Breaking Bread or Teeth on Equity in Education?

OK. Here is my beef. I have just spent one of two full days in a district-wide educator training focused on bringing about racial equity in our schools. I'm hip to issues of racial equity. After all, I devote much of my time on and off the clock to studying and acting on my knowledge of racial and social justice issues in the classroom and out in the community (though, of course, I never feel that I am doing enough).

I was actually looking forward to having an opportunity to delve into these complex issues with experienced guidance and seasoned colleagues from the field of education. But pretty quickly into the training, I realized the workshop would leave a lot to be desired.

What I was hoping for was some time to examine and discuss best practices ensuring students of color thrive in the high school classroom and in educational settings beyond. What I got were two trainers, both veteran teachers, forgetting all about using effective teaching techniques and talking at their audience of educators almost the entire day without giving us much of a chance to process or utilize in the ways useful to us the materials presented. Much time was spent in large group discussion on elementary topics, which with more than two-hundred participants can get frustrating, to say the least.

The instructors talked down to us, lingering on simple concepts and weaving elaborate examples of situations which could have easily and quickly been grasped by six-year-olds. Worse yet, the trainers never took the time to pre-assess their audience and their prior knowledge or needs. We could have easily been grouped by prior knowledge and focus or at least been given more time in pairs and groups to maximize our time as participants, grappling with issues pertinent to us and our practice.

Mind you, I am not one to shirk from my responsibility as a white educator very conscious of my role in the educational system. I am someone who doesn't withdraw from this work easily, but rather seeks out and engages in difficult conversations about racism despite my own discomfort. I have done so for my own growth, for those whom I love, and out of my desire for the betterment of my community. However, this workshop has so far been less than productive.

Something else I noticed there and in several other workshops I have attended lately on education and racial equity was a divisive tone which seemed to emerge, if not dominate the conversation.

To illustrate, one of the trainers, uttered these pronouncements as she addressed the entire congregation of attendees:

"We all know who the teachers in our building are who are hurting our babies (of color)."

And: "The people who think they know (or think they have racial consciousness) when they don't, are the most toxic kind."

Now, tell me if that sounds like a good way to open up discussion and help people engage, or a good way to shut down the predominantly white participants, many of whom were already evidently feeling uncomfortable and less than qualified to contribute to a dialogue on issues of race and racism.

In my mind, finger pointing is not an effective way to get people on board or to build trust for the work that needs to be done in our district and all across the country. The authors of the book, Courageous Conversations About Race: A Field Guide for Achieving Equity in Schools, on which the training is based, make the following statement: "We suspect most educators already believe that racism is morally wrong. The challenge for us is to advance our shared moral position into a realizable and comprehensive foundation for challenging institutional racism."

They also write, "The key to. . . successful friendship and collaboration is our willingness to communicate openly, honestly, and respectfully about race. And in believing and trusting each other across racial categories, we can begin addressing the issue of race within our schools."

Evaluating my experience as a participant in a myriad of anti-racist and diversity trainings, I made a note in my notebook about the approach to racial justice work that I believe we ought to take:

We, as educators and community members at large, must acknowledge the painful reality and historical legacy of racism and our place within this history, but we need to start operating from a place of hope and possibility, seeing each other across perceivable differences as allies in this work. The glass must be half-full. We must get away from the deficiency models and switch to identifying and drawing on best practices and drawing out the strengths of those who have been traditionally perceived as "underachievers." Let's utilize the richness of all of our experiences (including the students' and the families'). The resources are already there.

This quote by Asa G. Hilliard, an educator cited in today's training materials, is what should set the tone of any and all future racial equity in education workshops:

The knowledge and skills to educate all children already exist. Because we have lived in a historically oppressive society, educational issues tend to be framed as technical issues, which denies their political origin and meaning. . . There are no pedagogical barriers to teaching and learning when willing people are prepared and made available to children.

So, let's study those best practices instead of using guilt trips and some pseudo-psychological techniques to take us all on self-examination journeys. Yes, we need to examine our own biases, but we as teachers also need some modeling, mentoring and guidance with effective, hands-on, culturally-specific, anti-racist practice. Where is effective teaching already happening? Who's doing it? What does it look like in practice?

Finally, something I want to set straight for the record is that I am of the opinion that the entire premise of the book and the training having to do with closing the achievement gap, as measured by standardized tests, is bogus. Standardized test scores have not been shown to effectively indicate anything but students' race and socioeconomic status. They have been correlated with shallow, not deep or critical thinking, and their history is less than rosy. Read Standardized Minds by Peter Sacks, for instance, to learn that the modern-day standardized testing is firmly rooted in the eugenics-driven concept of weeding out "undesirable" populations from the military and institutions of higher education.

I, in fact, feel that standardized tests are one of the most destructive tools of oppression, which demoralizes non-mainstream students (including students like me, a European immigrant) and their teachers while perpetuating institutional racism.

When dealing with equity issues on a systemic level, which is what this training purports to emphasize, we must be willing to challenge the basic tenets of what is accepted as the norm. It may sound naive, but why not push for authentic, multifaceted assessment rather than accepting, resigned, standardized test scores as the only measure of student success? I understand that issues of school funding are tied to test scores, but that should not prevent us from thinking outside the box and for striving for a vision of a learning environment that is workable, sustainable and equitable for all.

Part 2 of my reflection on the equity training: here.

question standardized tests

Just read an Interesting Washington Post article on school choice. I am frustrated by the fact that the discourse in the media usually centers on comparing test-based achievement among schools and groups of students while the whole premise of judging student achievement according to test scores is rarely questioned. In this article Schulte attempts to show that test scores need to be interpreted correctly to be understood, but doesn’t really challenge the very premise of determining the quality of education on test scores.

I was insulted by this:

“For middle-class kids — regardless of racial and ethnic background — schools tend to matter relatively less (than for poor students), because parental influence matters so much more. To take the two extremes, it is hardly surprising that a middle-class child who has been read to often, taken on trips to museums and is surrounded by books and talk of college from an early age will score better on tests than a child living in a crowded apartment with non-English-speaking parents who work multiple jobs, or a child experiencing the often chaotic and hopeless environment of intergenerational poverty.”

Yikes! As if the achievement of poor students had everything to do with “poor” or absent parenting!

In her piece Standardized Tests: A Clear and Pleasant Danger, published in Rethinking Schools: An Agenda for Change, Dr. Terri Meier, professor at Wheelock College specializing in cross-cultural communication and language development, discusses language socialization among different groups of children. Meier’s point is that white middle-class children are primed from day one to do well on standardized tests, which reflect the very values taught to these children via communication styles prevalent in their circles. She writes:

“Numerous studies of language socialization in white middle-class communities indicate that the largest percentage of questions addressed to preschoolers by mothers and other primary caregivers consists of simply structured questions to which the questioner already has the answer (e.g., . . . ‘How many fingers is mommy holding up?’). The purpose of such questions is not for the questioner to gain information, but for the child to display information, for which she is typically rewarded with extensive verbal and non-verbal praise.

“When reading stories to preschool children, many middle-class parents often intersperse their reading with questions that focus the child’s attention on noting and recalling specific details of the text.

“. . . Research indicates that many working-class and minority children come to school with very different values and assumptions about what constitutes meaningful communication. In a 1983 study, Shirley Brice Heath found that in the working-class black community where she spent eleven years studying language socialization, children were almost never asked questions to which the adult or older child already knew the answer. . . ., the assumption being, why would you ask someone something you already know the answer to?

“Reading was also often perceived differently, according to Heath. It tended to be a social event in which listeners, young and old, were free to throw in comments or to elaborate on some connection with their personal experience, rather than a context for testing children’s reading comprehension or teaching appropriate school behaviors. People in this community were admired for their ability to tell a good story, draw insightful analogies, or present an interesting and unique point of view, rather than for their ability to display information or show off knowledge for its own sake.”

So, Schulte doesn’t have it quite right. She makes a whole lot of messed up assumptions about the white middle class vs. the working class home culture.

In one respect she is right - schools do have a huge impact on academic achievement of poor students. If students feel alienated by the values and expectations of the institution they’re in, this will likely reflect on their achievement. If they experience racism or are otherwise treated like crap by the teachers or administrators, likewise.

The status quo definition of academic success (high test scores & GPA…) requires that one buy into the system and play the game in order to be viewed as successful. Standardized tests are modeled on intelligence tests, which were created to screen out “undesirables”, as is well documented (see the book Standardized Minds, for example). What makes people believe these tests have any meaningful value whatsoever? They are all about separating the elite from the masses and lining the pockets of the fat cats (corporations).

When I was a teacher and teacher assistant at a public alternative school, serving predominantly students of color, many low-income and most first generation US-born immigrants, I saw firsthand the clash of the values students were supposed to subscribe to and their own. During a standardized testing session, I saw students filling in bubble sheets randomly – all d answers, for example. Because they didn’t care. Because they didn’t buy into the status quo.

My point is that it’s important to keep going deeper with our questions, keep on challenging what is accepted as true.