8 minute read
Students of Color
English language acquisition by incorporating physical actions. Developed by professor James Asher at San Jose State University, TPR has shown consistent results in helping students’ English language usage and comprehension by pairing language with actions (Fahrurrozi, 2017). When staff learn this system and see the positive academic results that usually come as a result of TPR, they begin to expect halfway-to-bilingual students to perform academically on a level with their peers. That expectation alone is often enough to redefine a student’s academic destiny. When adults are better trained to support halfway-to-bilingual students, not only does the prefrontal cortex offset the amygdala’s propensity for pessimism, but the improved teaching practices help halfway-to-bilingual students grow academically. This growth leads to recognition that these halfwayto-bilingual students can be successful when given rigorous content, which in turn helps students maintain motivation and enthusiasm for learning until they become fluent in their second language of English.
The term students of color includes Black, Latino, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, and multiracial students, who are often treated differently from their White peers. Note that students of color are more likely to additionally appear in other underserved demographics, such as students in poverty, special education students, and English learners, creating layers of harmful limiting language. Historical and current marginalization also leads to lower achievement rates for students of color. In Australia, efforts to improve outcomes for Indigenous students led to the massive Closing the Gap Implementation Plan, which includes $126 million aimed specifically at supporting majority Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander schools (Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021). Canada also continues to work on closing achievement and funding gaps for First Nations students (Giroux, 2020). In the United States, learning gaps persist for Black, Latino, Pacific Islander, and Indigenous students (Fortner, Lalas, & Strikwerda, 2021).
Limiting Language
“What do we do about those kids?”
While the underserved subgroups we have discussed so far are subject to limiting language about their ability to achieve at a high level, students of color experience subtle othering when teachers talk about a vague “them” or “those kids.” As the brain looks for patterns and makes predictions, the factor that may be most obvious about these students is the amount of melanin in their skin, creating a complexion-based outgroup. This subconscious action of patterning
students based on skin color is rife with issues; for one, it treats heterogeneous populations as though they are homogenous. The only thing students in a group of “those kids” may have in common is skin tone. Within broad ethnic labels, people may look similar, but there are significant differences between, say, Lakota and Cayuse cultures or Mexican and Colombian cultures. Even students who share a common culture, or even share a family, are individuals and can react to the same stimuli in very different ways. Treating students homogenously when there are clear differences in their personal identities and cultural groups can further distance students of color from the adults on campus. Yet, that is what our cerebral cortex often does as it groups students and makes predictions based on nothing more than appearances. Unfortunately, this can result in differential treatment for students of color.
For example, disproportionally high numbers of students of color receive special education referrals. In 2020, the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) published a report showing Black students of non-low-income backgrounds are about twice as likely to be diagnosed with intellectual disabilities and emotional disturbances as their White non-low-income peers (NCLD, 2020). Indigenous students qualify in the area of specific learning disability at a rate almost twice that of White students in their peer group (NCLD, 2020). The overidentification of students of color for special education services has been observed and studied since the late 1960s in American education (Fish, 2019; Gordon, 2017; Morgan, 2020; NCLD, 2020). The reason for this overrepresentation, particularly in areas associated with student behavior, is still debated. Researchers postulate different reasons for overidentification, including culturally and linguistically biased assessments (Morgan, 2020; NCLD, 2020), the composition of schools (Fish, 2019), and outside causes like poverty and access to healthcare (Gordon, 2017). The answer may well be all of the above. Regardless, once a student of color has been deemed to qualify for special education, he or she is subject to yet another label that limits potential.
Educators also impose stricter discipline on students of color. In a single school year in the United States, Black students lost 4.9 school days to out-of-school suspension for every one day of suspension their White classmates received (Camera, 2020). Students of color lost a total of 11 million instructional days due to outof-school suspension (Camera, 2020). Older students of color were the most affected by these punishments, with students in middle and high school losing roughly five times more days to out-of-school suspensions than elementary students. The disparities grow even larger in individual states:
Several states [report] “exceedingly high” rates of instruction loss for students of color when compared to their white peers. In Missouri, for example, Black students lost 162 more days of instructional time than white students. In New Hampshire, Hispanic students lost 75 more days than white students. And in North Carolina, Native American students lost 102 more days than white students.
Glaring disparities were also visible at the school district level, with some large districts reporting rates of more than a year’s worth of school—over 182 days per 100 students. (Camera, 2020)
Students of color who also have disabilities are subject to school discipline at an even more alarming rate:
Students of color with disabilities receive severe punishments at very high rates. Among Black, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native, and multiracial students with disabilities, one in four boys and nearly one in five girls receive an out-of-school suspension. Black males from low-income backgrounds receiving special education services are suspended at the highest rates of any subgroup. (NCLD, 2020, p. 5)
More frequent and longer out-of-school suspensions remove students from the general education classroom. When students of color receive disproportionately high levels of discipline they are, simply put, not in the classroom. One cannot connect with and teach children who are not there, which further distances and others students of color from their teachers and peers.
We is a powerful concept. Individuals can be inspired to delay self-interest; groups can accomplish great things simply by buying into the power that we generates (van Dijk & van Dijk, n.d.). A common trope in sports is “There’s no I in team.” We can do big things because we can draw on diverse strengths and perspectives. To ensure students of color are treated equitably in schools, the limiting language of them needs to be replaced with we. Organizations can build a we culture by developing mutual trust and valuing collaboration, innovation, and compassion (Fedders, 2020). In the culture of a school or district, this means that it is necessary for the adults on campus to do what is best for students. The adults expect the students to make mistakes and support them to correct those mistakes and not repeat them. Adults provide meaningful, targeted, specific interventions for academic mistakes. Grades are not used as punishment but instead show what
students know and how far they have progressed. Behavioral mistakes are met with a similar approach. Discipline is appropriate and the adults do not hold grudges, allowing students to move on from their mistakes. In a we environment, students’ mistakes do not define the duration of their time in that school. We cultures of trust and collaboration develop when adults view academic and behavioral mistakes as opportunities for learning and teach students the knowledge and skills they need to do better. This approach keeps students from becoming disenfranchised at school. When every adult on campus takes ownership of every student’s success and teams deeply discuss student data and how to help all students become engaged and proficient, the students know it. They can feel that their school cares about them and will help them get where they need to be. The students know they are part of the we.
In order for this culture to develop, the leader needs to ensure staff understand that the goal of success for all students can be accomplished when teachers become interdependent. By releasing the pressure that comes from teachers operating alone and doing everything themselves, staff are healthier and happier and students’ needs are better met. But this requires a truly collaborative culture: teachers in meaningful teams collaborating on instruction, assessments, interventions, and extensions. A culture like this better supports not just students of color, but all students.
Leaders should also conduct regular audits to ensure students of color are not disproportionally referred to special education or disciplined. A periodic review (perhaps each quarter of the school year) of discipline data, special education referrals, and other similar data allows leaders to identify patterns and disparities. This simply requires looking at the demographics of students who appear in these data sets. For example, if students of color make up 12 percent of the student population but 60 percent of special education referrals, there is likely a problem. Such an audit can also reveal biases against other subgroups: Are halfwayto-bilingual students overrepresented? Are there four boys for every one girl?
I cannot emphasize enough that a we culture really takes hold when leaders and teachers are ready to immediately step in to professionally and respectfully challenge colleagues if they begin to talk about “those kids” or how “they” behave. When this kind of limiting language is met with comments like “they are part of our community” or “we are those kids, and we are in this together” then it will be clear that the we culture is really taking hold in a district or school. “Those kids” are us. There is no we without all of us.