Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering Cross Cultural Competence in Preservice Teachers Through Multicultural Education Experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 197–204. doi: 10.1007/s10643-010-0401-5
In the 2010 article entitled Fostering Cross-Cultural Competence in Preservice Teachers Through Multicultural Education Experiences by Jared Keengwe, Keengwe explores the important role that cross-cultural experiences has on preparing the new generation of teacher. Keengwe (2010), points out that the American school system, specifically the public-school system, is becoming increasingly diverse while the educators that teach in it are not (p. 198). It is important to note that Keengwe (2010) says that “...many teacher education programs face challenges in better preparing preservice teachers to respond appropriately to the diversity of diversity they are likely to encounter in the classroom” (p. 197). Keengwe is saying that with the increase of cultures, languages and races, many educators are not equipped to provide adequate support needed to ensure that all youth are able to succeed. Keengwe (2010) continues by telling us that, “...teachers’ beliefs about how students, for instance, from different racial backgrounds learn and the expectations that they have for different racial groups may influence the way that they conduct their lessons” (p. 197). Keengwe (2010) is alluding to the implicit and explicit biases that may be held by educators, especially those that do not identify with the cultural differences experienced by students. Next, Keengwe (2010) outlines a submersion project that was conducted using twenty-four “racially and culturally homogenous” female teachers (Keengwe, 2010, p. 200). He details that each of the ladies were placed in a teaching environment where that had to conduct one on one teaching with a youth who was an English learner. In their reflections on the experiences, Keengwe (2010) notes that, “they expressed fear of doing or saying the wrong thing when interacting with the students from different cultures because they lacked cross cultural competencies” (p. 200). In short, Keengwe (2010) highlights the importance of cross-cultural competence through multicultural experiences.
I believe that the way in which Keengwe (2010) describes a solution to cross cultural competence is very engaging. The idea of immersing preservice teachers into cross cultural experiences is interesting simply because it breaks down some of the communication barriers that exist for teachers and students that have not engaged in cross cultural experiences before. As Keengwe (2010) said, the increasing diversification of the country is not reflective in the school systems. Majority of public schools are comprised of black and brown youth with many teachers being white ladies that did not grow up in either low income or racially diverse environments. In addressing the increasing diversity, it is imperative that the educators that are teaching within these school systems have access to professional development that sets them up for success in the classroom. Many teachers go into their role having no actual experience working with the population that they are teaching. The only cultural diversification that they have are that of the stereotypes and things that they have shaped their preconceived beliefs during their lives. In conducting my own research about the impact that teachers have on the success or failure of black/brown youth, I think it is important to thoroughly understand the way in which educators are developed. In the context of Keengwe (2010), the participants who had the opportunity to engage in the program showed significant growth in their cross-cultural understanding. Individuals that are equipped to handle diversity are more likely to produce successful outcomes with their black and brown students because they are better able to construct teaching styles that are applicable with the learning styles. This could potentially eliminate any fears that teachers may experience when initially being immersed in culturally diverse environments.
Meaney, K. S., Bohler, H. R., Kopf, K., Hernandez, L., & Scott, L. S. (2008). Service-Learning and Pre-Service Educators Cultural Competence for Teaching: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 189–208. doi: 10.5193/jee.31.2.189
In the 2008 article entitled Service-Learning and Pre-Service Educators’ Cultural Competence for Teaching: An Exploratory Study by Karen S. Meaney, Heidi R. Bohler, Kelcie Kopf, Lesley Hernandes and LaTosha S. Scott, they explore the important role that the social-cognitive theory framework has on understanding the impact educators’ cultural competency has on students. Meany et al (2008) justifies their use of the social-cognitive theory framework by saying that “...the majority of human learning occurs in a social environment, because dynamic social settings promote interactions between one’s personal factors, environment and behaviors…” (p. 193). In this particular context, Meany et al (2008) are referring to the role that service learning has on molding more culturally competent educators. By their very definition, service learning is the process in which individuals are exposed to culturally different environments provided with real world experiences while gaining knowledge about and meeting the needs of the economically disadvantaged and underrepresented (Meany et al, 2008, p. 192). Meany et al (2008) reported that of the sample of college students that participated in the service learning project located in a low income neighborhood populated heavily by blacks and latinx people, many of them “increased perceived competence as instructors, improved teaching skills and increased use of varied instructional strategies” (p. 192). Meany et al (2008) uses the triadic reciprocal causation chart to show the multidirectional impact that an educator’s personal factors, behavior and environment may have on their perceived competence (p. 194). It is important to note that as preservice educators partake in more service learning, they develop more empathy and reconstructed knowledge (Meany et al, 2008, p. 202) In short, Meany et al (2008) argues that experiential submersion is the best way to create more culturally competent educators based on the social-cognitive theory. In order to be more culturally competent, teachers have to do more than just learn about the cultures, they must be submerged within them.
The social cognitive theory that Meany et al (2008) uses to rationalize the need for educators to participate in service learning reminds me a lot of the Jared Keengwe (2010) article in which he explains that immersion allows for a more firsthand experience. According to Meany et al (2008) in the context of his study, it would be of greater impact for educators to experience the actual conversation because taking classes in diversity alone still does not address the implicit and explicit biases that are revealed when first being exposed to the cultural differences. The social cognitive theory is one that states that “the majority of human learning occurs in a social environment, because dynamic social settings promote interaction between one’s personal factors, environment and behavior” (Meany et al, 2008, p. 193). Through media and literature, preservice teachers unconsciously create biases and images of how children and their families should or will behave. Participating in service learning where preservice teachers are exposed to various languages and cultures allow for them to build their own narratives and become more empathic to students who may not have experienced any cultural diversity. In my very own research, it will be important to consider the social psychology behind why it is important for educators to be culturally competent. Many colleges and universities offer courses in diversity to fulfill the credentialing requirements however, those few classes do not adequately prepare teachers of any racial or cultural background to teach within an environment that they are not familiar. Using the social cognitive theory could essentially justify to universities and even credentialing boards why it is important to pair classroom knowledge with real world experiences.
Summary:
Keengwe (2010) and Meany et al (2008) both argue the importance of providing diversity training in an effort to achieve cultural competence. As a collaborative, they highlight the increasing diversification that we are seeing in the American population as well as the lack of diversity that we are seeing in the educating workforce. Targeting preservice educators as a means of ending the cycle of cultural blindness by immersing them into environments that are culturally different is the solution that they all would agree upon. Meaney et al (2008) does mention that “the teacher and preservice educator population is diversifying” though it is still densely populated with white individuals (p. 190). They argue that the small bounds of diversification is not nearly enough because educators “unconsciously incorporate that perspective into their classrooms” (Meaney et al, 2008, p. 190). Furthermore, “cultural understanding of the students is also critical given that racial, cultural and linguistic integration has the potential to increase academic success for all learners” (Keengwe, 2010, p. 197). Both Keengwe (2010) and Meaney et al (2008) share the very same fundamental beliefs though the approach to which they came to the conclusions are different. Meaney et al (2008) exposed preservice teachers to one on one mentoring with an English as the second language youth as the immersion into a different culture. Keengwe (2010) felt it more important to regularly set up opportunities for service learning where it is equally as beneficial to both parties and not just a superficial experience.
Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2002). Assessing Instructor Cultural Competence in the Classroom: An Instrument and a Development Process. Journal of Management Education, 26(1), 40–55. doi: 10.1177/105256290202600104
In their 2002 article entitled, Assessing Instructor Cultural Competence In The Classroom: An Instrument and a Development Process by Loriann Roberson, Carol T. Kulik and Molly B. Pepper, they highlight the important role that business schools have in incorporating workforce diversity training into the business curriculum. Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) begin by acknowledging that “most business school instructors are unprepared to teach diversity topics, and they may be unprepared to deal with diversity issues when they arise in a multicultural setting” (p. 41). Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) are addressing the concern that lies not only in the P-12 educational system, but also within higher education as individuals are being prepared to work in the “real world”. As a result of the increase of diversity in the country and minimal experience in preparing the workforce for diversity, “some academic institutions have initiated training designed to sensitize faculty and teaching assistants” (p. 41). As to be expected, business colleges like many others require an evaluation of effectiveness be completed as a means of measuring the impact. Being that there is no objective way of collecting data about its effectiveness, Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) are sure to note that “attitude surveys are generally transparent and subject to social desirability bias” (p.42). They continue by defining learning as a “multidimensional construct, including changes in affective, cognitive and behavioral (skill based) capacities” (Roberson, Kulik & Pepper, 2002, p. 42). Even with the lack of objectivity, Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002), talks about the development and usage of several questionnaires including the Instructor Cultural Competence Questionnaire (ICCQ), Pluralism and Diversity Attitude Assessment (PADAA) and The Diversity Knowledge Test. Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) exams each of these assessments and the relationships that exists to ensure that each dimension of learning is being evaluated. In short, Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002), reviewed the important role that colleges, specifically business colleges play in creating a diverse workforce. Additionally, they analyze the effectiveness of the programs that have been offered as a result of the deficiency in an effort to prepare college students and professors with the tools needed to adequately prepare for the diverse world in front of them.
I believe that the Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) make valid points about the mere ability of even university professors to adequately teach a diversity course to their students. Though they are addressing the workforce diversity training for business majors, diversity training crosses the various spectrums of society. In applying their logic, Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) teaching diversity classes will prepare the students for the real-world experiences that they will face after college. As a means to assess the adequacy of the diversity course that students have taken, many universities use some form of an evaluation that it typically self-reported which creates biases. While I do not fully agree with Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002), I do believe that there may be benefits in requiring students to learn and professor to teach about diversity. In my own research, I think that it is important to compare this self-assessment questionnaire to that of the social cognitive theory. If it is true that students learn better through experience rather than education, would it benefit colleges to offer a more exploratory component. Additionally, these results for the business college makes me wonder if the same would stand for that of educators. If educators, like professors, were only required to take a diversity course, would they really be ready to teach or even work alongside or serve the diverse population that makes up the US.
Douglas, B., Lewis, C., Douglas, A., Earl Scott, M., & Garrison-Wade, D. (2008). The Impact of White Teachers on the Academic Achievement of Black Students: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis
In their 2008 article entitled The Impact of White Teachers on the Academic Achievement of Black Students: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis by Bruce Douglas, Chance W. Lewis, Adrian Douglas, Malcolm Earl Scott and Dorothy Garrison-Wade, they discuss an understudied phenomenon that surrounds the impact that the predominantly white workforce of educators has on the predominantly black/brown and low income public school student. According to Douglas, Lewis, Douglas, Scott and Garrison-Wade (2008), now more than ever, “...black students are being educated by people who are not of their racial or cultural background” (p. 48). They continue by saying that according to a 2004 report released by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “black students continue to trail white students with respect to educational access, achievement and attainment” (Douglas et al, 2008, p. 48). Douglas et al (2008) is referring to the large achievement gap that is growing annually between black/brown and white students. Douglas et al (2008) also mentions that the NCES fails to “discuss who is teaching black students or whether these teachers are prepared to teach black students effectively” (p. 48). The typical rationale as to the reason that black/brown children trail are because of factors outside of the school system such as socioeconomic status, Douglas et al (2008) calls into question this deficit model of instruction. For reasons not outlined, Douglas et al (2008) conduct an intimate interview with eight black/brown students that attended a predominantly white high school taught by predominantly white teachers. They concluded that in the 10th-12th grade, the themes that were prevalent amongst them were their need for respect, stereotypes that they were held to, administrations lack of assistance but, alike of the environment (Douglas et al, 2008, p. 53). In short, Douglas et al (2008) called into question the impact that is made on students when the teacher is a representation of themselves compared to the impact of the white teacher.
I believe that Douglas et al (2008) calls into question something very interesting. While we always assess the impact that external factors have on the success of black and brown youth, it is not as often studied the internal factors that contribute to the success and/or failure of black and brown youth. Students fail and succeed for multiple reasons, some of which are far beyond their control and one of those things that isn’t within their control is their teacher. With the lack of representation in the public-school systems for racially and culturally diverse students, one could question if correlation would equate to the causation for such a huge achievement gap. Douglas et al (2008) cross examines the utilization of the deficit model of thinking in which the academic abilities for students of color is questioned. Douglas et al (2008) states that “teachers’ perceptions that students of color do not already possess the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes to succeed and learn can result in the development of curriculum and instruction that falls short of optimal teaching and learning” (p. 51). They continue by saying that “due to this theoretical assumption of deficit thinking by educators, many African American students leave their schooling experiences without being properly trained and equipped for high paying jobs and admission to four-year colleges and universities” (Douglas et al, 2008, p. 51). While the deficit model of thinking can be prevalent in any educator, in my own research it is reasonable to wonder whether internalized oppression at the hands of implicit biases and stereotypes a contributing factor to the educational disparity are.
Summary:
Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) and Douglas et al (2008) would agree that measurable steps have to be taken in order to impact change in the educational system for P-12 and higher ed. Douglas et al (2008) would argue that the mere diversity in the educational field is very low in contrast to the diversity that lies within the students. Continuing on by addressing the issue that in modern times, minority students are being educated predominantly by white educators which causes issues (Douglas et al, 2008). Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) would assert that colleges and universities are now providing cultural sensitivity courses which are always being evaluated for effectiveness. They would continue by establishing the very elements of learning arguing that learning is in fact multidimensional and that the courses offered alone will not change the feelings that students and administrators have (Roberson, Kulik and Pepper, 2002). Being that the evaluations are subjective and self-reported, Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) would add that students leaving the program could report that the course had a huge impact on them. Douglas et al (2008) would reference the data collected where black students reported that lack of respect, lack of administrative support and prevalence of stereotypes from their white teachers and faculty. Douglas et al (2008) would contest that the courses, though Roberson, Kulik and Pepper (2002) argue that they are self reportedly effective, are not effective in actual implementation and practice within the classrooms.
Adams, V. N., & Stevenson, J. H. C. (2012). Media Socialization, Black Media Images and Black Adolescent Identity. Racial Stereotyping and Child Development Contributions to Human Development, 28–46. doi: 10.1159/000336272
In the 2010 article entitled Messages in the Medium: The Relationships Among Black Media Images, Racial Identity, Body Image and the Racial Socialization of Black Youth by Valerie N. Adams, Adams exams the impact that the media has on the racial socialization of black youth. Adams (2010) begins by stating that “during adolescence, the primary crisis around which many tasks and experiences revolve is the identity development; for black youth, racism is a significant cultural factor influencing identity” (p. 2). This is important in recognizing that during their adolescent years, youth are developing their identity. Additionally, whether it be implicit or explicit racism, for youth that exposure impacts their identity. Adams (2010) continues by saying that “stereotypically negative television images of blacks” is one of the “reasons why there should be a research agenda for exploring relationships” (p. 3). Television is a socializing agent for all that indulge in the past time. When the images depicted of black/brown youth are that of negativity, it is perpetuated in the black/brown community via internalized oppression and perpetuated in the non-black/brown community via cultural destructiveness. Adams (2010) continues arguing that “the terminology and images associated with black people are accompanied by implicit and sometimes explicit messages that have changed very little” (p. 8). Aforementioned, these messages contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes by all members of society. Adams (2010) concludes by stating that “development is influenced by micro and macro level environments: exchange of information, perception of experience, individual response to the environment, and environmental responses to an individual converging and/or conflicting as youth transition into adults” (p. 11). Adams (2010) is reinforcing the idea that our perceptions are cultivated based on all of the interactions we have, whether it be big or small. In short, Adams (2010) is arguing that the media has an impact on the way that black/brown youth view themselves and the way that other people view them.
I believe that Adams (2010) raises valid points about the socialization of minority youth as a result of media exposure. In my very own research, I believe this to be applicable for both adults and youth since adults began as youth. Adolescence is the most crucial time for identity development and with media at the click of our hand, it has become the very glue that holds and even cultivates our ideologies about ourselves and others. The underrepresentation and misrepresentation of minorities in the media construes ideas in our brains about what a culture could or should be. Though the media is not alone in socializing humans, it is a huge contributor. It is through these outlets that implicit and explicit biases are truly nourished. As Adams (2010) alludes to, the media is the reason we explore the various relationships that we do in the way that we do. Black and brown minority youth are disproportionately punished, and this could be the result of implicit biases held by school administration. The images and depictions of the various cultures and their interactions have not drastically changed even in lieu of the Civil Rights Era. While we are not inherently speaking of the larger conceptualized portrayals like that of minorities in The Birth of a Nation, we are speaking specifically about the microcosms the contribute to implicit and explicit biases. An example of this would be when media highlights minorities as less than that of their majority counterpart.
Summary:
Douglas et al (2008) and Adams (2010) both touch on the presents of implicit and explicit biases in teaching and how they affect the youth. While Adams (2010) is talking about the stereotypes that we subconsciously obtain through our media consumption, Douglas et al (2008) highlights those stereotypical ideations being translated into our everyday lives, including work. During the study the interviews that Douglas et al (2008) conducted on the eight-minority youth attending predominantly white high schools, parts of their conclusion allude to the point that Adams (2010) was making specifically about stereotypes. As Douglas et al (2008) conclude in regard to the interviews, “the statements revealed the magnitude of stereotypical comments that the students face daily” (p. 55). Adams (2010) would argue that students face this daily stereotyping because “exposure to negative TV images will reinforce and influence negative perspectives of black people by white society” (p. 3). While Douglas et al (2008) and Adams (2010) address the implicit and explicit biases in very different ways, it is important to note that regardless of whether it is the media or it is their upbringing that creates the preconceived notions and stereotypes, they exist.
Milner, H. R., & Howard, T. C. (2004). Black Teachers, Black Students, Black Communities, and Brown: Perspectives and Insights from Experts. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 285. doi: 10.2307/4129612
In their 2004 article entitled Black Teachers, Black Students, Black Communities and Brown: Perspectives and Insights From Experts, H. Richard Milner and Tyrone Howard dissects the impact that the infamous Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas had on the restructuring of the school system. Milner and Howard (2004) begin by providing a brief overview of the desegregation that happened as a result Brown v. Board of Education. They note, that “the black teaching force has declined significantly over the last few decades and continues to decline even in 2003” (Milner & Howard, 2004, p. 285). Milner and Howard (2004) continues by saying that “African American teachers make up approximately 6.5% of the teaching force, and there are projections that these numbers will decrease” (p. 286). Milner and Howard (2004) argues that while there is diversification of America, the teaching force unfortunately does not share that same diversity. In an effort to really explore the impact that Brown v. The Board of Education and desegregation had on the education of black and brown youth, Milner and Howard (2004) interviewed several reputable and decorated individuals as a means to promote healthy conversation. Milner and Howard (2004) note that, “African Americans have failed to get the results they envisioned “(p. 286). They are referring to the employment of minority teachers and the education in which black and brown youth are obtaining. They conclude that black youth need teachers that are “more familiar with the cultural context of their students” and that the Brown decision “marked the beginning of the troubled cycle of underachievement for many African American students” (p. 286).
I believe that Milner and Howard (2004) bring up valid points though I’d challenge their claim that segregation would be better. The need for diverse teachers is immense however, in eliminating white teachers from the equation, we eliminate the ability of youth to be exposed to various cultures. In my own research, I find it important to analyze both spectrums of the conversation. While Milner and Howard (2004) are not suggesting that we re-segregate schools, they are suggesting that it may have been better in reinforcing the village that once raised children. Milner and Howard (2004) admit that white teachers have the ability to teacher black students if they receive cross cultural training. Issues within the educational system can become a long list of items unaddressed. Some would argue that schools in some facet are already segregated but class. Though the educational system could use some reform, beginning with teachers and teacher education appears to be an impactful one. Organizations like Teach For America strive to reform the educational system by assisting school districts with employing nontraditional and culturally competent educators. I believe that in my research, it is important to highlight how TFA has impacted the educational stratosphere. Since segregation is not our solution, restructuring the way in which teachers are educated is a promising start.
Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing Diversity in Schools: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900310
In the 2007 article entitled Addressing Diversity in Schools: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy by Heraldo V. Richards, Ayanna F. Brown and Timothy B. Forde, Richards, Brown and Forde discusses the importance of addressing diversity through the usage of culturally responsive pedagogy. The begin by explaining why addressing diversity is important saying that “today’s classrooms require teachers to educate students varying in culture, language, abilities and many other characteristics” (Richards, Brown and Forde, 2007, p. 64). Next, Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) defines culturally responsive pedagogy as “effective teaching and learning occur in a culturally supported, learner-centered context, whereby the strengths students bring to school are identified, nurtured, and utilized to promote student achievement” (p. 64). Then, they review the institutional dimensions that must change in order to create culturally responsive pedagogy including the organization of the school, school policies and procedures and community involvement (Richards, Brown and Forde, 2007). After that, they outline some of the things that teachers need to do in order to be considered culturally responsive including changing curriculum, promoting equity and validating student’s cultural identity amongst other things (Richards, Brown and Forde, 2007, p. 66). They conclude by reviewing the implications of not addressing diversity and creating culturally responsive pedagogy and the negative effects it has on politicians, administrators, teachers, parents and students alike. In short, Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) argued the importance of and the way in which the educational system should address diversity and use more culturally responsive pedagogy.
The way in which Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) addresses the need for the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy is groundbreaking. Assessing the responsibility of the educational system on impacting change within the classroom is imperative for this research. At one point, Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) highlights the European American curriculum that minority students are required to learn. Additionally, they insinuate that minority students often have to conform to the Anglo-American culture which they are coerced into abiding by in order to get through school with no diagnoses (Richard, Brown and Forde, 2007). I believe they were very intentional in their discussion of the need for teachers to adequately be able to educate students with various cultural variations. This adds to my very own research because it challenges the very curriculum in which minority children learn. It is rare that public schools educate minority students on aspects of their very own culture and when they do, it’s a repetitive Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman and Rosa Park amongst other common leaders. While European American history touched on several components of various cultures, it is in the perspective of European Americans. The harsh reality is that Christopher Columbus is celebrated though he stole land, brought diseases and killed many Native Americans. That is not the story that is taught in history classes nor read in school history books. Additionally, Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) address the three main concerns about adjusting the educational infrastructure which includes the organization of the school, school policies and procedures and community involvement; continuing on to outline the three concerns about shifting the norms in the classroom. I highlight these again to provide an emphasis on the importance of this in my very own research. Understanding that teachers alone are not responsible for the colorblind classrooms that attempt to promote equality while teacher a European centered curriculum. It reinforces the idea that even if a few teachers were more inclusive, classrooms would still not be a supportive environment for youth to be themselves.
Summary:
Milner and Howard (2004) along with Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) would agree that cultural competency is a symptom of a system wide educational reform. They each concur that it is the systemic infrastructure of education that are partly to blame for the inequities in education, if not one of the main contributors. While Milner and Howard (2004) assert that it is due to the Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas (1954) that this infrastructure has even taken place. They would continue by arguing that as a result of this groundbreaking overturn of separate but equal, minority students were integrated into schools that weren’t created for them (Milner and Howard, 2004). Additionally, Milner and Howard 2004, would argue that adoption of the European centric curriculum happened at a time where segregation and racism was still at a high and that curriculum didn’t factor in the importance of other cultural minorities. I’d argue that Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) would agree that that the curriculum was not created and implemented as a way of servicing all students, regardless of cultural backgrounds. Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) would assert that the insertion of culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy could begin the process of training culturally responsive and relevant teachers who would perpetuate cultural responsiveness and relevance to their students. Though they would each agree that this task cannot be done taking a color-blind approach, Milner and Howard (2004) and Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) would disagree about the timeliness of the solution. While Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) breaks this educational reform into several steps, Milner and Howard (2004) demand an almost immediate change in the restructuring of the system.
Hyland, N. (2005). Being a Good Teacher of Black Students? White Teachers and Unintentional Racism. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(4), 429-459. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3698537
In the 2005 article entitled Being a Good Teacher of Black Students? White Teachers and Unintentional Racism by Nora Hyland, Hyland presents the results of an ethnographic study in which four teachers were observed to conclude whether they had unconscious biases and participated in unintentional racist activities. Hyland (2005) starts by laying a foundation in which to understand the context of the study. She says, “it would be unfair to assert that teachers are fully responsible for such racial inequality in education or that they are solely responsible for correcting it” (Hyland, 2005, p. 429). She continues by saying, “the research in this field generally points to the idea that successful teachers of students of color identify the public-school system as racist and see themselves as part of a larger political struggle for racial justice” (Hyland, 2005, p. 430). Hyland (2005) argues that while racism even when unintentional, can be perpetuated in the classroom, it is going to more than just the shift of educators to change it. She asserts that the most successful educators, regardless of racial or ethnic background, see the public-school system as a structure built upon racial divides. Hyland (2005) explores the concept of “whiteness” arguing that “sometimes racism is inserted into schools simply by doing what is normal in those schools that primarily serve students of color, or even doing what is seemingly wonderful for students” (p. 430). In her analysis of the four teachers, Hyland (2005) concluded that even though the intention could be to help or relate to the students, the drive could be racially motivated. I’m short, Hyland (2005) argues the importance of multicultural and culturally relevant teaching.
The way in which Hyland (2005) dissects each of the educator’s intentions was very engaging. It highlighted the unintentional racism that we all unknowingly perpetuate. The idea that “whiteness” is more than an adjective is an under identified venture; it is in fact a systemic structure bound together by cultural destructiveness and internalized oppression. This is the very reason this data is crucial for the successful completion of my research on the black experience within education. The author not only conducts interviews as a means of collecting self-reported data, the author also follows the teachers around observing their behavior over the course of a few years. The most interesting interview that was conducted was with a brown skinned young lady who was of Latina decent though she identified as white American. Hyland (2005) notes that during an art engagement in which students were painting a mural of their neighborhood, she said “make sure you include a nice scene of a drive by shooting” (p. 445). As a result, Hyland (2005) contests that “This comment was an exaggeration of the crime in the Woodson neighborhood. The crime rate in Corbel is actually very low. This is an exaggeration of violence can be a way to code language about race without mentioning race” (p. 445). She continues by saying, “this discourse fits with the images of Black and Latina/Latino communities that are perpetuated through the media” (Hyland, 2005, p. 445). This is important in establishing and exploring what social constructs are in place that unintentionally perpetuates racism. In fact, the mere fact that she does not identify as Hispanic and instead says “I think that I have been successful in my life because I never considered myself Hispanic. I mean I never let that hold me back because I never saw myself that way” and “I know my students could be successful, but they are limited by some of the things that go on in their families. I was lucky to have White parents” (Hyland, 2005, p. 443), is an issue. While her comments do not uncover “unintentional” biases, she will unintentionally project these same beliefs to that of the children she serves.
Downey, D., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When Race Matters: Teachers' Evaluations of Students' Classroom Behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267-282. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649390
In the 2004 article entitled When Race Matters: Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’ Classroom Behavior by Douglas B. Downey and Shana Pribesh, Downey and Pribesh explores the correlation between black student evaluations and the race of the teacher evaluating them while exploring the effects of matching the racial backgrounds of students and teachers. They start by challenging previously collected data which concluded that “teachers rate black students as exhibiting poorer classroom behavior and as being less academically engaged than they do white students” (Downey and Pribesh, 2004, p. 267). Downey and Pribesh (2004) continues by raising the question “do black students act out more when placed with white teachers than with black teachers, or do white teachers rate black students more harshly than they deserve?” (p. 267). Next, they dive into mismatching teacher and students by race. They said that the disparity with the evaluative results could be because “white teachers merely misinterpret black students’ cultural style” and “misread black students’ different behavioral styles (e.g., speech, dress and energy level) as defiance” (Downey and Pribesh, 2004, p. 268). Downey and Pribesh (2004) breaks their research into two subgroups in an attempt to understand whether the difference in evaluation results change as youth age, they concluded that it doesn’t. They also concluded that “the strain between black students and white teachers is evident as soon as black children begin kindergarten” (Downey and Pribesh, 2004, p. 279). In short, Downey and Pribesh (2004) presents information that concludes that the mismatching of educators creates disparities in the evaluation results for black students and white teachers.
The way in which Downey and Pribesh (2004) discuss the correlation that exists between black students and white teachers was eye opening. Though his conclusive data was a mirror image of data that he had retrieved prior to the start of the study, it is useful in my research because it supports the relevance. The idea of oppositional culture, the theory that black student’s misbehavior more with white teachers have been disproven several times now and even explored during kindergarten and again at adolescence. The overwhelming truth is that white teachers evaluate black students harsher. Many of the reasons presented by Downey and Pribesh (2004) insinuates that this is happening simply because white teachers do not understand the cultural diversity and therefore, they see many of the typical behaviors as out of line. This is incredibly important in identifying that the disproportionate discipline starts as early as kindergarten. It is as early as five years old the youth are labeled with negative stereotypes via the media and their teachers. This “misbehavior” is what leads to the increased enrollment of special education classes. For my research, Downey and Pribesh (2004) reiterate that perception is another reason that cultural competency is important. If educators were to understand some of the different cultural norms and accept them as an extension of the student, much of the negative perceptions may be decreased significantly. Additionally, culturally responsive adults create culturally responsive students. This shift in understanding different norms and accepting it openly would baby steps in the right direction.
Summary:
Hyland (2005) and Downey and Pribesh (2004) would agree that the unintentional biases that are cultivated through dispositions and life experiences play a critical role in the education that minority and majority students receive. Hyland (2005) would argue that teachers alone are not responsible for adjusting the amount of unintentional racism that happens within schools, however, they are an integral part. Downey and Pribesh (2004) would argue that teachers are the most integral factors in creating culturally competent classrooms because white teachers tend to evaluate minority students more harshly than that of their white counterparts. Downey and Pribesh (2004) would continue by reviewing data which shows that oppositional culture, black student misbehaving more for white teachers, has been disproven several times while asserting that white teacher evaluate harsher due to their misconceptions of culturally accepted behaviors. Hyland (2005) would concur that misconceptions are pertinent which stems from this idea of whiteness. Hyland (2005) would conclude by stating that there is an issue when a Latina teacher abandons her cultures to assimilate to that of the dominant culture reasoning that she is allotted more benefits identifying as White. Her mere perception of her actual culture and the one that she has assimilated to, Downey and Pribesh would conclude that based on her comments, she too misreads cultural norms as defiant.
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating All Students: Creating Culturally Responsive Teachers, Classrooms, and Schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512070430010801
In the 2007 article entitled Educating All Students: Creating Culturally Responsive Teachers, Classrooms, and Schools by Monica R. Brown, Brown presents the importance of creating culturally responsive pedagogy. She starts by saying “...this change in the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of the student population is not the problem. The problem lies in the way educators have responded to the change…” (Brown, 2007, p. 57). She continues by saying “a positive or negative response could affect the self-esteem and academic success of students from these varied racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds” (Brown, 2007, p. 57). The increase of diverse youth within the student body does not align with the stagnant number of minority educators, which is not the issue of the student population. As a result of the increase, Brown (2007) asserts that creating a culturally responsive pedagogy is even more important. Brown (2007) argues that “the academic achievement of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds would improve if educators were to make the effort to ensure that classroom instruction was conducted in a manner that was responsive to the students’ home cultures” (p. 58). Continuing her point Brown (2007) says that “modifying the way that classrooms are structured and transforming the policies and practices of the school are critical aspects of the enhancement of learning for all students” (p. 58). Brown (2007) is addressing the impact that is made when educators are culturally responsive within their classroom while also shining light on the responsibility of the school system in creating culturally responsive educators. She concludes by saying “if we are to remove from students the burden of having to learn under unnatural cultural conditions, all teachers will need to become culturally responsive” and “school administrators and faculty must be willing and ready to transform the current curriculum to one that addresses all of their students’ needs” (Brown, 2007, p. 61). In short, Brown asserts the need for educators to teach in a culturally responsive manner.
The way in which Brown (2007) breaks down the steps of creating culturally responsive teachers is insightful. Brown (2007) breaks the cultivation into several steps including developing a culturally diverse knowledge base, designing culturally relevant curricula, demonstrating cultural caring and building a learning community, building effective cross-cultural communications and delivering culturally responsive instruction (p. 58). Brown (2007) intentionally conducts an in-depth and thorough analysis of the rationale behind cultivating a culturally responsive educational system. I’m using both the outlined steps and reasoning that she provided to add to the validity of my research. The implications for not embracing cultural competency could be detrimental to that of the minority youth. This highlights another social construct in place that perpetuates unintentional biases. The lack of cultural competency and the embracing of colorblindness will continue this inequitable educational system (Brown, 2007). Additionally, Brown (2007) presents a chart that distinguishes the various frameworks for culturally responsive teachers. This will be critical in my research when understanding the very history and reconstruction of the framework will assist in establishing a pattern. Each of the restructuring frameworks explores another discipline which highlights the necessity for this to be studied interdisciplinarily. As Brown (2007) said, if we would like to be better and do better for our youth, we have to take the blame away from their external factors and eliminate the pressure for youth to conform to behaviors outside of their norms, teachers need to be more culturally relevant.
Madsen, J., & Mabokela, R. (2002). Introduction: Leadership and Diversity: Creating Inclusive Schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(1), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1492995
In the 2002 article entitled Introduction: Leadership and Diversity: Creating Inclusive Schools by Jean A. Madsen and Reitumetse Obakeng Mabokela, Madsen and Mabokela address the complexity of leadership and diversity as a means of creating inclusive and culturally responsive school environments for all youth. Madsen and Mabokela (2002) provide thorough analyses of articles written by other authors that address the role that diversity and leadership play in inclusivity. They begin by stating that “leadership and diversity are invariably connected as schools move from monocultural, nondiverse contexts to those that contain ethnically diverse, multilingual, and economically disadvantaged children” (Madsen and Mabokela, 2002, p. 2). They continue by saying that “...as we prepare leaders, there needs to be a commitment to valuing diversity by providing training to school leaders to respond to diversity challenges…” (Madsen and Mabokela, 2002, p. 2). Madsen and Mabokela (2002) are arguing that since diversity is increasing throughout the public-school system, preparing teachers as leaders of the diverse student body is critical to the success of the inclusivity movement. Next, Madsen and Mabokela (2002) dissects the three pervasive leadership functions; ethnic differences, intergroup issues and leading a diverse workforce. They conclude by saying that “...schools seek solutions to respond to students, leaders need to embrace communities of differences where both minority and majority groups can be nurtured and flourish... “(Madsen and Mabokela, 2002, p. 6). In short, Madsen and Mabokela (2002) are asserting that in order to truly create an impact with the school system, teachers must be transformed into leaders of diverse student bodies.
The way in which Madsen and Mabokela (2002) dissect the important role that leadership and diversity has on creating culturally responsive school environments is impeccable. The rhetoric used walks you through the correlation that exists between leadership, diversity and culturally responsive school communities. They present the information and data comparisons through a sequence of articles which shows the validity and reliability of their work. In outlining the three pervasive leadership functions, Madsen and Mabokela (2002) highlights the importance of cultivating educators into dynamic leaders of diverse student bodies. In changing the term educators to leaders of diverse student bodies, I think it changes the way we really see educators. Understanding that educators are essentially amongst the very people teaching and perpetuating societal norms. Since educators are leaders of diverse student bodies, they have to understand the very power that comes with that title. Embracing each culture within the classroom and school in tandem with accepting the differences that cultures may have will create and promote environments conducive to learning for all students. This is applicable to my research because if changing the way, we look at educators also embraces cultural competency which in turn benefits all student’s minority and majority. Additionally, since it is obvious that diversity within the public-school system is increasing, awareness of such cultures is actually relevant to minority student’s success.
M. ARTHUR GARMON (2005) Six Key Factors for Changing Preservice Teachers' Attitudes/Beliefs about Diversity, Educational Studies, 38:3, 275-286, DOI: 10.1207/s15326993es3803_7
In the 2005 article entitled Six Key Factors for Changing Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes/Beliefs about Diversity written by M. Arthur Garmon, Garmon asserts that there are six factors that influence a preservice educator’s attitude and beliefs about diversity. He argues that their predispositions when taking a multicultural course in combination with their life experiences may influence how much the learn and how they respond to diversity immersion (Garmon, 2005, p. 276). Garmon (2005) dissects disposition as he breaks it into three categories including openness, self-awareness/self-reflectiveness, and commitment to social justice (p. 276-79). Next, Garmon (2005) dissects the importance of experiences as he breaks it into three categories including intercultural experiences, educational experiences and support group experiences (p. 279-82). Garmon (2005) states that “nearly 90% of the public-school teachers in this country are white” (p. 275). This is relevant in understanding the importance of recognizing the approximate number of educators that lack cultural competence. Garmon (2005) argues that the “...mismatch between teachers and their students has precipitated concerns about these teachers’ ability to effectively teach minority students” (p. 275). He continues stating that “...the vast majority of prospective teachers are also white…” and “they generally lack knowledge of and experience with individuals from racial/ethnic backgrounds different than their own” (Garmon, 2005, p. 275). Garmon (2005) is again establishing relevance as to why the six factors are important to take into consideration. Garmon (2005) concludes that each of the six factors are equivocally crucial to cultivating environments where teachers are adequately prepared to teach a diverse student body.
The way in which Garmon (2005) outlines the six key factors that could change the dimensions of some classrooms is valid. In breaking the six factors into two groups, predisposition and life experiences, Garmon (2005) is able to confront both the subconscious and reality of preservice teachers. Many university and credentialing boards require students to take courses about diversity. Garmon (2005) argues that even though they may be required to take the diversity course, it potentially does no justice to the communities in which they are working with. This is for the mere fact that like he asserted, students will only retain the knowledge they feel pertinent to their jobs and sadly, often, diversity isn’t a pertinent factor. Since a vast majority of teachers are white individuals without a culturally diverse background, it is imperative that we begin by ensuring that preservice teachers are open to embracing cultural diversity, are prepared to challenge their very own whiteness and decide whether being a leader of a culturally diverse student body is a part of their passion. These dispositions are molded but the interactions that are had with other cultures, formal education that is obtained about diversity and support structures that are in place for them. In my research, highlighting the dispositions and experience is going to be imperative understanding the context from which these teachers come. Biases both implicit and explicit are shaped over time and it is often because of dispositions and experiences that are encountered, not because all white teachers genuinely think any less of students regardless of cultural differences. For many, the intention consciously is to be inclusive, but in practice often fails.
Summary:
Madsen and Mabokela (2002) and Garmon (2005) would argue that changing the dimension in the classroom are required to begin change within the entire educational system. Madsen and Mabokela (2002) would argue that restructuring the way society views educators would begin to create cultural competencies. They would continue by arguing that if society viewed teachers as leaders of diverse student bodies members, it may be more impactful in changing the roles that teachers play in the lives of students (Madsen and Mabokela, 2002). Garmon (2005) would argue that if society considered addressing the six critical elements that determine a teacher’s attitude and belief system about minorities, we could have more culturally competent classrooms. Madsen and Mabokela (2002) and Garmon (2005) would agree that the combination of their dispositions and life experiences could impact a teachers’ ability to be a leader within the classroom. Madsen and Mabokela (2002) would argue that by valuing diversity, teachers automatically begin to embrace leadership, especially within their classrooms. Being that most of the upcoming teaching workforce is white (Garmon, 2005), now more than ever we need to provide training for teachers and faculty that teaches educators and school leaders how to cope with and manage diversity challenges that they may encounter (Madsen and Mabokela, 2002).
Swanson Patricia, Rabin Colette, Smith Grinell, Briceño Allison, Ervin-Kassab Lara, Sexton Dena, Mitchell Dale, Whitenack David A., & Asato Jolynn. (2019). Trust Your Team : Our Journey to Embed Social and Emotional Learning in a Teacher Education Program Focused on Social Justice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 67–91.
In the 2019 article titled, Trust Your Team: Our Journey to Embed Social and Emotional Learning in a Teacher Education Program Focused on Social Justice by Patricia Swanson, Colette Rabin, Grinell Smith, Allison Briceño, Lara Ervin-Kassab, Dena Sexton, Dale Mitchell, David A. Whitenack, & Jolynn Asato, they argue that, “as programs designed to embed social-emotional learning (SEL) in schools proliferate research suggests that SEL integration should focus on developing teachers’ ability to embed SEL in academic content instruction” (p. 68). They acknowledge that there is not a plethora of research as it relates to understanding the unique role that teacher preparation plays in the overall development of social and emotional competencies of their students. Swanson et al highlight this idea that many teacher programs require that teacher receive social and emotional education for themselves but no that they take any courses on implementing it into the classroom (2019). They even argue that many of those teacher preparation courses place emphasis “more strongly on relational and decision-making skills than self-awareness or management skills” (Swanson et al, 2019, p. 68) as opposed to equipping them to assist students in building such capacity. Swanson et al shared that the goal of social and emotional learning “is to help children (and adults) enhance their ability to integrate thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks” (2019, p. 69). They use the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework to break social and emotional concepts up into five dimensions, “self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision making” (Swanson et al, 2019, p.70). Swanson et al, discuss the teaching program that they developed citing that they did not see any of the dimensions as standing alone however, they saw them as having the ability to be embedded within the various courses. They provide one example where “we situated teaching self-awareness and cultural awareness in foundations classes, social awareness and relationship skills in classroom management, responsible decision making in field placement and self-management and growth mindset as components of persistence in problem solving” (Swanson et al, 2019, p. 70). Swanson et al point out that “with the adoption of the Common Core Standards, our work shifted from examining individual courses to mapping the integration of SEL across our entire elementary teacher education curriculum as an essential foundation in preparing students to grapple with, among other skills, the rigors of open-ended problem solving” (2019, p. 70). In the program evaluation, they noted that “candidates recognized the value in cultivating SEL skills and embedding them in their teaching but struggled to enact these values” (Swanson et al, 2019, p. 71). Swanson et al highlight that “CASEL dimensions, rooted firmly in psychology, did not explicitly address the broader lens of sociology to our satisfaction, paying scant attention to socio-political context and culture. Although the literature acknowledged a tacit understanding—at best—of the role culture plays in creating and sustaining respectful interpersonal relationships, the CASEL heuristic did not acknowledge the cultural nature of identifying and working with emotions and reflected a colorblind approach privileging white middle-class American values of what constitutes SEL competencies” (2019, p. 71). They continue stressing that “the absence of the larger socio-political context became particularly jarring during the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement, which brought the persistent violence against Black youth to the national consciousness and heightened awareness of the importance of examining how societal and institutional entities define and act upon children. We were aware of critiques of SEL, including the individualistic, monocultural, and thus deficit-perpetuation of the approach” (Swanson et al, 2019, p.71). Lastly, they discuss the way that they addressed this gap by using the social, emotional, and cultural competencies (SEC) that the Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child (CRTWC) developed which “integrate social emotional learning and culturally responsive teaching” (Swanson, 2019, p.72). In short, “the schema provides five broad goals for teachers: provide a safe and supportive environment; strive for equity in teaching and learning; build resilience and a sense of optimism; promote academic success; and develop responsibility for the greater good.
The way in which Swanson et al (2019) dissect the concept of social emotional learning is impeccable. In using the CASEL framework to dive into the various components of social and emotional competencies, Swanson et al are able to really assess each of their contributions and impact as they implement their own teacher preparation curriculum. Historically, pre-teacher education programs have targeted building the educational capacity of teachers while excluding the social emotional component that comes with teaching. If the goal is to really empower students to be able to integrate their thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important and imperative life tasks, doing so from a cultural lens is imperative. In order to teach students to acquire and sustain these SEC skills, the teacher must have them to perpetuate. Swanson (2019) mention that while rooted in psychology, CASEL is not rooted in cultural awareness and doesn’t take into consideration the various attributes that are unique to certain demographics. I truly believe that Swanson (2019) said it the best when they articulated the fact that many SEL activities and educational practices does not accurately reflect the racial and gender hierarchy that is present within society. Current SEL practices does not account for those interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships and instead treats everyone equally as if they were all bred from middle aged white privilege. These colorblind practices are actually deemed more detrimental than they are successful. Implementing SEC practices especially in lieu of the Black Lives Matter uprising is only way to not only build social and emotional skills but to also teach tolerance and acceptance. This will hopefully eliminate much of the implicit and explicit racial biases that we see around us now.
BOUFFARD, S. (2020). Sel and Equity: ’If We Don’t Address the Wound, We Cannot Heal. Learning Professional, 41(5), 24–27.
In the 2020 article SEL and Equity If We Don’t Address the Wound, We Cannot Heal written by Suzanne Bouffard, Bouffard records the responses from an interview session that she had with Dena Simmons. As the “assistant director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and faculty at the Yale Child Study Center” (Bouffard, 2020, p. 24), Simmons has spent an exuberant amount of time within classrooms and creating curriculum that highlights social justice, promotes anti-racism and demands equitable social and emotional learning within teacher education. Bouffard and Simmons discuss how in seventh grade, a teacher told her to make a promise and how that promise has resonated with her and driven her to do the work that she is doing. As the interview continues, Simmons talks about high school. During high school, Simmons shares that she was one of the few students of color at a school for the first time in her life. Simmons shares, “Now I had to worry about a different type of safety—emotional safety. I asked myself, “Am I safe to be Black in this environment?”” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). She continues this line of rhetorical questioning by asking “Am I safe to be my full authentic self in this space?” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). As she reflected on the importance of professional learning about social emotional learning practices, Simmons shares that “You can’t teach people how to get along without talking about why we don’t get along. One of the reasons we don’t get along is because of the racial strife in our country, the racial barrier between groups of people. If we don’t address the wound, we cannot heal” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). Simmons declares that “we can leverage SEL for an antiracist future and for racial justice, but SEL without deliberate and active antiracist work is not enough. SEL alone will not solve racism and oppression” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). Simmons discusses the importance of evaluating the SEL curriculum because SEL and education are partnering in systems that have “based on the ways of whiteness” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). She advises that “if we don’t apply an anti-racist lens to SEL, it has the risk of being used as a weapon, as something else Black and brown kids don’t know how to do” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). Simmons contrasts the way that SEL is delivered in black and brown communities versus their white counterparts, “when we talk about white kids and privileged kids, SEL is about college and career readiness and about thriving in those settings. When we’re talking about Black and brown students, “Our students need to learn how to control their behavior”” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 25). Simmons then digs into reflective questions for teachers to really check themselves and where they are in the work. She voices rhetorical questions such as, “Who am I? How do I show up in this world? What access or power do I have or not have?” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 26). She continues asking, “What power and privilege do my students have or not have? Who are they and who are they not? What do I not know and what do I need to ask?” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 26). Lastly, Simmons shares that “We know it’s not going to be comfortable, but what we’ve all learned as educators is that you need to be in a space of disequilibrium in order to grow and learn” (Bouffard. 2020, p. 26).
The way that Bouffard captures Simmons story during their interview highlights the need for intentional SEL teaching that encompasses cultural competency and antiracism. The mere fact that Simmons ever had to question her ability to be “emotionally safe” in an environment that is supposed to be inherently safe for her was alarming. Simmons advocacy for antiracist social emotional teaching and learning is at the foundation of her experiences. In considering the very experiences of Black and brown youth in many under-resourced communities that are led by teachers, principals and policy makers that do not look like them, I am immediately drawn to the experience of Simmons and how there are sure to be parallels prevalent within the two environments. Since we are talking about predominantly black and brown students in these structured white environments, her sediment that this specific group of students are tasked with learning more about self-control for their social emotional learning tasks is unnerving, especially since much of their self-control could be influenced by cultural norms. I immediately think about this idea of Racehetdemic practices coined by Dr. Christopher Edmin, that allows students to be both cultural, loud and hip hop but also academic and smart. The questions that Bouffard record Simmons asking at the very end should be at the beginning of every educator’s mind when considering their why and their how. These questions should really drive their practices within their classrooms to ensure they are academically enriching and socially and emotionally safe for Black and brown students.
Stevenson Heidi, & Markowitz Nancy Lourié. (2019). Introduction : Social Emotional Learning and Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Teaching Practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 3–9.
In the 2019 article Introduction: Social Emotional Learning and Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Teaching Practices by Heidi Stevenson and Nancy Louriè Markowitz really dug into social emotional learning (SEL) and culturally responsive and sustaining teaching practices (CRT) because the “California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s 2016 Teaching Performance Expectations require teacher educators to explicitly address SEL and CRT in their teacher education programs” (Stevenson & Markowitz, 2019, p. 3) and there was confusion as to how this expectation should be met. After collecting 200 survey samples, Stevenson and Markowitz (2019) reported a “common concern about the lack of a guiding vision for how to integrate SEL and CRT into teacher preparation and a common language for talking about the two” (p. 4). They continued declaring that “the absence of shared meaning and language makes it difficult for programs to enact a common vision of what SEL and CRT should look like in teacher preparation” (Stevenson & Markowitz, 2019, p. 4). Stevenson and Markowitz (2019) reference Marianne D’Emidio-Caston in Santa Barbara, California when she discusses the integration of SEL and CRT at Antioch University asserting that “she highlights the importance of the teachers disposition to care” (p. 7). Stevenson and Markowitz (2019) also share that Donahue-Keegan, Villegas-Reimers and Cressey approached their integration through a model of advocacy. They share that Donahue-Keegan, Villegas-Reimers and Cressey:
“Provide an overview of the framework that has guided their work advocating for the integration of SEL and CRT practices and principles into teacher education programs. In addition, they share insights gained through this process. They also describe the MA SEL- Ted Consortium from its inception in 2011 to its present-day advocacy work in bringing culturally responsive SEL into teacher preparation programs and P-12 school” (Stevenson & Markowitz, 2019, p. 7-8).
They begin the conclusion by restating an ask from the Aspen Institute which calls for us to identify “ways in which equity and social, emotional, and academic development can be manually reinforcing” (Stevenson & Markowitz, 2019, p. 8). They end by asking a rhetorical question, “how do teacher educators gain the expertise to more fully integrate SEL and CRT within preservice teacher education” (Stevenson & Markowitz, 2019, p. 8)?
The way in which Stevenson and Markowitz (2019) dive into this idea that there is no commonality in language other than the terms themselves as it relates to social emotional learning and culturally responsive and sustaining practices was very remarkable. As a society, we are constantly pushing this narrative to build on social and emotional competencies but other than using the universal CASEL definition, there are not set universal practices and so social emotional learning and culturally responsive and sustaining (antiracist) practices look different community to community, school to school, person to person. Stevenson and Markowitz even go so far to provide us with examples as to how various places are implementing these same concepts differently though the end goal is supposed to be the same. If this is the issue for teacher education programs, this is indeed an issue for teachers tasked with implementing culturally responsive and sustaining practices that are also adhering to the students SEL needs. It is imperative that educators and educator preparation programs alike begin to ask themselves, this really reflective and critical questions that because when we are talking about equity, social and emotional and academic development of young people, we cannot afford to continue to perpetuate systems of oppression.
Marshall, T. R. (2019). Desegregated Schools, Unequal Assignments. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 68–73.
In the 2019 article titled Desegregated Schools, Unequal Assignments by Tanji Reed Marshall, Marshall dives into the consequences that occurred as a result of Brown v. The Board of Education. Marshall shares that while Brown v. Board of Education was the landmark case that ended legalized school segregation, it was also the “critical education reform measure of the 20th century” (Marshall, 2019, p. 69). When the Supreme Court released the decision that “separate was inherently unequal, the decision opened the door to challenge conventional expectations for students and student outcomes” (Marshall, 2019, p. 69). Marshall (2019) continues by bringing attention to the fact that Brown v. The Board of Education decision is complex “when examined through the lens of curriculum” (p. 69). She explains that it is imperative to understand both the pre-Brown pedagogical innovation by black educators and the post-Brown fallout for black educators. Marshall (2019) recalls that in the years before Brown, calls were made by White and Black communities for there to be a shift in school quality but not for there to be desegregation within the schoolhouse. For black teachers, this meant uncertainty in their livelihoods and concern for their Black and brown students socially and academically (Marshall, 2019). Marshall (2019) discusses the apprehension that educators and leaders like Bishop James Walker Hood of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church as they spoke of things like white teachers not being able to penetrate the emotions of Black and brown students because of the sentiments of inferiority that they perpetuated. Marshall (2019) shares that while educators and leaders discussed the pitfalls, the NAACP lobbied in the South that losing teachers was the necessary sacrifice to achieve the equality they had been fighting for and that it was for the good of the community (p. 70). Marshall (2019) analyzes how prior to Brown, colored school districts received the last allocation of funds which often resulted in second hand and damaged material (p. 70). Despite their ill provided resources, Black teachers still ensured that their students learned at a high level. Marshall (2019) shares that teacher created supplemental curriculum in order to “undo the subtle and overt messages of inferiority their students received through the outdated materials they were forced to use” (p. 70). Marshall (2019) continues sharing that Black teachers “fostered community involvement in meaningful ways and facilitated interdisciplinary learning” (p.70) within their supplemental curriculum. Marshall (2019) profoundly states that “while Brown required schools to physically desegregate, it made no provision for what or how students were taught or what they would learn” (p. 72). Marshall (2019) continues sharing that “many scholars believe that education carries the weight and responsibility for both content delivery and cultural transmission. That is, curriculum- the content of what students learn” (p.71). Marshall (2019) provokes rhetoric when she proclaims, “we must also think about the ways in which schools through the curriculum writ large and assignments in particular, have advanced imbalanced ideas about who students of color are and their place in society” (p. 71). Marshall (2019) contends that Black and brown students are being asked to do work that is unrelated to any of their experiences even though research says that it matters. Marshall (2019) ends proclaiming that even six decades after the decision of Brown, “Black students still face an education system that was neither designed for them nor seems to have their well-being at heart” and that “despite legalized desegregation, we have yet to achieve true integration, especially within the curriculum” (p. 72).
Tanji Reed Marshall is a former educator that hold a PhD in curriculum and instruction, with an emphasis on teacher practice with high-achieving African American students. Her experience analyzing curriculum and its impact on African American students. Marshall is forward about the bias that maybe inserted into her works due to the intersectionality of her race, gender and educational experience. Marshall selected research that re-emphasized the destruction that may occur if desegregation doesn’t span beyond the physical schoolhouse but within the curriculum and its delivery as well.
Roegman, R., Samarapungavan, A., Yukiko Maeda, & Johns, G. (2019). A “Color-Aware” Approach to Data. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 74–78.
In the 2019 article, A “Color- Aware” Approach to Data, Rachel Roegman, Ala Samarapungavan, Youkiko Maeda, and Gary Johns explore the importance of acknowledging students racial and ethnical identities. Roegman et all (2019) share that “race matters in terms of access, discipline, and outcomes” (p. 75). They share that in respect to this, schools are should disaggregate data in zip code, social class and major racial and ethnic group. Roegman et al (2019) argue that taking a color neutral approach to “allows educators to ignore the presences of different social realities due to identities that are different” (p. 75). Rogeman et al (2019) further contend that “seemingly neutral processes often have profoundly disparate and inequitable impacts” (p. 76). Rogeman el al (2019) concluded by emphasizing the urgency that should accompany moving from color neutral practices to those that make us more color aware. They share that while Brown vs. Board of Education was the first step in dismantling legalized segregation, it must be follow by work and policies that continue to dismantle oppression in the K-12 system that specifically harms students of color. Rogeman et al (2019) share that since “the nation has never fully and honestly dealt with its ‘race’ problem” (p. 78) schools need to examine “race and racism in students’ educational experience” (p. 78).
Rachel Roegman,. Ala Samarapungavan and Yukiko Maeda are all assistant, associate or professors at reputable universities within the country. Gary John is a doctoral candidate at Purdue University. They each have a background in education that extends to curriculum, policy and organizational leadership. Their approach to data highlights their subtle biases. The contributors are a diverse group of scholars who provide relevant case study anecdotes and incorporate the diverging but important rationale as to why disaggregating data maybe a beneficial practice. Their combined expertise in various components of education validates their research.
Gorski, P. (2019). Avoiding Racial Equity Detours. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 56–61.
In the 2019 article Avoiding Racial Equity Detours by Paul Gorski, Gorski examines the impact that race has on educational environments. Gorski (2019) makes a strong claim that “in schools committed to racial equity, educators who resist anti-racist measures should feel uneasy, isolated and on the outskirts of their schools’ institutional cultures” (p. 56). Gorski (2019) continues by sharing that “educators least invested in racial equity should wonder whether they belong” (p. 56). Gorski (2019) starts by profoundly stating that “students experiencing racism can’t wait for schools to move at their own pace and comfort level” (p. 56) Gorski (2019) continues saying that “the hard truth is that racial inequity cannot be achieved with an obsessive commitment to “meeting people where they are” when “where they are” is fraught with racial bias and privilege” (p. 58). He urges that educational institutions no longer prioritize the comfort of educators who may be reluctant to fight for equity and instead prioritize equity especially in schools because equity is needed now. Gorski (2019) defines equity detours as “detours white people follow to protect their privilege and avoid the messy work of racial justice” (p. 57). Gorski (2019) share that equity detours “create an illusion of progress towards equity while cementing, or even exacerbating, inequity” (p. 57) and that “they can be more devastating than explicit racism because they do racism’s work while consuming resources ostensibly earmarked for racial equity” (pg. 57). Gorski (2019) labels this anti-anti-racism and dives into the four types of detours: Pacing for privilege, Poverty of Culture, Deficit Ideology Detour and Celebrating Diversity Detour. Gorski (2019) asks extensive rhetorical questions to provoke higher order thinking about the context of racism in schools. Gorski (2019) highlights that “equity initiatives should focus on eliminating conditions that marginalize students—never on fixing students of color” (p. 59).
Paul Gorski is the founder of two organizations, the Equity Literacy Institute and EdChange. Gorski has worked for years alongside educators who wish to nourish and leverage the idea of equity and justice within their classrooms. As a seasoned author and organization owner, Gorski has worked in equity for years and really understands the urgency that needs to be dedicated to providing equity for black students within the classroom. In his work with educators, Gorski was able to really identify how educators contribute to equity detours and also how to adjust classroom practices so that equity is at the forefront of the minds of all teachers.
Aguilar, E. (2019). Getting Mindful about Race in Schools. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 62–67.
In the 2019 article Getting Mindful About Race in School by Elena Aguilar, Aguilar explores her experience completing an equity audit for a high school in which she was the leadership coach for the principal. During her time at the school, the principal wanted to break the cycle of manifested systemic oppression, but she was unsure of the source. In this particular case study, the principal was a black female on a mission to uncover the administrations blind spot. Aguilar (2019) dives into the complexity of the metaphors that the principal used when she said, “I wish you could look in all our closets, or find the elephants in the room that we don’t want to talk about, or put us under a microscope and show me where the demon of racism are multiplying” (p. 62). When Aguilar (2019) decided to take on the equity audit challenge, she voices that completing the audit allow her to “see some of the root causes of racially based inequities (p. 62) at that specific school. Aguilar (2019) continues by saying that:
“Racial inequities exist in schools largely because of educators’ actions—but actions emerge from beliefs. We do what we do because of what we think. Many well-intended equity initiatives fail because they are targeted at the level of people’s behavior and actions and rarely dig into underlying beliefs” (p. 63).
Aguilar (2019) argues that “many “diversity” programs, equity and inclusion initiatives, and even culturally responsive practices stay on the surface and address only educators’ behaviors, amounting to only technical responses to inequity” (p. 63). Aguilar (2019) continues saying that “schools are inequitable in terms of outcomes and experiences for different races in part because educators’ beliefs are profoundly polluted with racism” (p. 63). Aguilar (2019) shares that just because there is diversity quantitively, that doesn’t equate to equity. Aguilar (2019) defines race as a story. Aguilar (2019) shares that “it’s a very dangerous and destructive story that has resulted in the dehumanization, marginalization, and deaths of millions of people. It’s a story constructed by European men who sought to colonize and exploit the earth, a story told to justify oppression and uphold hierarchy” (p. 65). She simply summarizes race by saying that “race is a construct” (Aguilar, 2019, p.65). Aguilar (2019) concludes by sharing that “those of us committed to transforming external systems of oppression must also examine our own internal systems that unconsciously fuel those systems” (p. 67).
Elena Aguilar is an author and development coach. She has published books with equity as the primary focus and she has done consulting with Bright Morning Consulting. Aguilar has spent several years assisting organizations and individuals with equity obstacles and aiding them as they demonstrate resilience when faced with adversity. The organization that she leads prides itself on being able to really have those conversations candidly in an effort to evoke change.
Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: race, class, gender, and disability in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 277.
In the 2015 article Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory and the Primacy of Racism: Race, Class, Gender, and Disability in Education written by David Gillborn, Gillborn explores the intersectionality of race, class, disability and gender in education through the lens of the Critical Race Theory. While there are several core tenets and perspectives that pour into Critical Race Theory, there is an “understanding that “race” is socially constructed and that “racial difference” is invented, perpetuated, and reinforced by society” (Gillborn, 2015, p. 278). Gillborn (2015) continues by sharing that “in this approach, racism is understood to be complex, subtle and flexible; it manifests differently in different contexts, and minoritized groups are subject to a range of different (and changing stereotypes)” (p. 278). Gillborm (2019) asserts that “critical race theorists argue that the majority of racism remains hidden beneath a veneer of normality and it is only the more crude and obvious forms of racism that are seen as problematic by most people” (pg. 278). Gillborn (2019) states that “racism is an ingrained feature of our landscape, it looks ordinary and natural to persons in the culture” (p. 278). Gillborn (2019) explores this idea that critical race theory “challenges ahistoricism by stressing the need to understand racism within its social, economic and historical context” (p. 278). Gillborn (2019) states that “”Whiteness” is a racial discourse, whereas the category “white people” represent a socially constructed identity, usually based on skin color” (p.278). Gillborn (2019) analyzes white-ness claiming that it “refers to a set of assumptions, beliefs, and practices that place the interests and perspective of White people at the center of hat is considered normal every day” (p. 278). Gillborn (2019) contends that “critical scholarship on Whiteness is not an assault on White people themselves; it is an assault on the socially constructed and constantly reinforced power
of White identifications, norms, and interests” (p.278). Gillborn (2019) defines intersectionality as a “buzz word” that originated from the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1995 that is used to describe the “how multiple forms of inequality and identity inter-relate in different contexts and over time, for example, the inter-connectedness of race, class, gender, disability, and so on” (p. 278). Gillborn (2019) analyzes Crenshaws work concluding that:
“an intersectional approach goes beyond conventional analysis in order to focus our attention on injuries that we otherwise might not recognize… to 1) analyze social problems more and fully; 2) shape more effective interventions; and 3) promote more inclusive coalitional advocacy” (p. 278).
Gillborn (2019) continues sharing that:
“The terms “race” and “disability” have a lot in common: Both are usually assumed to be relatively obvious and fixed, but are actually socially constructed categories that are constantly contested and redefined. Historically both have operated to define, segregate, and oppress. Received wisdom views both “race” and “disability” as individual matters, relating to identity and a person’s sense of self, but a critical perspective views them as socially constructed categories that actively re/make oppression and inequality” (p. 279)
Gillborn (2019) concludes that intersectionality is a vital in understanding racial inequity.
David Gillborn is the Director and Professor of Critical Race Studies at the Centre for Research in Race and Education (CRRE) at the University of Birmingham. Gillborn is a founding editor of the peer reviewed journal Race Ethnicity and Education. In those capacities, Gillborn has come across a lot of framework and theory work as it relates to the critical race theory. Gillborn acknowledges that he is a proponent of studying things from an intersectional lens.
Reference:
Adams, V. N., & Stevenson, J. H. C. (2012). Media Socialization, Black Media Images and Black Adolescent Identity. Racial Stereotyping and Child Development Contributions to Human Development, 28–46. doi: 10.1159/000336272
Aguilar, E. (2019). Getting Mindful about Race in Schools. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 62–67.
BOUFFARD, S. (2020). Sel and Equity: ’If We Don’t Address the Wound, We Cannot Heal. Learning Professional, 41(5), 24–27.
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating All Students: Creating Culturally Responsive Teachers, Classrooms, and Schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512070430010801
Douglas, B., Lewis, C., Douglas, A., Earl Scott, M., & Garrison-Wade, D. (2008). The Impact of White Teachers on the Academic Achievement of Black Students: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis.
Downey, D., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When Race Matters: Teachers' Evaluations of Students' Classroom Behavior.
Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: race, class, gender, and disability in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 277.
Gorski, P. (2019). Avoiding Racial Equity Detours. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 56–61.
Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267-282. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649390
Hyland, N. (2005). Being a Good Teacher of Black Students? White Teachers and Unintentional Racism. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(4), 429-459. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3698537
Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering Cross Cultural Competence in Preservice Teachers Through Multicultural Education Experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 197–204. doi: 10.1007/s10643-010-0401-5
M. ARTHUR GARMON (2005) Six Key Factors for Changing Preservice Teachers' Attitudes/Beliefs about Diversity, Educational Studies, 38:3, 275-286, DOI: 10.1207/s15326993es3803_7
Madsen, J., & Mabokela, R. (2002). Introduction: Leadership and Diversity: Creating Inclusive Schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(1), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1492995
Marshall, T. R. (2019). Desegregated Schools, Unequal Assignments. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 68–73.
Meaney, K. S., Bohler, H. R., Kopf, K., Hernandez, L., & Scott, L. S. (2008). Service-Learning and Pre-Service Educators Cultural Competence for Teaching: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 189–208. doi: 10.5193/jee.31.2.189
Milner, H. R., & Howard, T. C. (2004). Black Teachers, Black Students, Black Communities, and Brown: Perspectives and Insights from Experts. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 285. doi: 10.2307/4129612
Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing Diversity in Schools: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900310
Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2002). Assessing Instructor Cultural Competence in the Classroom: An Instrument and a Development Process. Journal of Management Education, 26(1), 40–55. doi: 10.1177/105256290202600104
Roegman, R., Samarapungavan, A., Yukiko Maeda, & Johns, G. (2019). A “Color-Aware” Approach to Data. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 74–78.
Stevenson Heidi, & Markowitz Nancy Lourié. (2019). Introduction : Social Emotional Learning and Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Teaching Practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 3–9
Swanson Patricia, Rabin Colette, Smith Grinell, Briceño Allison, Ervin-Kassab Lara, Sexton Dena, Mitchell Dale, Whitenack David A., & Asato Jolynn. (2019). Trust Your Team : Our Journey to Embed Social and Emotional Learning in a Teacher Education Program Focused on Social Justice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 67–91.