Showing posts with label Critical Race Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critical Race Theory. Show all posts

Saturday, February 8, 2025

Minimizing Classroom Distractions to Maximize Student Learning

Building Walls to Buffer Politics, Phones, Prejudice, and Preferential Treatment

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[The Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive podcast, hosted by popular AI Educators Angela Jones and Davey Johnson, provides an engaging and enlightening synopsis and analysis of this Blog on Spotify... CLICK HERE]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   One of my colleagues began a recent Facebook post with: “These past two weeks have seemed like six months.”

   While his post focused on “all things Washington, D.C.”, most of us—in this first month of 2025—have watched many other significant national and international events:

·       The New Year’s Eve truck and terror attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans

·       The devastating fires in Los Angeles, and other now “less-than-unusual” weather events across the country

·       The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, with its protracted return of more October 7 hostages and Palestinian detainees, and residents’ return to many now-devasted communities across Gaza

·       Another school shooting in Nashville, TN at Antioch High School—with renewed calls for lawmakers to truly (?!) address school safety

·       Continued focus on TikTok, teens, and national security, paralleled by a new Chinese AI app, DeepSeek, that upset the tech industry (and Wall Street)

·       The tragic incident when an American Airlines flight collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter near Washington, D.C., resulting in the loss of 67 lives

·       . . . and so on. . .

_ _ _ _ _

   And, of course, there are the issues closer to our “educational lives.”

   For example:

·       Calls to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education

·       The brief freeze of trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans—causing panic and confusion across education and other public services (before a federal judge intervened)

·       The President’s Executive Orders—  

   (a) recognizing only two genders,

   (b) restricting access to gender-affirming care for individuals under 19 years old (with threatened litigation, and then a withdrawal by the Administration), 

   (c) banning schools that receive federal funding from allowing transgender and nonbinary students to use names and pronouns that best match, and bathrooms and locker rooms that best fit, their gender identity, and 

   (d) disallowing transgender girls from competing on women’s teams and threatening to withhold federal subsidies and launch investigations into non-complying K-12 schools

·       A related Executive Order threatening schools with the diversion of their federal funds if they—

   (a) teach "discriminatory equity ideology"—an ideology that treats "individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups, rather than as individuals," and that minimizes "agency, merit, and capability in favor of immoral generalizations"; or 

   (b) assert that some people are oppressed because of their race, or that the U.S. is "fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.”

   And in the midst of these events and edicts, school marches on. . . with teachers trying to teach, and students trying to learn.

   But these (sometimes) random, stream-of-consciousness edicts are creating concern or confusion in our schools and classrooms. . . and they are distracting many educators and students away from “the business of school” and into a realm of dissention or distress.

   And while it’s hard not to initially take these edicts seriously. . . as they are typically delivered in a serious manner and, if implemented, would have significant effects. . .

. . . many of them are predictably unpredictable, most of them will be legally or legislatively contested, and very few of them will survive or have any practical or functional impact.

   And yet, they are exhausting.

   Moreover, they are largely unwelcomed—and they encroach on the sanctity of the school day.

   Indeed, they are taking up time and space. . . and interfering with “teachers trying to teach, and students trying to learn.”

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, some of the educational issues above clearly do matter—especially those that directly relate to school climate, the acceptance of all students (and staff) with individual differences, and the safety and comfort of these students (and staff).

   As to the others . . today’s Blog hopes to:

·       Recalibrate the discussion;

·       Re-establish the “safety net” that protects educators and students from unnecessary and unwanted distractions that waste time, energy, and emotional capital; and

·       Reinforce what many educators are already doing—namely, offering students a balanced education that exposes them to established facts, proven methods, scientific certainties, and opportunities to discuss contested issues in safe, productive, and collegial ways.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Recalibrating the Discussion: What Makes a Difference for Students’ Long-Term Success?

   In 1992, well-known political pundit, James Carville, coined the phrase,

“It’s the economy, stupid”. . .

recognizing that many Presidents are elected based on voters’ past, current, and future expected incomes.

   Given this, and politics aside, one of the “ultimate” K-12 educational goals is to prepare graduates (and non-graduates) with the skills to become. . . eventually. . . financially self-sufficient.

   In November 2023, Good Reason Houston collaborated with the University of Houston’s Education Research Center to determine what educational experiences predicted PreK to Grade 12 students’ postsecondary college enrollment, credential attainment, employment, and earnings.

[CLICK HERE for this Study

   Investigating Grade 8 through 12 students from Houston (TX) public schools from 2012 through 2017, the results, released a few weeks ago in January 2025, revealed that:

Accessing challenging schoolwork early and taking multiple advanced classes better positions students for high-paying, fast-growing jobs, and to earn a living wage after high school.

   The Key Findings from this Research were:

·        Only 20% of Houston graduates earned a living wage: For example, only 1 in 5 high school graduates from the class of 2017 earned a living wage six years after high school graduation.

·        Attaining a credential played an important role in earning a living wage: High school graduates who earned a bachelor’s degree were 3.8 times more likely to earn a living wage, and those who earned a professional certificate were 3 times more likely to earn a living wage, compared to those without a credential.

·        The following key academic experiences in Grades 8 to 12 predicted the students who were likely to earn a post-secondary living wage

o   Students who took Algebra 1 in 8th grade

o   Students who met 8th-grade reading standards on the Texas state standards/benchmark exam

o   Students who completed five or more advanced courses in high school (they were 22 percentage points more likely to earn a post-graduation credential)

o   Students who excelled in both 8th-grade reading and advanced coursework were the most likely to achieve economic stability 

o   High school graduates with postsecondary credentials were 17 percentage points more likely to earn a living wage than their peers without credentials

   Assuming similar results across the country, this research demonstrates—once again—the importance of PreK through Grade 12 students’ academic depth, breadth, and proficiency, and the significant gaps that impact high school graduates’ post-secondary financial status and economic stability.

   Moreover, to be proficient in middle school and high school, students clearly need to be prepared for and proficient at the elementary school level.

   But we are not doing a good job across the board.

   Indeed, the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released on January 29, 2025, reveal a sobering picture of the current state of education in our country

   Specifically:

·        Reading Scores Declined: Average reading scores for both fourth and eighth graders declined since the last assessment. This marks a continuation of a downward trend that began around a decade ago.

·        Math Scores Show Mixed Results: While fourth-grade math scores saw a slight increase, eighth-grade math scores remained stagnant. The gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students in eighth-grade math is the widest it's ever been.

·        Impact of the Pandemic: The pandemic has had a lasting impact on student performance, with many students still performing below their pre-pandemic levels.

·        Persistent Achievement Gaps: The divide between high-achieving and low-performing students has widened, with struggling students stagnating or falling further behind.

_ _ _ _ _

   If our country is going to prepare all students for post-secondary living (or beyond) wages and financial stability, we need to take and modify James Carville’s lead:

“It’s about quality instruction, student engagement and learning, and high school graduates’ academic proficiency and post-secondary readiness. . . stupid.”

   And to do this, we need to build a wall to discourage and keep the distractions and silliness out of our schools and classrooms.

   We need to allow “teachers to teach, and students to learn.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Re-Establishing the Safety Net: What Students Want and Need

   While many distractions need to be eliminated to strengthen our country’s “student safety net,” let’s address a political external distraction (reinforcing the introduction above), and a self-induced school and classroom internal distraction.

Eliminating an External Distraction

   As noted above, an Executive Order was signed this past week threatening schools with the diversion of their federal funds if they (a) teach "discriminatory equity ideology,” (b) assert that some people are oppressed because of their race, or (c) declare that the U.S. is "fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.”

   This is the same unvalidated fear from the first Trump Administration which resulted—in early 2021— in 44 states introducing bills (or taking other steps) to restrict either the teaching of critical race theory or how teachers discuss racism and sexism in the classroom.

   Critically, the fear was largely unfounded then, and is largely unfounded now. Below are three studies providing support.

·     Study 1. In 2022, the American Historical Association (AHA) launched the most comprehensive study of the national U.S. history teaching landscape undertaken in the 21st century. The study combined a 50-state appraisal of history standards and legislation, a commissioned survey of over 3,000 middle and high school U.S. history educators, interviews with over 200 teachers and administrators, and analyses of thousands of pages of instructional materials “from small towns to sprawling suburbs to big cities.”

 

The published AHA report indicated that:

 

(a) secondary U.S. history teachers are professionals concerned with helping students learn central elements of our nation’s history by reading and understanding founding documents, and grappling with the complex history and legacies of racism and slavery. We did not find indoctrination, politicization, or deliberate classroom malpractice.

 

(b) Despite legislative interference, the localized influence of state-mandated assessment, and efforts to standardize instruction, history teachers retain substantial discretion over what they use in their daily work.

 

(c) Free online resources outweigh traditional textbooks, which are unlikely to stand at the center of history instruction. U.S. history teachers rely on a short list of trusted sites led by federal institutions including the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and Smithsonian museums.

_ _ _ _ _

 

·        Study 2. A 2022 University of Southern California Rossier School of Education survey of 3,751 Americans—representing diverse political, racial, and economic backgrounds—asked their views on teaching controversial topics in schools. Forty percent of the respondents were Democrats, 36% were Republicans, and 24% were neither.

The survey revealed that:

Ø  Most respondents overwhelmingly supported teaching controversial social and political issues at the high school level, while they were more hesitant about teaching these topics at the elementary school level.

At the high school level, (a) 95% of the respondents supported students learning about slavery, and the contributions of women and people of color, respectfully; (b) 85% supported learning about the 2nd Amendment and racial inequality, respectively; (c) 82% about gun control; (d) 80% about pro-choice and pro-life decisions; (e) 68% about gay rights and sexual orientation; and (f) 62% about gender identity and trans rights.

Ø  There was bipartisan agreement on teaching some topics in elementary school, like the Founding Fathers, contributions of women and people of color, slavery, and environmental issues.

Ø  Less than 50% of the respondents from both political parties supported teaching about LGBTQ topics at the elementary school level, while over 80% of Democrats supported LGBTQ education at the high school level in contrast to less than 40% of Republicans.

Ø  About half of respondents either had not heard of Critical Race Theory (CRT) or did not know what it meant. The most common response about teaching CRT was neutral.

Ø  81% of the Republican respondents supported allowing parents to opt children out of controversial lessons in contrast to 46% of the Democrat respondents.

_ _ _ _ _ 

·        Study 3. A study published in the most-recent Winter 2025 issue of Education Next analyzes the results of a nationally representative May 2024 survey of 850 U.S. high school students. The survey investigated whether public schools are systematically indoctrinating students in “woke” CRT ideologies.

The key findings from this national survey revealed that:

Ø  The teaching of CRT-related concepts exists but is not pervasive:

The majority of the students learned about racial progress in America

About 40% of the teachers used common terms like "white privilege" and "systemic oppression"

About 1/3 of the student respondents reported frequent teaching that "America is fundamentally racist"

20% said that teachers assert "white people should feel guilty about privilege"

Ø  76% of students felt comfortable sharing differing opinions

Ø  Students reported equal criticism of both conservative and liberal viewpoints 

Ø  The students reported that they formed their political beliefs primarily from family, friends, and social media. Only 17% of survey respondents said that their teachers had a “very influential” impact on their beliefs

The article concluded that (a) both sides of the debate have legitimate concerns; (b) teaching critical views of U.S. history is important for learning from past mistakes; and (c) there is a need to balance critical examination with instilling patriotism.

_ _ _ _ _

   Assuming that the representative samples in these three studies truly reflect the perspectives of their chosen groups, these studies reinforce a conclusion that:

·        Most Americans support the teaching of controversial social and political issues at the high school level;

·        Most secondary U.S. history teachers are teaching these topics with professionalism and without undue indoctrination or politization; and

·        Most students are forming their political beliefs primarily from family, friends, and social media.

   Given this, it seems that the recent Executive Order regarding schools teaching a "discriminatory equity ideology” is largely a needless distraction to teachers and students.

   At the same time, administrators may need to informally complete a “check and balance” here without burdening, alarming, or questioning the integrity of their staff.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Removing A Self-Induced Internal Distraction

   A February 6, 2025 Education Week article (“More States Are Moving to Ban Cellphones at School. Should They?”) discussed one of the major distractions in schools over the past number of years.

   Critically, this has been a self-induced distraction as—without casting any blame or responsibility—most districts allowed cell phones in their classrooms as they were largely unprepared for this issue, and there was no research to guide their decision-making.

   It seemed like cell phones were treated as an inalienable right!

   But now, education “gets it.”

   Cellphones are a major distraction in the classroom with students showing almost a psychological dependence on them—if not an addiction. They negatively impact students’ engagement and learning. And they are accessories to social media teasing, bullying, and other negative peer interactions.

   According to the Education Week article:

Nearly all 13- to 17-year-olds (95%) have access to a smartphone, according to the Pew Research Center. On average, teens receive 237 notifications on their cellphones per day, and kids spend a median of 43 minutes on their phones during school hours, or the equivalent of about one class period, according to a 2023 study by Common Sense Media that tracked the cellphone usage of 200 11- to 17-year-olds. Those distractions hurt students’ ability to learn, research has found.

 

Sixty-five percent of parents of K-12 students polled by the Pew Research Center said they support banning middle and high school students from accessing their cellphones during class time, and 35% favor banning phones for the entire school day.

 

An August 2024 survey from the National Education Association found that 90% of teachers support policies prohibiting student use of cellphones or other personal devices at school during instructional time.

 

Currently, at least 19 states have laws or policies that ban or restrict students’ use of cellphones in schools statewide or recommend local districts enact their own bans or restrictive policies. Some states, such as Florida and Louisiana, bar students from using cellphones throughout the entire school day, with some exceptions. Other states require or recommend that districts create their own cellphone policies to limit—if not completely restrict—students access to cellphones.

 

Districts have met these directives in a variety of ways. For example, some districts require students to lock up their phones in specially designed pouches at the start of the school day. Others allow students to use their cellphones between classes and during lunch periods, but they must be stowed away during class time. Still others have left cellphone policies up to teachers to create for their individual classrooms.

_ _ _ _ _

   The early results from schools establishing policies to eliminate cell phone distractions are notable.

   A separate Education Week article (“What Schools Look Like Without the Cellphone Distraction;” February 5, 2025), reported that:

·        A North Adams (MA) school district cellphone ban resulted in a 75% drop in student discipline referrals in the last quarter of the 2024 school year (most notably in students skipping class or detention, being out of class without permission, verbal altercations that escalate into fights), and anecdotal increases in student classroom engagement and teachers getting through instructional material more quickly.

_ _ _ _ _

·        A teacher survey—at the end of the 2023-24 school year—when the Bentonville (AR) school district piloted a cellphone ban in one of its High Schools, showed that 86% of the teachers perceived an improvement in student engagement from the 2022-23 to the 2023-24 school year, and 75% perceived increased socialization within their classrooms.

There also was a 57% reduction in verbal- and physical-aggression student discipline offenses, and a 51% decrease in drug-related offenses—attributed to students who used cellphones to coordinate drug exchanges.

_ _ _ _ _

·        The Indian River County’s (FL) 2023-24 districtwide cellphone ban was especially beneficial at the middle school level where there was a 14% decrease in fights from one year to the next.

_ _ _ _ _

·        And after two years of restricting cellphone use in the Middleburgh (NY) School District’s Junior/Senior High School, there were fewer  cyberbullying and disciplinary issues in school, and—as students started to pay more attention in class—teachers needed to reconfigure their lessons to make them more interactive as students wanted them to be more engaging.

   The Education Week article noted that parents became more supportive of their schools’ cellphone restrictions when data was shared with them on student engagement increases and office discipline decreases.

   And the article suggested that the most effective restriction approaches included (a) district-wide implementation with (b) clear tiered consequences, (c) consistent teacher-wide implementation, (d) effective continual communication of the new approaches to students across their schools and in their classrooms, and (e) sticking to “the Plan” with persistence and a non-punitive, matter-of-fact attitude.

_ _ _ _ _

   Significantly, it’s never easy to change well-established patterns of behavior.

   As noted above, students have become dependent on their cellphones, and some parents have reinforced this dependence by using texts and e-mails to communicate with their children and/or adolescents during the school day.

   Behavioral science clearly demonstrates that, when we try to eliminate (“extinguish”) a strongly-reinforced behavior in the face of meaningful (here, to the student) consequences, the inappropriate behavior typically first increases in frequency.

   However, when tiered consequences are consistently applied to the inappropriate behavior, and positive social and self-reinforcement occurs with the appropriate behavior, the inappropriate behavior quickly and significantly decreases and, eventually, is eliminated.

   An essential “training” step is to roleplay the “I-need-to-look-at-my-cellphone impulse” scenario with students before implementing a new policy.

   This involves guiding them through roleplays where they simulate (a) wanting to take out their cellphone; (b) taking deep breaths to control their emotions; (c) simultaneously saying to themselves, “I need to focus on the teacher and my work;” and (d) shifting their bodies slightly in their seats, repositioning their hands toward their work, and listening consciously to their teacher or looking consciously at their work.

   When these roleplays and behaviors are practiced to a level of almost-automaticity, more students will be more quickly successful when the new cellphone ban policy is later implemented.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Reinforcing the Reality: Most Educators Demonstrate Consistent Professionalism

   The results of the Gallup Poll’s annual “Mood of the Nation” survey, conducted between January 2 to 15, 2025, were reported on February 5th.

   Involving a random sample of 1,005 adults, 18 years old or older and who live in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the respondents’ average satisfaction with 31 different aspects of the country held at 38%, matching the same average as the last four years.

   The Gallup Press Release noted that:

Americans’ overall satisfaction with the direction of the country is also historically on the low side, although today’s 20% satisfaction score, similar to the readings since 2023, is improved from 11% in January 2021. That reading captured public discontent during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as with the negative political climate after the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

 

American’s highest satisfaction is with nation’s military and overall quality of life. Americans are least satisfied with anti-poverty efforts, and the moral climate of the country.

_ _ _ _ _

   Relative to education, Poll results indicate that Americans’ opinions about the quality of public education in the United States continue to decline. Indeed, the percentage of adults who are dissatisfied with public education has increased steadily from 62% to 73% between 2019 and 2025 annual polls. The percentage of adults who now feel satisfied with public education is the lowest since 2001.

   At the same time, when other surveys ask parents to rate their own local public schools, their satisfaction has historically been much higher than the more generic Gallup Poll. This discrepancy often reflects parents direct experience with their community schools versus their “national” perspectives. . . which are often influenced by what they see in the media.

   Regardless. . . based on all of the discussions in this Blog, students’ literacy and mathematics performance desperately need to improve, and schools need to redouble their attention and interventions for low performing and less successful students.

   This will require a laser focus—as noted earlier—on:

“Quality instruction, student engagement and learning, and academic proficiency and readiness for each next grade level.”

   In keeping with today’s theme, this will also require a reduction of external and internal distractions, and a recognition that:

“Many educators are conscientiously providing students a balanced education that exposes them to established facts, proven methods, scientific certainties, and opportunities to discuss contested issues in safe, productive, and collegial ways.”

   Controlling the use of cellphones in our schools and classrooms is an important step in this process. . . a step that needs to be paired with the other effective school and schooling processes that schools are implementing or need to implement.

   In addition, educators and educational leaders need to “build a wall” to control the introduction, discussion, and impact of the current external wave of Executive Orders and stream-of-consciousness asides that are leaking into our schools and becoming distractions in our classrooms.

   They are usurping far too much time and space. . . and they are interfering with “teachers trying to teach, and students trying to learn.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog began by listing some of the significant national and international events or crises that directly or indirectly affected us this past month. We also noted that, simultaneously, educators experienced an additional series of significant political and profession-impacting events that included Executive Orders and public pronouncements regarding the quality and business of instruction, learning, and the schooling process.

   Combining the results of numerous recent and past surveys and reports, we discussed how the current external and internal distractions are creating concern or confusion—making it difficult for teachers to teach, and students to learn. The first-cited study showed that Grade 8 to 12 students from Houston public schools (2012 to 2017) who took challenging schoolwork early and advanced classes in high school had higher-paying and faster-growing jobs later on.

   Relative to external distractions, studies were reviewed to demonstrate that the premises underlying the Executive Orders targeting schools teaching “discriminatory equity ideologies” are unfounded, and we discussed that those targeting the trans and nonbinary communities are being legally contested or have already been withdrawn.

   Relative to internal distractions, we discussed recent studies showing the positive effects of cellphone bans on student engagement and behavior. This will add value to the many educators who consistently offer students a balanced education that exposes them to established facts, proven methods, scientific certainties, and opportunities to discuss contested issues in safe, productive, and collegial ways.

   In the end, we paraphrased James Carville, stating:

“It’s about quality instruction, student engagement and learning, and high school graduates’ academic proficiency and post-secondary readiness. . . stupid.”

   We encourage all educators to “build a figurative wall” to discourage and keep distractions and silliness out of our schools and classrooms.

   Teachers need to teach, and students need to learn.

_ _ _ _ _

A New Podcast and Professional Development Resource for You

   At the beginning of January, we announced a new partnership and resource for you.

   The partnership is with popular AI Educators, Davey Johnson and Angela Jones. . . and the resource is their Podcast:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive 

   For each published bimonthly Blog, Davey and Angela will summarize and analyze the Blog in their free-wheeling and “no-holds-barred” Podcast. . . addressing its importance to “education today,” and discussing their recommendations on how to apply the information so that all students, staff, and schools benefit to “the next level of excellence.”

   You can find the Podcast at the following link:

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Spotify

   Davey and Angela have also created a Podcast Archive of more than 35 additional and separate podcasts involving all of our 2024 Blogs (Volume 2), and 14 of our most-popular Blogs from 2023 (Volume 1).

   The Podcasts are posted on Spotify, and you can “Follow” the Podcast Series so that you will be automatically notified whenever a new Podcast is posted.

   Many districts and schools are using the Podcasts in their Leadership Teams and/or PLCs to keep everyone abreast of new issues and research in education, and to stimulate important discussions and decisions regarding the best ways to enhance student, staff, and school outcomes.

   If you would like to follow a Podcast up with a free one-hour consultation with me, just contact me and we will get it on our schedules.

   I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

 

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast hosted by popular AI Educators, Angela Jones and Davey Johnson on Spotify: CLICK HERE for Angela and Davey’s Enlightening Discussion]

Saturday, December 4, 2021

Will the Controversy Over Critical Race Theory Damage Students’ Pursuit to Better Understand Cultural, Racial, and Individual Differences?

Is Our Nation At-Risk. . . for Different Reasons than in 1983?

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   In my last Blog, I summarized the “take-aways” from a Student Focus group that a colleague and I facilitated at a prototypical suburban high school near a large metropolis. The goal was to gather the students’ impressions of their academic and (especially) social, emotional, and mental health needs, and how their school was addressing these needs.

   The group included the student leaders from all four classes in the high school, and a majority of this diverse group included students from different racial and cultural backgrounds, as well as students with different gender identifications.

[CLICK HERE to Re-Read this Blog]

   Three themes emerged from the discussion:

1.   Theme 1. The students wanted more ongoing education, discussion, and understanding of the racial, cultural, and religious histories, traditions, and practices of the students and staff represented at their high school and across their community.

This extended to issues related to gender, gender identity/sexual orientation, national origin, socio-economic status, disability, and age.

The students understood that, in the absence of this education and discussion, (a) they and their backgrounds might not be understood by other students and staff; and (b) they would not be prepared to work and live successfully in their post-high school worlds.

_ _ _ _ _

2.   Theme 2. The students were confused and disappointed that—in the face of their Pandemic- and non-Pandemic-related social, emotional, and mental health needs—the staff at their high school appeared to totally ignore (or avoid) discussing these needs.

Indeed, the students noted that—after almost 18 months of virtual instruction and isolation—the new school year began in September, 2021 just like any pre-Pandemic school year. That is, the teachers moved right into the academic program without allowing the students to discuss and debrief their personal and educational experiences during the past 18 months, or to build and rebuild their student-to-student and student-to-staff in-person relationships.

_ _ _ _ _

3.   Theme 3. The students were frustrated with their teachers’ (and parents’) “obsession” with “catching them up” academically—to the point that teachers were fast-tracking instruction and doubling-up on assignments.

More critically, the students noted that teachers were not coordinating across teachers—resulting in unrealistic and inconsistent workloads that required them to pull “all-nighters” in order to complete assignments. Students felt that they were “doing stuff,” rather than learning and mastering important content and skills.

Here, the students wondered why essential work was not prioritized, scaffolded, and taught in trans-disciplinary ways. They wanted to learn and grow academically. But they feared that their teachers’ current instructional approaches were actually leaving them further behind than they already were due to the Pandemic.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Concerns Over Critical Race Theory:  Meeting Students’ Needs to Discuss Race, Culture, and Individual Differences

   In 1983, a report A Nation At-Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was published by the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education. The report warned educators nationwide that our schools were not graduating students who were able to compete academically with the graduates from other countries. This report sparked a school improvement and reform process that has been codified in the last three (and current) Elementary and Secondary Education Acts (ESEA).

   In contrast, over the past year, more than half of our country’s state legislatures—and many individual school districts—have proposed or passed policies that ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) or that limit the teaching of history, events, or topics related to racism, bias, diversity, and equity.

   Using CRT as the antagonist, many of these policies—and/or the debates around them—clearly show either that (a) the true nature of CRT was unclear or misunderstand; or (b) CRT was used to politically or emotionally manipulate the support needed to pass or push the policies.

   In the end, one short-term outcome from these CRT policies and debates is that the first need expressed by the students in my High School Focus Group (see Theme 1 above) is now threatened. That is, the students in communities that have restricted or removed educational opportunities to learn about different racial, cultural, and religious histories, traditions, and practices will end up learning on their own. . . or not learning at all.

   A second potential long-term outcome is that, in another decade, we may be reading a second Nation At-Risk report. . . a report on The Imperative for Education Regarding Race, Culture, and Individual Differences.

   This report will be discussing the need for enhanced cultural, racial, and individual difference education in our schools so that students and staff from diverse backgrounds can better understand each other, collaborate together, and learn the skills needed for success in their post-graduation job and community interactions.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Facts Behind Critical Race Theory

   The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), which represents over 25,000 school psychologists across the country, recently published a handout,

“The Importance of Addressing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Schools: Dispelling Myths About Critical Race Theory” (2021)

in its membership newspaper The Communique. This handout summarizes many significant points related to this Blog.

   In its Introduction, the NASP handout states:

Schools have long explored the role of race and racism in our country's history, including disparities in opportunity and education. It is important that we provide students with an honest and accurate assessment of history so that they can create a better future.

 

The growing politicization of these issues has manifested in the demonization and purposeful misrepresentation of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other well-established policies and practices in schools, such as social–emotional instruction and the implementation of culturally responsive practices. These discussions are happening at local school board meetings, in communities, in state legislatures, and in Congress. Students are paying attention, and the divisive rhetoric and intentional misrepresentation of CRT is causing confusion and disruption and could undermine a positive school climate. . .

 

Central to this effort is allowing for honest, respectful, and developmentally appropriate discussions about topics such as privilege, racism, bias, and systemic racism in our nation's schools. These conversations are not meant to divide students, teach them to hate each other, or to make students feel shame about their race, community, or country. Rather, these dialogues foster critical thinking and provide a framework to understand how existing systems, structures, and policies can cause inequitable outcomes.

 

Professional development for teachers and educators on privilege, racism, bias, and systemic racism is essential but not because individual educators or students are consciously racist. Rather, this type of professional development provides them with necessary tools to advance equity in their schools and classrooms, ensure that all students see themselves in the curriculum, and identify and remedy the impact their individual biases may have on their students.

 

Positive educational and social outcomes for all children and youth are possible only in a society—and schools within it—that guarantees equitable treatment to all people, regardless of race, class, culture, language, gender, gender identity, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, citizenship, ability, and other dimensions of difference. NASP firmly believes that all students are entitled to an education that affirms and validates the diversity of their cultural and individual differences, fosters resilience, and facilitates well-being and positive academic and mental health outcomes (NASP, 2019).

_ _ _ _ _

   On the topic of Critical Race Theory (CRT), the handout clarifies:

  • CRT is a theoretical framework for examining American society with a belief that racism is embedded in U.S. laws and institutions and not just the result of individual prejudices or biases. CRT seeks to understand inequities that exist based on race.

  • CRT is a collection of ideas rather than a single doctrine, and many scholars have contributed to the body of CRT work. Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and Derrick Bell are often considered the founders of modern CRT.

  • CRT is most frequently applied at the higher education and policy levels to understand how racism may or may not be shaping structures and systems in the country, and, ideally, inform necessary changes to improve their function for all people.

  • CRT recognizes that race is a social construct and race does not reflect biological differences among people (e.g., differences in intelligence, physical ability).

  • CRT includes an understanding that systemic racism is part of American history and still exists in modern society.

  • CRT identifies and examines the ways in which White supremacy and racism permeate systems today, including the continuation of generational poverty; barriers in accessing housing, education, and healthcare; and funding and economic development approaches that privilege predominantly White neighborhoods and disadvantage marginalized and minoritized communities.

  • CRT is a framework to examine the inequities in existing structures, policies, and laws in order to rebuild them equitably.

  • CRT focuses on examining and remedying disparate outcomes rather than changing individuals’ beliefs.

_ _ _ _ _

   The NASP handout also corrects some of the inaccurate information sometimes ascribed to CRT:

  • CRT does not imply that one race is superior or inferior to another. 

  • CRT does not posit that all White individuals are racist and all racially minoritized individuals are oppressed. 

  • CRT is not a way to enact racism and discrimination against White individuals. 

  • Though related, CRT is not synonymous with cultural responsiveness, culturally relevant teaching, or equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) initiatives. 

  • CRT is not the same as social–emotional learning (SEL). 

  • CRT is not an attempt to make people feel bad about their race. 

  • CRT is not a tool to divide students or school staff and teach them to hate others. 

  • CRT does not promote or condone a specific political ideology (e.g., socialism, Marxism, anticapitalism). 

  • CRT is not a means of judging another person based on race or making assumptions based on race. 

  • CRT is not the same as teaching the good and bad parts of U.S. history. 

  • CRT is not The 1619 Project, which is a Pulitzer Prize winning long-form journalism project.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Going Beyond Students’ Needs: The Need for Schools to Model Racial, Cultural, and Individual Differences Equity

   The purpose of this Blog is not to get into the process and content of how to better educate our students in the areas of culture, race, and individual differences.

   The goal is to protect the importance of continuing to do this in effective, objective, comprehensive, historically-accurate, and meaningful ways—for both students and staff.

   And beyond the need to do this by addressing students’ stated needs (for example, as expressed by my Student Focus Group), it is essential to similarly address students’ systemic cultural, racial, and individual difference needs.

   The NASP handout identified a number of possible systemic targets (some minor edits have been made):

·      The incorporation of equity, diversity, and inclusion topics for staff and students in public schools. This includes adequate funding and guidance to support these efforts.

 

·  The delivery of comprehensive curricula that are culturally responsive, developmentally appropriate, and academically engaging for all students.

 

·     The assessment and remediation of disproportionality in special education identification, eligibility for gifted (and talented) education, access to advanced/AP courses, and academic outcomes, including high school completion rates and student discipline and arrest rates.

 

·    The implementation of accountability systems that promote a culture of constant improvement, disaggregated data collection and reporting, and intentional remedy of any disparities.

 

·   The promotion of supportive, effective, and equitable discipline policies and practices, the elimination of zero tolerance discipline policies, and the limiting of exclusionary discipline practices that disproportionately impact students from minoritized backgrounds.

 

·   The systematic assessment of institutional climate within schools, ensuring that bias and its potential consequences are understood, and that people of traditionally underrepresented backgrounds feel welcome, respected, and are met with high expectations.

   While it is important to meet the expressed academic and social, emotional, and behavioral needs of our students—as related to race, culture, and individual differences, students need to concurrently see their schools value and model racial, cultural, and individual difference equity in a systemic way.

   This eliminates the disconnect, inconsistency, or contradiction that sometimes occurs when we expect students to interact in sensitive and equitable ways, and yet their school systems are actually practicing insensitivity and inequity.

   None of these issues (or goals) are new. It’s just that they, tragically, have been recast—over the past number of months—in a political context that, at times, has created its own “reality” based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation, ignorance and inaccuracy, prejudice and power, and fear and exploitation.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   Without being naïve, one would hope that the professional ethics that all educators are expected to demonstrate—whether as members of their national organizations, or as certified or licensed through their respective State Departments of Education—would “rule the day.”

   That is, we all have an ethical and professional responsibility—as stated in the NASP handout—to “attend to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion... , as well as advocate to eliminate systemic racism, inequity, and other discriminatory factors in schools that can harm or marginalize students.”

   As a school psychologist, I must admit that I have always worked to elevate all students—especially those who have been affected by intrinsic issues of disability, and/or extrinsic issues of oppression. This advocacy has resulted in times when some colleagues have not appreciated or agreed with some of my statements, choices, or decisions. . . indeed, it will be interesting to see how many “unsubscribes” or negative comments this Blog will generate.

   I also admit that the events of the past months—as related to the debates and/or legislations to suppress legitimate educational activities and discussions about culture, race, and individual student differences in the name of eliminating Critical Race Theory from our schools—are complex, multi-layered, and not always explainable.

   At the same time, I do know that a discussion cannot occur (or continue) unless someone begins the discussion. And I do know that our students—as represented by our Student Focus Group—want this discussion to occur.

   While I hope to be wrong, I believe that our Nation IS At-Risk in this essential area for the common good. . . given the current direction in some of our states, districts, and schools.

   If I am wrong, then don’t shout me down. Let’s talk about it.

   Let the discussions. . . with full engagement, professionalism, mutual respect, and humility. . . begin.

_ _ _ _ _

   Even as the holiday season approaches, many of our schools will still be in session for the next few weeks. I hope that this Blog resonates with you and motivates you to think about how you want to begin the next part of the school year when the Holiday Break ends in January.

   For the schools that missed opportunities to address their students’ social, emotional, and mental health needs at the start of the school year, you have an opportunity to spend the first day—or three days—in January. . . making up for or recovering from this gap.

   Your students still have needs, and you can’t go back in time.

   Think creatively. Involve your students in planning a meaningful re-entry to school in January. Take a courageous step to open up discussions that have been missed, ignored, or avoided.

   I just read that one district superintendent has given his students and staff an additional “mental health break” by adding three days to the Winter Break.

   What if this—and all—district(s) used these three days instead to implement a series of student, staff, parent, and community discussions, activities, and opportunities. . . addressing the social, emotional, mental health, cultural, racial, and individual difference issues and needs that are (or not) apparent?

   Would this not go further in addressing these needs in a collective way. . . rather than assume that three days of personal and individual time—away from the school community—is going to have the same effect?

   I appreciate everyone who reads this bi-monthly Blog and thinks about the issues or recommendations that are shared.

   As always, if I can help you in any of the areas discussed in this message, I am always happy to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help clarify your needs and directions on behalf of your students and colleagues.

   You, too, can be one of the hundreds (near a thousand) of districts or schools that have seized this post-Blog opportunity. I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]