Christina is located in a southern state with an oppressive history against Black and Latinx individuals. Therefore, some of the families in her context have a familial history of the kind of social justice work that is part of critical literacy. One student said about the club, “These are the kind of things we talk about in my living room.”
Rebecca, on the other hand, is creating a space where students begin to reflect on their own roles in perpetuating systemic inequities. The neighborhood her school serves is distinctive within the larger city. Although the city, often referred to as “the blue dot,” is known for its liberal representatives in elected positions, the neighborhood itself leans conservative, with Trump winning the majority of the neighborhood's political subdivisions in 2020. Rebecca's awareness of this dynamic is crucial to her ability to guide students in understanding the intersections of race, power, and institutions. She is able to skillfully encourage students to develop critical consciousness without alienating them from the values and beliefs in their homes.
Resistance
The second theme we identified was resistance. This resistance sometimes took the form of direct resistance, for example, directly pushing back in conversations with stakeholders. Other times, this resistance manifested as a reaction to restriction, a personal impulse to push past opposition. And at other times, resistance was a stance, a position or lens with which pedagogical decisions could be made.
Christina began her project with resistance as a stance. After the murder of a Black teen by a police officer in her city and then the subsequent murder of George Floyd, she began to conceive of a pedagogy which could resist the deficit framing around her students. She began to wonder how she could create space for students to share their perspectives, examine other perspectives, and resist injustice. After years of planning, preparing, and writing, Christina received funding to begin a social justice club. Within months of celebrating the grant, complete with giant checks and pictures of students, Texas passed HB 3979, which limits the discussion of controversial subjects as well as a discussion that might make individuals feel discomfort because of their race (An act relating to the social studies curriculum in public schools, 2021).
At this point, resistance, for Christina, shifted to include a personal reaction. Daily, the media reported book bans, contentious school board meetings, and threats from state officials. This was a profoundly contentious and difficult time for Christina. She wrote, “My heart races while I sit at my desk, my table. Will this work kill me? … This whole world, past and present, is against me.” But during this time, her internal resistance sustained her, pushed her to continue. She said, “It doesn’t matter. Teachers always take this (stuff) and roll it off their shoulders,” and “we need to find the cracks in those standards, cracks as in rays of hope, rays of light.”
Christina received the grant in May 2021, HB 3979 passed in June, in October, Christina was instructed to cease operations. Christina then, guided by resistance as a stance and as a reaction, began navigating the oppressive space, and on multiple occasions, this navigation included resistance by directly pushing back in conversations with stakeholders. After meeting with a district administrator, she said, “I don’t agree with X's interpretation of the policy… the reliance on STANDARDS to marginalize others is bull.”
Rebecca, on the other hand, faced less direct contention during the study, though she did describe previous experience with it. But, despite facing resistance from students and parents in the past, she remained steadfast in her commitment to challenging a curriculum that centers predominantly white literary experiences, even when her colleagues were not doing the same in their classrooms. She emphasized, “I bring in purposefully risky stuff…and we’re going to read this. We’re not going to debate. This is not about what you think.” By focusing on the text and its arguments, Rebecca fostered a classroom environment where mutual respect is developed through engagement with diverse perspectives. “If we study really great writing, and if we study really great literature and we read the message and the intent and the purpose of it, then they can translate that to their own writing and discussion skills.”
This text-centered approach helped reduce student resistance, as it allowed them to understand, “I don’t have to reveal my opinion. I don’t have to take a stand at this point anyway. That's later in the year when they’re more comfortable. We have a safe—have more of a dynamic.” Through her commitment to challenging traditional curriculum materials and fostering a respectful, text-focused dialogue, Rebecca not only resisted the problematic traditional curriculum but also transformed it into an opportunity for deeper, more meaningful student engagement.
Axial Analysis of Resistance
Through axial analysis of resistance in the data, we compared the two cases. Horizontal analysis revealed similarities and differences in how the two individuals enacted resistance. Both Christina and Rebecca aimed to create a space for students to share their perspectives, explore alternate viewpoints, and work collectively toward resisting systemic injustice. However, while Rebecca encountered resistance from students within the structured environment of a classroom, Christina navigated an after-school book club where student participation was voluntary. This contrast influenced the nature of their resistance. Additionally, Christina, facing direct restriction through oppressive policies, adopted resistance as an internal and personal stance, marked by disagreements and negotiations with external stakeholders.
In vertical analysis, we considered the contextual differences between the cases. Rebecca worked within a formal curricular structure, which required her to strategically find space for resistance within existing educational constraints. Conversely, Christina's book club provided a more open environment, allowing greater flexibility in integrating equity-oriented practices. However, Rebecca's respected status in her community, combined with her PhD, provided her with significant social capital. This standing facilitated her knowledgeable and strategic approach to resistance, empowering her to question and challenge norms. On the other hand, Christina faced explicit prohibitions from laws that curtailed her ability to openly resist, necessitating a more adaptive response to maintain the integrity of her work.
In transverse analysis, we analyzed resistance while connecting to broader sociocultural and historical contexts. For example, the forms of resistance each educator exhibited were shaped by their unique positionalities and motivations. Christina's resistance was driven by systemic challenges and the need to push back against oppressive policies. This response is tied to her identity as a Latina with an ancestral history of resistance, providing a personal and cultural lens that shaped her approach. Her position and lived experiences underscored her commitment to challenging systemic barriers while negotiating the expectations of stakeholders.
Rebecca's resistance, in contrast, was not directed at systemic constraints but rather focused on creating space for students to reflect and consider other perspectives while respecting their deeply held beliefs. Her motivation stemmed from a desire to disrupt the perpetuation of unquestioned whiteness and white privilege within her predominantly white classroom, reflecting her understanding of her role as an educator who could foster critical consciousness.
Transcendence
Throughout the data, there were incidents where teachers transcended restrictive policy. Transcendence refers to surpassing boundaries (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). We apply the term transcendence and differentiate it from resistance and navigation in that transcendence involves surpassing traditional schooling or literacy practices to embrace alternative or marginalized ways of reading, writing, and understanding the world. It suggests moving beyond conventional boundaries to acknowledge and value diverse forms of knowledge and expression. Some key ways that teachers in this study transcended policy were by leveraging student-centered classrooms and drawing inspiration from students.
Christina, in an attempt to navigate her restrictive context, shifted her practice to one that was almost completely student-driven and ultimately established a transcendent space. The unit of study began with students sharing the issues they were passionate about. Among the issues that these fifth-grade students stated that they wanted to investigate were Black Lives Matter, issues of gender, gay rights, homelessness, and climate change. Students then directed their own inquiry, with Christina acting as facilitator.
Christina also encouraged the use of multimodal texts, including physical books, videos, and social media. The multimodal texts students use were curated by Christina, considering age-appropriateness and student requests. Finally, students determined their own methods of responding to texts. Some students created websites, some created short videos or social media posts, while others created short films in response to their selected texts. Figure 1 includes examples of student work. This shift to student-driven instruction represents a transcendence of traditional literacy and educational practice.
Examples of Student Work.
Ultimately, students and Christina cocreated a transcendent space. Not only did students drive inquiry, but they also inspired and invigorated Christina to persist in the challenging work of navigating and resisting oppressive policy. This inspiration was foundational to the success of the project and represents the transcendence of oppression. About her students, Christina said things like, “The things they are writing in the applications are so inspiring,” “There has been very much excitement and that has made me excited,” and “I am so inspired by the work students are doing.”
Rebecca also transcends restrictive approaches to student engagement with literature in the classroom. Although the region where Rebecca teaches does not have the same restrictive state policies on curriculum and pedagogy as Christina, it remains influenced by a strong conservative base within the school's attendance area. Rebecca transcends the traditional pedagogical boundaries and hierarchies to create a truly student-centered classroom where students actively engage in praxis.
During a unit on The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave by Frederick Douglass, students were challenged to connect the themes from his autobiography to their current understanding of race relations in the 21st century. To broaden their perspectives, students analyzed an excerpt from Nikole Hannah-Jones's article “The 1619 Project” alongside Brian Stevenson's TED Talk We Need to Talk about an Injustice. Reflecting on her text selections, Rebecca noted, I wanted them to have a modern piece to let them know that there are still people who feel this way…I said you can have your own stance on it. I’m not trying to tell you what to think, but you need to keep your eyes open because it's not 1845.
The unit culminated with a group project and presentation where students identified a central theme from the texts, developed a writing prompt about the theme, and outlined a response using textual evidence. One group of students exemplified praxis in their presentation by arguing that slavery continues as a strategy of control today. Citing evidence from The 1619 Project, students noted that “the use of religion—especially Christianity—and the holiday season gave slaves a false sense of freedom through merriment and drink.” They gave further support to their argument with the dehumanization of slaves and the subjugation of Black Americans throughout history, noting how slaves were often encouraged to compete against one another for higher-status positions based on their assigned jobs and owners’ wealth. The students connected these historical strategies to modern issues such as mass incarceration and police brutality as contemporary forms of subjugation.
Rebecca's approach not only encouraged critical engagement with the texts but also empowered her students to actively question and develop their own understanding of systemic injustices within American society. Together, Rebecca and her students transcended traditional views of literature to make meaningful connections between historical texts and contemporary issues.
Axial Analysis of Transcendence
Horizontal analysis revealed both similarities and differences in how Christina and Rebecca transcended restrictive policies. Both educators leveraged student-centered classrooms to move beyond traditional literacy practices, embracing alternative and marginalized ways of reading, writing, and understanding the world. By cocreating transcendent spaces with their students, they facilitated environments where diverse forms of knowledge and expression were acknowledged and valued.
Christina shifted to an almost entirely student-driven practice within an after-school book club, allowing fifth-grade students to explore issues they were passionate about and determine their own methods of inquiry and response. Similarly, Rebecca transcended traditional pedagogical boundaries within her high school AP classroom by encouraging students to connect historical texts to contemporary issues, engaging them in critical praxis.
Both educators were conscious of not wanting their students to feel propagandized. Rebecca explicitly stated that she did not want her students to feel put upon, influenced, or indoctrinated, aiming instead to create a space for reflection and independent thought. She encouraged students to develop their own stances while keeping an open mind to different perspectives. Christina also took measures to avoid claims of indoctrination—not from the students, but from policymakers. Facing restrictive policies, she adopted a student-driven approach to mitigate potential accusations of indoctrination by authorities, allowing students’ interests to guide the learning process. In both cases, the educators drew inspiration from their students, which invigorated their efforts and contributed significantly to the success of their transcendent practices.
In vertical analysis, we considered Christina's context in an elementary setting, teaching fifth graders who are at a formative stage in their cognitive and social development. Working with younger students required her to introduce complex social issues in an age-appropriate and accessible manner, carefully curating materials and facilitating discussions that matched their developmental readiness. Despite facing direct oppressive policies that restricted curricular content, the flexibility of the after-school environment and the student-centered nature of inquiry allowed her to navigate these constraints and implement transcendent practices suited to her students’ maturity levels.
Rebecca, on the other hand, taught high school AP students who possess higher levels of cognitive maturity and are more capable, in general, of engaging in abstract thinking and critical analysis. Within the constraints of a formal curricular structure and strict academic standards, she strategically created space for transcendence by encouraging students to make meaningful connections between historical texts and contemporary issues. Her students were expected to engage deeply with complex materials, reflecting the higher expectations placed on them at this advanced stage of their education.
Through transverse analysis, we specifically considered the contexts which shaped education, curriculum, and both participants’ experience and compared how participants accomplished this transcendence. A pivotal factor was the influence of student inspiration: Christina was invigorated by her fifth-grade students’ passion for issues like Black Lives Matter, gender equality, homelessness, and climate change, which fueled her persistence in navigating and resisting oppressive policies.
Similarly, Rebecca empowered her high school students to actively question and understand systemic injustices by engaging critically with texts like The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, The 1619 Project, and relevant TED Talks like We Need to Talk about an Injustice. By encouraging them to draw connections between historical events and contemporary societal issues, she facilitated deeper understanding and critical engagement. Both educators and their students cocreated transcendent spaces by collaboratively moving beyond conventional educational boundaries.
This autonomy fostered a sense of ownership and relevance in their education, leading students, in both cases, to engage in praxis by applying their learning to understand and critique systemic injustices within society. By transcending traditional pedagogical approaches, both educators empowered their students to become critical thinkers and active participants in societal discourse.
Discussion
This study set out to examine how educators respond to restrictive educational policies while striving to integrate critical literacy practices into their teaching contexts. Specifically, we investigated the ways teachers enact resistance literacies in the face of legislative mandates, conservative community pressures, and broader sociopolitical constraints. Drawing on Foucault's conceptualization of power and resistance, we sought to uncover not only the obstacles teachers encounter but also the tactics they use to circumvent or subvert those limitations, revealing the agency in daily instructional choices.
Our analysis surfaced three major themes. First, connection emerged as a central theme, as teachers intentionally cultivated relationships with students, families, and colleagues. These efforts worked to counter claims of indoctrination while creating collaborative support for critical educational aims. Second, resistance manifested in diverse ways, ranging from internal resolve and subtle subversion to deliberate pedagogical choices that worked around or within imposed limitations. Finally, transcendence described the ways educators moved beyond conventional literacy norms, cocreating learning spaces with students that emphasized multimodal expression and direct engagement with social issues. Collectively, these findings reinforce that teachers’ navigation of restrictive contexts is an act of resistance literacy, highlighting the ways educators adapt policy constraints to serve students’ critical learning.
Foucault’s (1982) conceptualization of power as diffuse and always accompanied by resistance provides a critical lens for interpreting these findings. Power, in this sense, was not limited to formal mandates; it manifested in curriculum decisions, interpersonal interactions, and pedagogical routines. For instance, Christina's student-led book club, which invited inquiry into controversial themes through multimodal responses, exemplified this micro-level resistance. Similarly, Rebecca's choice to pair The 1619 Project alongside more traditional selections like The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass demonstrates how educators can disrupt dominant narratives without overt confrontation. These moves exemplify Foucault's idea of “micro-powers”—subtle, continuous resistance embedded within everyday pedagogical decisions.
These instructional acts can also be understood as expressions of “resistance literacies” (Stewart & Babino, 2022), in which educators and students deploy reading, writing, speaking, and critical engagement to contest oppressive norms. Teachers exercise the agency to reshape their classrooms, demonstrating that policy need not be an impenetrable barrier to critical engagement but rather a landscape to be navigated and reworked.
We, the authors, are aware of the parallel of our findings to those in the field of fugitive literacies that explore the navigation, resistance, and transcendence of oppression (Ohito, 2020). We have been profoundly influenced and inspired by scholars in fugitive literacies. However, as participants in this study were White or White-presenting, we chose not to appropriate the term “fugitive” and chose to focus instead on “resistance.” Although there are similarities, we acknowledge that there is a safety and privilege in whiteness that both participants experience, and we will not use the term fugitive for our analysis.
This work corroborates earlier scholarship suggesting that teachers retain a degree of autonomy to push back against restrictive mandates (Gorlewski, 2013; Ollerhead, 2010). Similar to the educators described in those studies, both participants in our research leveraged community-based connections and curricular creativity to maintain a space for critical inquiry. Moreover, their approaches resonate with Stewart and Babino (2021) in highlighting the political nature of teaching, validating the idea that critical pedagogy cannot be divorced from broader struggles over whose knowledge is valued in schools (Delpit, 1988).
The artifacts created by students in our study echo practices of art activism, where creative expression functions as a form of social action (Crawford-Garrett & Riley, 2016; McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2020; Singer & Shagoury, 2005) Finally, our work corroborates the work of Young et al. (2018) who describe the positive impact of decentering dominant perspectives in the canon.
By investigating the concept of navigation as resistance literacy, our research adds new insights into the strategies teachers can employ in hostile policy climates. We extend the literature on critical literacy by demonstrating how educators remain adaptive and resilient. This study thus fills a gap in understanding the micro-level practices through which teachers transform themselves from policy-takers to cocreators of meaningful learning experiences—an inquiry that has gained urgency as educational gag policies spread globally (Haskell, 2022; Trilling, 2020). Our data also illuminate how forging strong alliances with families can defuse potential backlash while bolstering the democratic ethos underlying critical literacy.
Implications
Our findings reaffirm Foucauldian notions of power by demonstrating how power and resistance are woven into the fabric of daily life within schools. Resistance does not arise solely through overt political acts, but often from the ordinary decisions teachers make, such as selecting texts, facilitating discussions, and building relationships with families. These moments illustrate that power circulates through daily interactions and institutional norms rather than flowing from a singular top-down source. Within this dynamic, resistance literacies represent a lived response to policy pressures, enacted through critical engagement with their environments.
In practical terms, this study offers insight into how educators might navigate restrictive environments while remaining committed to justice-oriented teaching. It suggests that critical literacy can be sustained through intentional relationships and everyday practices rather than through large-scale acts of protest. Teachers may find reassurance in knowing that strong relationships and responsiveness to students’ needs can support and protect their work. Centering student interests and real-world issues in the curriculum also encourages critical thinking and reduces the risk of being labeled as politically biased, since instructional decisions emerge from student inquiry rather than teacher ideology.
However, educational policies must create conditions that enable critical literacy to flourish. School systems could provide time for interdisciplinary collaboration, promote teacher autonomy, and expand access to diverse and inclusive texts. Supportive policies must also recognize the value of community partnerships and provide explicit protections for educators committed to equity-focused instruction. In the absence of such conditions, the pressures of politically charged climates may make equity-focused instruction increasingly difficult to maintain.
This study focuses on the experiences of two educators who are both highly experienced and embedded within strong community networks. As such, their strategies and successes may not reflect the conditions faced by teachers with fewer supports or those new to the profession. Our own theoretical perspectives and identities as qualitative researchers have also shaped how we interpreted the data. These limitations point to the need for continued, context-specific research that examines how power, resistance, and critical literacy intersect across a broader range of educational environments.
Future research should examine how early-career educators develop the skills and confidence to pursue critical pedagogy in restrictive climates. Their relative inexperience may intensify the struggle to balance policy compliance with ethical commitments to students. Research might also investigate the collaborative dimensions of resistance literacies by focusing on how professional networks, family partnerships, and community alliances help educators continue this work. Exploring how multimodal and culturally grounded literacy practices develop student agency may further illuminate how schools can become sites of collective transformation.
Conclusion
Resistance literacies are essential for promoting equity and student empowerment in restrictive educational environments. Despite facing legislative barriers, teachers leverage connection, resistance, and transcendence to sustain critical literacy and challenge oppressive norms. Their actions reflect resilience and adaptability, ensuring that classrooms remain spaces for democratic engagement and critical inquiry despite external constraints. This work is timely and vital as, in the United States, we are experiencing an extreme right-wing, authoritarian swing.
The suppression of critical literacy is not confined to the United States but reflects a global struggle over power, knowledge, and identity. Efforts to limit antiracism education and critical race theory in democratic nations highlight the role of education in shaping national narratives. As many countries increasingly adopt nationalistic rhetoric and isolationist policies, public schools have become sites where dominant ideologies are reinforced. However, teachers around the world continue to resist these constraints through strategic pedagogical strategies and acts of defiance to create learning environments that promote open inquiry and diverse perspectives.
Ultimately, critical literacy is not merely an academic framework but a tool for social transformation. By equipping students with the skills to question dominant ideologies and challenge systemic inequities, educators uphold the transformative potential of education. As policies continue to shift, ongoing research, advocacy, and collective resistance are crucial in ensuring classrooms remain spaces of critical thought, civic engagement, and meaningful dialogue that empower students to become active participants in shaping a more just and equitable society.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
