An Analysis of a White Preservice Teacher’s Reflections on Race and Young Children Within an Urban School Context

Introduction

The above excerpts are taken from a reflective journal kept by Melissa during her student teaching internship at an urban elementary school. The exchanges between her and her elementary students about race were significant enough for her to record in her journal and bring to the attention of her university supervisor (Tambra). Although Melissa recorded her initial thoughts about the exchanges in her journal, she later sought to engage in deeper analysis and reflection of these events with Tambra and Michelle. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present a case for assisting student teachers with understanding the racial literacy of young children within the context of resegregated urban schools. Our aim is to make meaning of these experiences as captured in her journal entries by deconstructing the socio-historical, political, and racial contexts within which they occurred. To be clear, this is not an empirical study with traditional research methods but rather an analysis that uses the assertions made by students as an opportunity to explore the connectedness between three bodies of literature (urban school resegregation, racial socialization, and critical race theory [CRT] and counter-narratives) that offer a racialized interpretation of education spaces. It is our position that this analysis can help preservice teachers and the teacher educators who work with them understand the racial literacy of young children as well as interrogate their own identities and racial positionality.

Building upon research that theorizes and documents students’ perceptions of race, racial attitudes, and treatment by teachers (Casteel, 2000; Earick, 2009; Segura-Mora, 2008; Tenorio, 2008), this article explores the impact of resegregation on how children of Color see and experience race in schools, specifically in relation to their teachers. Drawing upon our interpretations of a White preservice teacher’s interactions with two African American elementary students, the students’ awareness of her race, and their subsequent “racialized” perceptions of her effectiveness as a teacher, we explore the domino effects of racial and economic segregation on young children’s schooling experiences, particularly as they relate to their relationships with teachers.

Framing the Analysis

In our analysis, we deconstruct the context of Melissa’s story as documented in her journal entries and peel back the layers within which it existed. We focus on the elements of a resegregated urban school, racial socialization, and CRT and counter-storytelling. To be clear, we are not conducting CRT research but rather using CRT to inform our analysis of these circumstances by privileging race and counter-narratives. Here, we draw on insights and analytical tools associated with CRT as well as notions of racial literacy (Winans, 2010) to demonstrate how the students’ verbalized assessments can be read as “counter-narratives”—narratives that counter the notion that young children are color-blind, and thus not capable of understanding or behaving in ways that are informed by racial similarity and difference (Brown, 2006; Park, 2011; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001). In reflecting on possible interpretations of Shanita and Victoria’s (pseudonyms) racialized assessments, as well as their potential implications for teacher education, through a CRT lens, we join a number of scholars in education who have taken up CRT as an analytical lens for exploring the ways in which race and racism operate in educational contexts.

As Lynn and Jennings (2009) and Solórzano and Yosso (2002) assert, critical race scholars in education draw on CRT as a theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical tool for examining the beliefs and practices of teachers in K-12 classrooms (and their connection to race and racism) and, in particular, for exploring the lived experiences of teachers and students of Color in educational settings. Here, we engage in the CRT practice of using race as an analytical lens that allows us to illuminate the racialized perspectives of children of Color, and to name those perspectives as examples of what critical race scholars refer to as “counter-narratives”—narratives derived from the lived experiences of people of Color that challenge prevailing ideas and dominant beliefs regarding the contemporary role and function of race in U.S. society.

Informed by specific definitions regarding the substance and function of counter-narratives and counter-stories, we read the assertions offered by Shanita and Victoria as counter-stories against not one but two master narratives: one that we live in a post-racial society and that children do not notice or operate off of an understanding of race, in other words, that children are color-blind. If counter-stories are intended to include marginalized voices in the larger conversation about the experiences of people of Color in the United States, then the statements of these two students must become a part of that conversation. Furthermore, if, as we argue, they represent one manifestation of the consequences of the resegregation of schools, then we must begin to ask questions about the explicit and implicit racial messages being sent to students as a part of this phenomenon.

The Local Context

The reflections and vignettes drawn upon in this article are contextualized within a school that is typical of resegregated urban schools; meaning high concentrations of poverty in close proximity to affluence, the result of socio-historical and political measures (e.g., white flight, low-income public housing development, gentrification, etc.). The school is a predominantly Black, urban elementary school located in a midsize city in the South. The district in which Clark Elementary (pseudonym) is located is the state’s sixth largest with approximately 23,000 students. District demographics are 78% Black/African American, 17% White, and 5% Other with 65% of students receiving free or reduced lunch. Clark Elementary school has approximately 280 students Grades pre-K through 5 and is labeled Title One. Seventy-nine percent of the students receive free or reduced lunch. The demographics for the student population at the school are 92% African American, 6% White, and 2% Hispanic/Latino.

Tambra worked with Clark Elementary in a school–university partnership for 4 years. Her research has chronicled the partnership efforts of developing a clinical site whereby both practicing and preservice teachers are simultaneously afforded opportunities for professional growth (see Jackson, 2010, 2011, 2013). Tambra taught undergraduate courses to preservice teachers on-site, and she also supervised student teacher interns during their year-long internship at the school.

Melissa had taken a course on-site at the school with Tambra prior to her student teaching internship, so she was somewhat familiar with the context. After being placed at the school for her year-long internship, she felt as though she really wanted to take advantage of the opportunity and push herself outside of her comfort zone. She was determined to discover what she did not know (Howard, 2006) and become an effective teacher of diverse students.

Melissa’s Journal

As part of her internship requirements, Melissa kept a reflective journal about her daily experiences at the school. At the time of the first journal entry, it was fall semester, and Melissa had been in a fifth-grade classroom twice a week (all day each time) for about 2 months. The second entry was written during the spring semester when she was there daily in a fourth-grade classroom. She had been in the classroom every day for about a month and a half at the time of the entry. The third journal entry was written after Melissa had a conversation with Tambra (her university supervisor) about the second incident. Tambra was aware of both occurrences and asked Melissa to reflect across the two incidents. The following are excerpts from her journal.

Urban Schooling and School Resegregation in the South

To begin to understand and make meaning of Shanita and Victoria’s assertions, we first take a look at school resegregation and its impact on students of Color. Melissa had no idea as to why the school demographics at Clark were as they were compared with two other elementary schools within close proximity. The student populations at the other schools were comprised of more middle-class students with the majority being White students at both schools.

As noted by Beverly Daniel Tatum (2007), if we were to simply accept the discourse of diversity in popular culture and observe the increasing presence of people of Color in many work environments, then one could assume that in the United States, we live in a racially integrated society. However, for many Americans, that is simply not the case. Although census data show an increasingly diverse population, many Americans live racially and economically segregated lives. This is most visible in schools. More than 55 years after Brown v. Board of Education, schools in the United States are racially segregated (Goldsmith, 2010). On average, White students attend schools that are 21% minority (i.e., percentage Black plus percentage Latino). Black and Latino students’ schools average 45% and 41% minority, respectively. Perhaps more importantly, many schools are composed almost entirely of either White, African American, or Latino students (Goldsmith, 2010).

Urban schools are just as complex and multidimensional as the cities in which they are located. In fact, the complexities of cities are often reflected in the kinds of educational experiences and opportunities received by students in urban schools. Unless there are explicit measures and policies in place to respond, when cities experience social phenomena such as gentrification and White flight, schools are affected and often mirror the effects at a much more concentrated microlevel. Thus, the trend of de facto segregation in urban America post Brown v. Board of Education has directly affected the schooling experiences of students in urban schools.

Racial Socialization

Crouter, Baril, Davis, and McHale (2008) note that, over the past 20 years, a substantial body of literature has developed regarding the role and importance of socialization practices within minority families. In particular, researchers have been exploring how ethnic minority parents socialize their children in ways that prepare them to understand the racial barriers they may encounter, although simultaneously building their self-esteem (see, for example, Coard, Wallace, Stevenson, & Brotman, 2004; Crouter et al., 2008; García Coll, Crnic, Lamberty, & Wasik, 1996; Hughes & Chen, 1997; Hughes & Chen, 1999; Hughes et al., 2006; O’Brien Caughy, O’Campo, Randolph, & Nickerson, 2002). García Coll et al. (1996) have argued that any understanding of the parental socialization practices must be contextualized by the larger political and socioeconomic contexts in which those practices take place. Specifically, the socialization practices engaged by minority parents must be understood in relation to the parents’ perceptions of their families’ position with the system of racial stratification in the United States. Furthermore, researchers argue that parenting practices within minority families are critical area of inquiry because “parent racial socialization practices are associated with differences in racial identity development as well as in the socioemotional and academic status of African Americans” (O’Brien Caughy et al., 2002, p. 1613).

The term racial socialization (as well as ethnic socialization) is “used broadly to refer to the transmission from adults to children of information regarding race” (Hughes et al., 2006, p. 748). Within the body of literature on parents’ racial socialization practices, researchers most often examine the context, content, and impact of four dimensions of racial socialization identified by Hughes and Chen (1997, 1999): cultural socialization or the ways in which parents attempt to instill in their children a sense of cultural heritage, pride, and belongingness; preparation for bias or the ways in which parents transmit messages about the existence of racial discrimination and prejudice and prepare their children for it; promotion of mistrust or the messages transmitted regarding the ways in which children should be cautious around or avoid individuals from certain groups; and egalitarianism or messages that place emphasis on the similarities, rather than differences, between members of races or ethnic groups, and the importance of equality (Hughes & Chen, 1999; Hughes et al., 2006). Importantly, Hughes and Chen (1999) argue that any specific socialization message sent by a parent may not always match up with the message received by that of the child. Moreover, although each of the four categories of messages has been conceptualized as distinct, any racial socialization message may contain two or more themes simultaneously (Hughes et al., 2006). For the purpose of this article, we focus specifically on the third category of messages, “promotion of mistrust.”

CRT and Counter-Storytelling

CRT is a dynamic framework for thinking about and theorizing the ways in which race and racism functions in society. In their overview of the roots of CRT (which originated in critical legal studies) and their discussion of how its tenets have been taken up by critical scholars in education, Lynn and Jennings (2009) address several of the distinctive claims that undergird CRT, two of which are particularly relevant to this discussion. The first and most fundamental claim of CRT is that racism has been so inherently ingrained in “the political and legal structures [of U.S. society] as to be almost unrecognizable,” and thus it is endemic nature has become a normal part of daily life. Within this premise—that racism is normal and not “aberrant”—is an explicit naming of race as a societal construct that carries with it material consequences, and thus justifies centralizing race a legitimate lens of analysis. Consequently, scholars in education who draw on CRT assert that robust racial analyses are vital for understanding and explaining the inequities experienced by students of Color (Cook & Dixson, 2013).

In addition, Lynn and Jennings note that CRT can be viewed as a form of “oppositional scholarship” that seeks to challenge the dominant practice of privileging White’s experiences as the basis for normative standards in society. Consequently, they argue, “CRT grounds its conceptual framework in the distinctive contextual experiences of people of Color and racial oppression through the use of literary narrative knowledge and storytelling to challenge the existing social construction of race” (p. 180). Indeed, narrative ways of knowing, storytelling, and counter-storytelling have played a vital role in the development of CRT, and their documentation and/or construction are deemed an important outcome of contemporary critical race scholarship, particularly in educational research. As Cook and Dixson (2013) argue, “Critical race theory as an epistemological and theoretical practice asserts the use of storytelling and narrative as import aspects of its methodology” (p. 1242). Drawing on the work of critical race theorists such as Bell (1992) and Delgado and Stefancic (2001), Cook and Dixson assert that counter-storytelling serves many purposes including

(1) psychic preservation by not silencing the experiences of the oppressed and thus exposing neglected evidence (counter-storytelling); (2) challenging normative reality through an exchange that overcomes ethnocentrism and the dysconcious conviction of view the world one way; and (3) listening to the voices of people of Color as the basis for understanding how race and racism function; and (4). Purposefully attempting to disrupt liberal ideology. (2013, p. 1243)

In their discussion of the place of counter-storytelling within CRT, they point to work of Derrick Bell, a CRT pioneer in legal studies, noting the importance that he placed on storytelling, narrative, and first person accounts as important in “challenging traditional explanation of power relationships via an emphasis on the role of context in meaning making” (Cook & Dixson, 2013, p. 1243). Bell (2003) argued that the master narrative is evident in the frequently told stories Whites tell that convey, “a sense of history as progressive, depict a U.S. society that is basically fair and meritocratic, and assume a trajectory of forward progress in which injustices are eventually recognized and rectified over time” (p. 4). In their current manifestations, CRT scholars argue that counter-storytelling serves as a way of speaking against master narratives.

Notably, critical race scholars source the origins these narrative practices in the oral storytelling tradition of peoples of Color (Alemán & Alemán, 2010) wherein history, knowledge, and wisdom (derived from lived experience) is passed along from generation to generation. (Insert sentence here about the link between oral storytelling and the ways in which womanism, for example, privileges knowledge derived from lived experience over knowledge derived from texts). Drawing a connection between their historical function and their current manifestations, Alemán and Alemán (2010) argue that contemporary counter-stories function as a means of casting doubt on the truth or validity of the assumptions held by, and the myths purported by, those in power, and thus possess both “creative and destructive functions” (p. 7).

Children and Racialized Meaning-Making

In addressing a dominant narrative circulating in American society, Park (2011) points out that many adults assume that “young children are color innocent, that racial and ethnic differences carry little meaning in their lives, and that they are not implicated in the racialized dynamics of society” (p. 387). In rebuttal, she points to research conducted by scholars such as Lewis (2003) and Van Ausdale and Feagin (2001) in which study findings revealed that

children not only have been introduced to the concept of race but also have learned to base their evaluations of people on race. Their negative biases have developed despite the fact that many children today are exposed to positive portrayals of diversity in children’s television programs, toys, books, and educational materials and environments. (p. 388)

In her recent study of young children’s understanding and actions related to racial and ethnic diversity and how they made sense of those differences in their daily engagements with peers in a preschool classroom, Park (2011) discovered that her young participants were “actively enacting racial and ethnic identities, constructing theories about how difference operates, making choices about whom they played and interacted with, and making sense of the multiple messages they received” (p. 388).

Park’s findings, as well as similar findings by other critical scholars examining children’s perceptions and understandings of race and racial difference, lead us to believe that there is much to be gained from exploring children’s values and understandings around racial difference by closely examining their language and interactions with peers, as well as with adults. Consequently, in the next section, we speculate about the ways in which Shanita and Victoria’s experiences reflect their engaging with racial identities, their theorizing about racial difference, and the ways in which their racialized schema affect their perspectives regarding who is to be liked and who is not. In essence, we argue that the girls were actively engaged in a process of racialized meaning-making that was grounded in the “multiple messages” they have received about race and racial difference, or, in other words, how they have been racially socialized.

Interpretations and Reflections

According to Burton, Bonilla-Silva, Ray, Buckelew, and Hordge Freeman (2010), racialization is defined as “the assignment of racial meaning to real, perceived, or ascribed differences among individuals or groups” (p. 445). Furthermore, they argue that the racial hierarchies of power and privilege among races that are produced by processes of racialization “constitute the basis for racism, discrimination, and the perpetuation of inequality in a society and within families” (p. 445). We assert that a close examination of the assertions made by Shanita and Victoria reveal them as actively engaging in the practice of racialization. Although most explorations of racialization practices interrogate the ways in which Whites racialize members of racial minority groups, in this instance, we examine the reversal—the ways in which the girls engage in racializing Melissa. Indeed, though we do not know the sources of the knowledge/understanding from which their assessments arise (indeed, we share Melissa’s curiosity about “the people who made Shanita think she wasn’t supposed to like me”), we can argue that Shanita and Victoria were engaging in an act of assigning racial meaning to differences that they perceived between themselves and Melissa.

In closely examining the interaction between Shanita and Melissa, we infer that Shanita has developed an understanding of “White people” as group of individuals, marked by their Whiteness (we assume here phenotype but leave open the possibility that Shanita’s understandings of Whiteness may be even more complex), who are not to be liked. However, despite the admonishment not to like them, she finds herself liking Melissa. Importantly, Shanita clearly situates the issue at hand as involving the racial difference between the two of them. Yet, unlike Victoria, Shanita does not find Melissa’s simultaneous Whiteness and likeability problematic, just the fact that she is not supposed to like White people. Although we cannot be entirely sure, it does not appear as though Shanita gets “hung up” on the problem in the way that Victoria does. Rather, she simply resolves the issue by deciding that Melissa is an exception to the rule. In so doing, she introduces the possibility of different kinds of “White people”—those who are likeable and those who are not. Furthermore, she demonstrates the capacity to differentiate between these different kinds of White people, and thus extends her racialized understanding in ways that allow for previous understandings to be revised and reconstituted.

In contrast, Victoria appears to experience significant trouble resolving her dilemma with Melissa. Unlike Shanita, Victoria seems unwilling to change what she believes (or what she has been socialized to believe) about White people—that she does not like them—or to make an exception to her beliefs on Melissa’s behalf. Rather, she seems intent on making Melissa fit into her pre-existing racial schema that is, in fact, a racial hierarchy. If she likes Melissa, Victoria seems to believe, then Melissa cannot be White. However, based on physical traits (blonde hair and blue eyes) that Melissa identifies (and Victoria does not refute) as belonging to Whites, Victoria also understands that Melissa does not fall into the category of African American/Black. Consequently, Victoria is compelled to find a category somewhere along the spectrum between the two. Doing so is critical for keeping her schema intact and, in particular, for maintaining the racial hierarchy embedded in it.

Indeed, in Victoria’s racial hierarchy, being of Color is “better than being White.” Moreover, she knows that she does not like “White people.” Therefore, if she likes Melissa, and if Melissa is not White, nor is she African American/Black, then she has to be “mixed.” If, like Shanita, Victoria has learned not to like White people, then to be “mixed” opens up the possibility of possessing some modicum of likeableness. Thus, it is through Victoria’s attempts to racialize Melissa, to literally “give her some color,” that Victoria is able to reconcile the fact that she likes someone who appears to be White. We argue that while Victoria too is engaged in racialization practices based on racial socialization messages that she has received, her dialogue with Melissa demonstrates a certain unwillingness to adapt her schema. Rather, quite interestingly, she creatively attempts to force Melissa into it.

Concluding Thoughts: Racial Literacy as Racialized Meaning-Making

In approaching race in this discussion as a “critical category of analysis,” our intent is to both provide possible answers to, as well as frame new questions about, how race functions on multiple levels, from the individual to the societal (Winans, 2010). Winans (2010) refers to such engagements as a form of racial literacy, or “critically examining and continually questioning how race and racism inform beliefs, interpretative frameworks, practices, cultures, and institutions” (p. 477) In taking up Winans’s definition, we argue that Shanita and Victoria’s assertions may reveal important insights on how their educational experiences (both inside and outside the classroom) may have contributed to the formation of a belief system around racial difference in which “racialized” interpretations and assessments of individuals can be made. We remain particularly interested in the ways in which education (through discourses, policies, and practices) may simultaneously contribute to these belief systems and serve as a space to enact them.

Moreover, rather than dismissing them as automated, “out of the mouths of babes” utterances that reveal a lack of understanding or comprehension on their part, we view Shanita’s and Victoria’s articulations regarding Melissa’s “whiteness” as critical instances of racialized meaning-making. Thus, by intentionally surfacing their constructions of race in these two examples, we demonstrate the important role and function of race in the lives of children, and the pervasive ways in which it influences how they construct and understand their worlds, and the influential adults who inhabit them. Furthermore, we argue that the girls’ assessments of Melissa and her Whiteness provide tangible evidence of the fundamental way in which race still matters (West, 2001)—assessments that run counter to popular assertions that the United States has progressed into a “post-racial” era. Moreover, the girls’ explicit attending to their teacher’s racial identity as not only distinct from their own but also imbued with a particular meaning (Whiteness as incompatible with ideas about who they should and should not like), runs counter to the dominant narrative in society that asserts young children do not notice and are not capable of understanding, racial difference. We concur with other scholars whose studies are contributing to a growing body of literature that provide evidence that children as young as preschoolers understand, making meaning of race, and adjust their behavior based on racialized understanding (Lewis, 2003; Park, 2011; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001).

Finally, we concur with Guinier (2003) that “in order to change the way race is understood, race has to be directly addressed rather than ignored” (p. 207) and take seriously the assertion that we must understand “racial literacy in concrete, daily terms is essential if we are to illuminate the connections between individuals (students, parents, instructors) and institutions” (Winans, 2010, p. 477). Regardless of the source of the racial socialization (immediate family, extended family, community influences, teachers, or others), it is clear that students can and do produce racial knowledge.

Implications for Teacher Education

Drawing upon Melissa’s encounters as a White student teacher intern with two African American elementary students, the discussion herein has explored the ripple effects of racial resegregation in relation to racial literacy development of young children. We have shown that Melissa’s encounters with race as expressed by Shanita and Victoria are contextualized within a larger narrative of resegregated urban schools. Based upon what we have learned from this analysis, we conclude by discussing implications of our work for teachers, teacher education, and research.

Given the plethora and growth of racially homogeneous schools, no classroom teacher in America should continue to believe that young children are color-blind. Melissa’s initial reflections of her interaction with Victoria were characterized as “abstract and defying logic.” As Melissa learned through our analysis of her experiences with Shanita and Victoria, not only are children cognizant of race writ large but they are also analyzing their interpretations of race within their school contexts. Consequently, teachers must take up race in the classroom and use notions of “engaging in racial literacy” as a pedagogical tool for doing so. If teachers start with the assumption and framework that children are aware of race that better positions them to welcome students’ racial identities in the classroom leading to better culturally responsive environments. The socioemotional affirmation that some students of Color receive in segregated schools can also be attained in integrated environments if their cultural and racial identities are affirmed.

Teacher education programs must equip preservice teachers with the tools that they need to address race in the classroom. We can no longer allow new teachers to enter the profession with color-blind lenses. Racial literacy should be incorporated into core teacher preparation coursework (see Sealey-Ruiz, 2011; i.e., content methods, assessment, and classroom management courses as well as practicum and clinical field experiences); not simply relegated to foundations and multicultural courses. As the school resegregation trends and the teaching workforce demographics remain constant, teacher education programs do their students a disservice if they do not adequately prepare them for the contexts in which they will work. Knowledge and understanding of resegregation as a fundamental context in which more and more candidates are likely to find themselves is imperative for future teachers. Furthermore, such knowledge can lead to advocacy and activism for teachers. As Melissa noted in her journal, once exposed “I cannot unknow what I know now; therefore I choose to be part of the solution.”

Last, this is a rich area for additional research on the role of teachers in racial socialization, and teacher educators/educational researchers should take up that charge. Within the field of teacher education, further understandings are needed in regard to how we can better understand the ways in which students are exposed to racialized messages and are racially socialized in schools. Because much of the racial socialization literature focuses on the role of parents, exploring the role of teachers and schools can offer new insights on how children make meaning of race in their educational experiences.