For Educators: Literacy and Harry Potter, with Lesson Plans

This is a project I did for a graduate class.  It includes a brief theoretical framework, some brief reflections on how Harry Potter relates to that theory, and then, for the sake of any educators who read this site, I’ve attached, as a downloadable document, this content plus eight lesson plans I constructed.  I hope it’s helpful, and I assume that the theoretical framework will inspire some debate.

Power, Politics, Literacy and Learning in Harry Potter

Introduction

The following project explores the way in which a popular work of literature – the Harry Potter series – could be utilized to teach, in a classroom setting, important lessons about education and literacy.  I’ll start with a theoretical framework, which sets a foundation both for the need for such a course as well as the educational goals for the course.  I’ll then give an overview of the portion of the course which deals with literacy and education, drawing links between the theoretical framework and academic analysis of the Harry Potter series.  Eight lessons plans will follow with theoretical foundations for that lesson (drawn from the “theoretical framework” section of this paper), and I will conclude with a summary statement on the potential benefit of this course, as well as suggestions for others.

Theoretical Framework

There is no such thing as power-neutral language or a view of literacy that is “objective.”  “Any view of literacy is inherently political” (Gee, 1996, p. 22), and mainstream literacy practices are an attempt to “socialize…minorities” into the middle-class “status quo” (pp. 25-26).  Every single text is in some way a power text, in some way related to the upholding of certain messages, values, and cultural mores (this is not always a bad thing).  Through literacy learning in schools where government-mandated education is enforced, we are often “socialized” into certain ways of thinking and behaving in the world, and when those ways are inherently oppressive of one form of literacy and exalts another (particularly white, middle-class in American culture), resistance and protest must be the result.

Standardization has become the norm in America, very much under the guise of an “objective” approach to learning “the basics.”  Mike Rose (1989) argues, however, that educational performance standards usually go a long way to “reinforcing the social order” and maintaining structures of oppression (p. 205).  Dyson (2006) informs us that current standards are problematic for many reasons, not least because they reinforce ideologies of power (p. 12) and “pull the linguistic rug out from under” children who are “just getting their feet on the ground as writers” (p. 37).  Rather than standardizing everything, as the current legislation is doing, Dyson (2006) suggests that it is better to let children start from their experiences and diversify from there (37-38).

There is more at stake in this discussion than abstract concepts of power and politics.  As Lippi-Green (2004) argues, personal and cultural identity is inextricably linked to language (p. 291).  As such, an assault on a people’s language, accent, or dialect is ultimately an assault on people themselves.  What makes this so difficult for middle-class white folks to understand is that we’ve been taught since day one that the way we speak is the “norm” or “standard,” and any deviation is “incorrect.”  It’s not hard to make the jump from “incorrect” to “stupid” or “ignorant.” Nieto’s (2006) exhortation to “respect students’ identities,” building relationships and understanding them, is right on the mark (p. 328).  It’s wise to remember that there is a very real sense in which all of our identities are still being formed, and this is a primary issue with teenagers, for whom concepts of identity are being thrown at them left and right, and often being “sold” to them by clever marketing techniques.  Failing to honor them as human beings, and taking on the “teacher” role while discarding everything that makes one a human being, immediately sets up a power structure which could potentially harm the learning environment.

There is no easy solution to the current methods of standardization, resulting in oppression.  At the end of 160+ pages of personal and theoretical reflection, Gilyard (1991) writes, “I don’t know all that must be done, however, to break the cycle of failure” (p. 165). The battle will be long and hard-fought.  Delpit (2006) argues that we should allow non-”mainstream” folks to learn the “superficial features of dominant Discourses” for the purpose of gaining the necessary tools to challenge that dominant Discourse (p. 272).  This is probably one of the most important starting places.

    Nystrand (1997) gets at the heart of the matter: “More basic than either teacher or student is the relationship between them” (p. 6).  Nystrand (1997) writes, “Our relationships with the significant others in our lives shape our consciousness – how we understand ourselves, others, and the world around us” (p. 9). Greenleaf et. al. (2001) put forth the concept of “apprenticeship,” which balances perfectly the need for a teacher to be an expert in his or her subject matter and for a more student-centered, collaborative approach to education.  Freeman and Freeman (2004), for example, argue that grammar should not be taught as some detached set of rules, but in the context of editing a draft (p. 218-219). This makes students active participants in their learning.  Apprenticeship could serve as a foundational concept for establishing healthy student-teacher relationships.

Overview of Course

J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series provides a plethora of materials for discussing the questions of literacy and education.  The very premise of the series is that young Harry, orphaned and left with his relatives, is a young wizard who does not realize it, and at age 11, he enters the Wizarding World – an oppressed subculture of our own world – by attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.  

At Hogwarts, Harry immediately begins to realize he is an outsider, and in many ways, a victim of injustice in a world that clearly favors “pureblood” Wizards – Wizarding families that have never married into “Muggle,” or non-Wizard families.  Though he is a legend because, as an infant, he unwittingly managed to defeat the Dark Lord Voldemort, it is quickly evident that he does not have any special magical talent, and that he is actually quite behind many of the other students.  

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2003), the fifth book of the series, is the most clear criticism of the way standardized education and political power go hand in hand.  As the Ministry of Magic meddles in the affairs of Hogwarts, and Delores Umbridge is appointed Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher and Hogwarts High Inquisitor, imposing “ministry-approved” curriculum, what practical, authentic education existed at Hogwarts falls by the wayside in favor of a teacher-centered, authoritarian model which allows for no student participation whatsoever.  

In stark contrast to Ministry-imposed curriculum, Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore is a model of the Apprenticeship model advocated in the theoretical framework above.  Throughout the course of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005), Dumbledore conducts private lessons with Harry in which he teaches him exceedingly valuable lessons by engaging him in discussion, valuing his opinion, and allowing him an absolutely vital and crucial role in the learning process (see Lesson Five below for further detail).  

Not only does Rowling’s series deal heavy criticisms to standardized education, it takes up issues of racism and power-relationships – most notably through the Pureblood vs. Muggle-born conflict throughout the series.  These inevitably find their way into the educational practices at Hogwarts.  The primary example is the enforcement of the “Restriction on Underage Wizardry,” a law passed by the Ministry of Magic that forbids witches and wizards under the age of 17 from practicing magic outside of Hogwarts.  The problem is that the law can only be enforced on Muggle-borns, because the Ministry is only able to tell that magic was performed in a specific geographical area (i.e., a house), not who performed the magic.  This means that the law does not and cannot affect those students who are already a part of the “normal” Wizarding culture, since the Wizard-born student lives in a house with adult wizards and witches, and the Ministry could not possibly conduct an inquiry every time magic was performed on those houses.  This inherently benefits Wizards who are already part of the dominant culture, and applies the law unjustly to those Muggle-borns struggling to find a place in that world.

This example and others will be explored in the following lessons, which comprise a unit called “Power, Politics, Literacy and Learning in Harry Potter.”  This course is designed as a high-school elective on the Harry Potter series (it would have to be limited to those who were already quite familiar with the series) or as a college course. 

Download this post with lesson plans and reference list: literacy-and-harry-potter

Tagged as: education and politics, Hogwarts, literacy