Abstract
The growth trajectory of ethnically and linguistically diverse individuals in the United States, particularly for youth, compels the education system to have urgent awareness of how diverse aspects of culture (e.g., Spanish-speaking, Black Latina student) are implicated in outcomes in American school systems. Students spend a significant amount of time in the school ecology, and this experience plays an important role in their well-being. Diverse ethnic, racial, and linguistic students face significant challenges and are placed at considerable risk by long-observed structural inequities evidenced in society and schools. Teachers must develop the capacity to be culturally sensitive, provide culturally responsive pedagogy, and regularly self-assess for biases implicated in positive academic outcomes for students in kindergarten through Grade 12. Research and practice have suggested that racism and discrimination in the form of racial microaggressions are observed daily in schools and classrooms. This article provides an overview of racial microaggressions in the school context and their damaging effects on students. We provide specific examples of microaggressions that may be observed in the U.S. classroom environment and how schools can serve as a positive intervention point to ameliorate racism, discrimination, and racial and language microaggressions. This comprehensive approach blends theory with practice to support the continued development of cultural humility, culturally sustaining pedagogy, and an equity-responsive climate.
As newcomers, I recall being punished or yelled at loudly for speaking Spanish to my sister in school. Speaking Spanish was equivalent to being disrespectful. The teacher would yell, “Speak English in my class!” and students became her informants. They would report to her when they heard us speaking Spanish. She would praise the students and demean us. After a while, we didn’t even speak Spanish at home.
The deleterious effects of racial and language microaggressions evidenced in separate and overlapping systems cannot be overstated (Keels et al., 2017; Lui & Quezada, 2019; M. T. Williams, 2020a). Microaggressions are “subtle acts,” statements, insults, and intimations directed against people in marginalized groups (Pierce, 1970; Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). K–12 schools are one context in which students experience microaggressions from diverse school members (teachers, peers, and staff; Gold, 2017; V. W. Huynh, 2012) daily. Many K–12 students report similar everyday racial and language microaggressions (V. W. Huynh, 2012; Pérez Huber, 2011; Wintner et al., 2017). Given the amount of time youth spend in schools, the importance of school connectedness to positive student outcomes, and the lack of racial and ethnic concordance between K–12 students, teachers, and staff, understanding microaggressions and their harmful effects has never been more critical. The extent to which the differences in racial, ethnic, and language composition may play a role in racism, discrimination, and racial and language microaggressions evidenced in schools is an important consideration for all educational stakeholders.
As diverse ethnic and racial (ethnoracial 1 ) and linguistic groups increase in the United States, classrooms will include an increasingly diverse student composition. Before 2014, White American students represented the majority student group; however, as of 2014, students of color outnumber White American students in U.S. public schools (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2014). These numbers include students of ethnoracial diversity and national and linguistic diversity (Vasquez & Altshuler, 2017). The NCES (2019) projects the following demographic qualities for K–12 student-population enrollments from 2020 to 2025 (NCES demographic identifiers are used for consistency): Asian American students are projected to increase the most (from 5.9% to 6.4%), Black American and Hispanic students are projected to slightly increase (from 15.0% to 15.1% and from 27.5% to 27.6%, respectively), and White Americans students are projected to decrease (from 46.1% to 44.6%). Students of color (half of all children and births) are likely to be the statistical majority in the United States (NCES, 2019).
Students of ethnoracial and linguistic diversity face significant challenges in American education—not because these students are deficient but because schools are multiculturally deficient (Nieto, 2017). For example, every day students experience structural racism (Trent et al., 2019), teacher racial bias (Starck et al., 2020), and microaggressions (Wintner et al., 2017). In addition, immigrant students experience discrimination in the form of xenophobia, nativism, and racial microaggressions both outside and inside of school (Pérez Huber, 2011). Experiencing racial microaggressions has the potential to negatively affect mental health, self-esteem, engagement, and academic performance (DeLapp & Williams, 2015; Nadal et al., 2014). One of the authors of this article, B. T. Valencia, shared her experience as an immigrant student in K–12 education, which illustrates increasing academic disengagement: After hearing other students had spoken to their guidance counselor, I went to the office to find out if I had a guidance counselor. As I approached the office of the guidance counselor, she looked up and said, “You must be looking for the vice principal’s office; that is next door.” I walked away and back to class. I never saw a guidance counselor in all my education of K–12, but I saw plenty of the security guards, principals, and vice principals.
There is currently only minimal educational research concerning the impact of racial microaggressions toward children in general (Wintner et al., 2017) and K–12 academic performance in particular (Pérez Huber, 2011). The purposes of this article are to clarify the definition, emergence, and maintenance of racial and language microaggressions in the school ecology and to outline strategies—derived from other disciplines—that may prevent or reduce microaggressions in K–12 schools. First, we define microaggressions to lay a foundation for the subsequent discussion of their relevance in the school ecology. Second, we describe three categories of microaggressions commonly used in the literature: racial microaggressions, nativist microaggressions, and immigrant-origin microaggressions(Arce et al., 2020; Gold, 2017; V. W. Huynh, 2012; Pérez Huber, 2011; Wintner et al., 2017). Third, and throughout the article, we provide illustrative real-world examples of microaggressions experienced by the authors of the current article from their schooling, parenting school-age children, and working in K–12-related professions. Fourth, we briefly review the link between microaggressions and student outcomes (achievement and well-being). We conclude with prevention strategies that may decrease the emergence and maintenance of racial and language microaggressions, although more empirical support is needed for efficacious and effective prevention and intervention efforts in schools.
Microaggressions Defined
Microaggressions are (a) subtle statements and insults directed against people in marginalized groups representing a subtle form of bias or discrimination (Sue, 2010; Sue & Capodilupo, 2008) and (b) deniable acts of discrimination on the basis of false or pathological stereotypes about marginalized groups (M. T. Williams, 2020a, 2000b). These behaviors are often brief and occur in common conversation or everyday interactions; they can communicate disrespect, degradation, and hostility to the target person or group, intentionally or unintentionally (Pierce, 1970; Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). More recent research indicates that microaggressions may be more intentional than unintentional and constitute a form of aggression (Kanter et al., 2017; M. T. Williams, 2021).
In the past, the literature has described classifications of microaggressions, such as microassaults or microinvalidations (Sue et al., 2007); however, it should be noted that researchers are currently interrogating the different outcomes among these classifications of microaggressions (Lui & Quezada, 2019). Regardless of form, microaggression research reveals these three themes: Microaggressions are a stressor on the recipient; interpersonal microaggressions are more strongly correlated with negative effects to the recipient; and Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans are more negatively affected by microaggressions than their White American counterparts (Clark et al., 2014; Johnston-Goodstar & VeLure Roholt, 2017; Lui & Quezada, 2019). For K–12 educators, considering microaggressions for all students is important, and for diverse racial and ethnic students and English-language learners (ELLs), this information is particularly salient.
For example, ELLs in the United States speak more than 400 languages, and native Spanish speakers make up 80% of ELLs (Christian, 2006). Because ELLs are the fastest-growing U.S. student population (Christian, 2006), K–12 teachers benefit from a deeper understanding of the complex issues forming their ethnoracial identities and the cumulative intersectional issues that affect risk. B. T. Valencia shared a microaggression stemming from her middle school teacher’s attempt to negate her experience as a Latina immigrant: I fell in love with a perfume called White Linen. My White sister-in-law used it, so after having enough money, I purchased it for myself. I took my perfume to school as a way to show that I could afford such a luxury and I was just like other “Americans.” My sewing teacher noticed I had it, confiscated the perfume, and said out loud, “This cannot be your perfume.”
The sewing teacher made racist and nativist assumptions, knowing that the student was Latina. The stereotype that she was poor, uncouth, and not elegant—or American—enough to have this perfume motivated not only the not-a-true-citizen and the assumption-about-status microaggressions but also the actual confiscation of property. Microaggressions’ adverse effects followed her throughout her schooling, even when she attempted to assimilate as an immigrant in America.
Three Types of Microaggressions in the School Ecology
Some key intersectional areas or groups in which microaggressions operate in schools include race and ethnicity, sexual- and gender-minority status, gender, ability and health status, religion, age, immigration and adoption status, and socioeconomic status (Lui & Quezada, 2019). Examining the nuances of racial microaggressions within the context of the dominant White American culture is especially important for conversations about K–12 education. Goldring et al. (2013) reported that approximately 82% of all public-school teachers are White (non-Hispanic), 7% are Black, and 8% are Hispanic. This overwhelming and disproportionate prevalence of White teachers underscores the importance of disseminating research and experience-based information to expand teacher training and professional development (PD).
Many types of microaggressions are derived from or have an aspect of racial and/or ethnic biases. Pérez Huber (2011) situated racial microaggressions as a conceptual framework to explain how students experience microaggressions that can be categorized as racial, nativist, and immigrant-origin (Fig. 1).
Conceptual framework of microaggressions in the school ecology. These three categories of microaggressions in schools are nested under the racial microaggressions; nativist and immigrant-origin microaggressions operate within racial framing. In this way, they can be considered subsets of racial microaggressions.
Most microaggressions are studied separately, but Calabrese et al. (2015) noted that multiple marginalized identities might make recipients more prone to experiencing microaggressions. We describe 16 types of microaggressions that can occur in the classroom, including racial, nativist, and immigrant-origin types. These microaggressions are nested under the racial microaggression category. The 16 microaggressions we include are not an exhaustive list; rather, they are a list of common microaggressions adapted from M. T. Williams et al. (2021) and salient for informing the discussion for K–12 stakeholders (Table 1). The 16 categories include the following, all of which can be experienced by students as racial, nativist, or even immigrant aggressions: not a true citizen, racial categorization, assumptions about intelligence/competence/status, false color blindness, criminality or dangerousness, denial of individual racism, myth of meritocracy/race as irrelevant for success, reverse-racism hostility, pathologizing racial/ethnic culture, second-class citizen, tokenism, attempting to connect using stereotypes, exoticism, avoidance and distancing, environmental exclusion (in which racial identity is excluded from the environment), and environmental attacks in which depictions (e.g., Confederate statues) pose an affront or insult (M. T. Williams, 2020a; M. T. Williams et al., 2021). The 16 categories are useful to consult when considering the research and information in the remaining sections.
Select Types of Microaggressions in Schools
Note: This table represents microaggressions that can be experienced as racial, nativist, or immigrant-origin microaggressions but is not an exhaustive list of microaggressions in schools. Types and definitions are adapted from M. T. Williams (2020a, p. 14–23). The order of the microaggressions listed in the table is consistent with M. T. Williams’s order to assist with cross-referencing between this article and Williams’s article. The authors have used stories from their lives to illustrate how microaggressions operate in the K–12 school ecology. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; NAMI = National Alliance on Mental Illness.
It is essential for educators and educational stakeholders to note that these microaggressions, present in the K–12 school ecology, operate at every level of schooling. The authors of this article included personal narratives in Table 1 to illustrate each of the microaggressions. As can be seen by these narratives, expressions of immigrant and nativist oppression are as present as racial oppression.
Racial microaggressions in schools
Racial microaggressions in schools are microaggressions that are directed toward students who are marginalized because of race or ethnicity. Most ethnoracial groups have a history of experiencing oppression from the White majority, and in the United States, psychological scientists have established that exposure to racial discrimination is related to the following: decreased school performance (Assari & Caldwell, 2018; Chavous et al., 2008), poor psychological functioning (e.g., anxiety, depression, well-being, psychological distress), and physical health challenges across diverse ethnic groups and genders (Cooper & Sánchez, 2016; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Soto et al., 2011; D. R. Williams et al., 2003).
Racial microaggressions in schools may emerge as messages conveying insensitivity to students of color in the classroom by teachers, other students, or staff. For example, expressing surprise when Black or Latinx students gets a math problem right followed by excessive praise may communicate to these students that they were not expected to know the answer because Black/Latinx students are not typically regarded as intelligent. One author of this article, M. Williams, who self-identifies as Black, was tracked out of middle school computer and science courses (a practice of supposed ability grouping; Werblow et al., 2013): My dad had to go down to the school to get my classes changed because the computer had somehow put me in lower-level courses every trimester and ignored my preferences. He made sure I was switched out of Home Economics and Woodshop in exchange for Computer Science 3 and Chemistry. One year, the counselor said, “Don’t you think she’s done enough with computers?” I would not have gotten into MIT without those early skills.
Conversely, encouraging Asian American students seeking assistance to not worry about an upcoming math exam or expressing disappointment if they achieve an average grade can communicate unequal performance expectations. In these cases, the teachers may think they are encouraging success but might be undermining it by using racial stereotypes as their frame of reference for students’ potential (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Lee et al., 2009).
Racial microaggressions can also be environmental (i.e., present in the curricula or physical spaces). For example, Holter et al. (2020) found microaggressions in Montana history textbooks toward Indigenous people of North America and themes that disrespect culture, spirituality, and historical figures. In addition to disrespect, microaggressions were identified that stereotyped Native Americans. A common element in these depictions was problematizing Indigenous cultures compared with White colonizers and the U.S. government (Holter et al., 2020). One of the authors of the current article, D. Printz, recalled her school environment and environmental microaggression: “Our World History course in high school highlighted only people from the African diaspora in relation to ancient Egypt and slavery in the United States, excluding significant Black contributions to history.” Textbooks that include only pictures of non-Hispanic White people or hiring practices that result in the underrepresentation of teachers of color are environmental examples (M. T. Williams, 2019).
The impact of racial microaggressions lies in their pervasive, invisible, and frequently covert nature. As previously noted, microaggressions often leave victims feeling uncertain about whether the experience was due to their ethnoracial background, causing them to expend a great deal of cognitive energy in an attempt to determine the veracity or validity of the experience and intention of the perpetrator. As a result, experiencing a racial microaggression in a classroom or school setting may make it difficult to focus on school-related tasks because of ruminative attempts at deciphering an aggressor’s intent. After the commitment of a microaggression, offenders may be completely unaware of the harm they have caused and often become defensive if questioned about the motivation behind the microaggressive act (Sue et al., 2007). Given that these instances of discrimination can be difficult for the offender to acknowledge or admit, teachers must be knowledgeable about microaggressions and become aware of their own biases, which may lead to microaggressions. Awareness may make it less likely that they commit microaggressions against their students of color or treat them according to negative racial stereotypes. It may be difficult for educators to accept and acknowledge that they may have biases, but everyone has biases about different groups that have become unconscious, including biases related to race. The unconscious biases are often translated into automatic behaviors. Being aware of what biases are held and how they can be uncovered can help shift them into consciousness. Increasing self-awareness by bringing biases into consciousness is one of the six key features of a framework to “create a safe and nonthreatening learning context” (Sukhera & Watling, 2018, p. 2). In addition, empathy was effective at reducing race-based biases in treatment among students and health-care professionals (Drwecki et al., 2011; M. T. Williams et al., 2020). Using the limited racial microaggression research for K–12 populations and drawing on racial microaggression research from other disciplines, such as psychology, educators can work toward reducing the likelihood of committing racial microaggressive acts toward students.
Nativist microaggressions in schools
Oppressive nativist discourses are a subset of racism and are often described as racist nativist framing (Pérez Huber, 2009; Ramjattan, 2019). Pérez Huber et al. (2008) highlighted the distinction between the native-born and the nonnative in this seminal definition of nativism as “the practice of assigning values to real or imagined differences, to justify the superiority of the native, to the benefit of the native and at the expense of the nonnative, thereby defending the native’s right to dominance” (p. 42). The focus of nativism is on the natives and the power to oppress that comes from being native.
In schools, nativist microaggressions center on perceptions of “American-ness” and thus can have a heightened focus on language. Nativist microaggressions are prevalent and detrimental to bilingual students or those who are in the process of learning English. B. T. Valencia described being corrected on her accent so often in school that she stopped raising her hand, even when placed in gifted classes. Jiménez-Castellanos et al. (2013) referred to this process as the “hegemony of the English language” (p. 178) to maintain control over non-White and nonnative groups. Pérez Huber (2010) identified racist nativist framing as a form of oppression toward Mexican students.
Racist nativist framing can be considered a subset of racial microaggressions with the following features: using language to subjugate students, connecting ethnicity to immigration status, espousing a false nonnative narrative, and separating ELLs from an American identity (Pérez Huber, 2011). Something as simple as food can be a source of difference. Even as a high school student, B. T. Valencia linked her oppression as a Mexican to her decision not to eat at school: In high school, my mother still made my sister and me lunch. Although they were delicious bean tortas, we often threw them away on the way to school for fear of our classmates repeating the same joke: “You know why Mexicans refry their beans? Cause they can’t get it right the first time.” Being hungry during school hours was not uncommon for me.
Racial nativist discourse can result in educational institutions maintaining White supremacy (Pérez Huber et al., 2008). Lakoff and Ferguson (2006) argued that the impact of the terms used in the conceptual framing of immigration discussions (i.e., as an “illegal” problem in need of reform) is not neutral but instead loaded with divisive and criminological phrasing. In this way, natives (termed “lawful”) are contrasted with nonnatives (termed “criminal”), which reinforces mechanisms of White supremacy by categorizing those who do and do not seem to belong or those who have value in our country (Guess, 2006; Pérez Huber, 2009). This nativist framing provides the foundation for nativist microaggressions. These frames could be easily reversed by, for example, conceptualizing Mexican and Native Americans as the lawful and original inhabitants of the North American continent and European Americans as hostile, illegal intruders.
Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice officially returned to the use of the terminology “illegal alien” in policies, processes, and press releases as opposed to the more culturally sensitive or neutral verbiage “undocumented immigrant” (Kopan, 2018). Saenz (2014) argued that the current convergence of immigration with criminal law, sometimes termed “crimmigration,” has bolstered microaggressions against the Latinx community, and this crimmigration, in turn, has been complicit in linking criminality with Latinx identity. B. T. Valencia recalled this example from her school years: “I was waiting for my ride home after school as a teacher approached me. He looked right at me and said, ‘What gang do you belong to?’ I was never in a gang.” This microaggression equates Latinx identity with criminal affiliation, and this type of stereotyping affects educational attainment and life outcomes (Brodie et al., 2002). It is not just the framing of issues in the classroom that affects students; civil dialogues and social processes woven into daily lives (e.g., print and nonprint media) also encroach onto the school ecology and classroom experiences and seep through by way of microaggressions.
There are similarities in microaggression mechanisms for students of color, regardless of ethnoracial identity. This similarity means that Latinx students can experience the same types of microaggressions as Asian and Black students, including stereotypes of intellect, treatment as second-class citizens, assumptions about cultural homogeneity, and pathologizing of cultural and communication patterns. Latinx students are seen as similar to Black students in criminology and inferiority while also being considered “alien” and having invalidated racial experiences, similar to Asian students (Rivera et al., 2010). In contrast, Latinx students may also experience microaggressions unique to their culture or ethnicity. They may be targeted because of language issues, particularly concerning “English-only” initiatives (Ayón & Philbin, 2017). B. T. Valencia described the detrimental impact of being required to speak English and being forbidden to speak Spanish in the opening quote of this article. She also recalled that students and extended family members internalized this English-only lesson: My sisters and I went to school together. When we started school, we had two cousins in the school who had been born in the United States but spoke Spanish. To our surprise, when we tried to speak to them, they walked away (even though at my aunt’s house, they spoke Spanish to us). They would not even talk to us because we addressed them in Spanish at school. They turned their backs and would not even acknowledge us. My own family members shunned us because of our inability to speak English even though we had just arrived in the United States. There was no way in hell they were going to speak Spanish in that school environment. They were 7- and 8-year-olds, like us, but they knew we were newcomers. The message was clear: “We speak English only,” so that other kids in the class and the teacher knew the difference between them and us. There was no alternative.
B. T. Valencia’s teacher from the opening quote in this article used the pathologizing-minority-culture microaggression by implying that her use of Spanish was deficient, but the consequences were not subtle or brief. The loss of her native tongue at school mirrored her disconnection with family communication at home and rejection by her same-age extended family at school. Portes and Hao (2002) described an enormous social pressure toward linguist assimilation reinforced by nativist movements that can lead to family conflict, cultural estrangement, loss of parental authority, and even decreased cognitive performance (Portes & Hao, 2002).
Nativist microaggressions are experienced differently for various students. Nadal et al. (2014) noted that Latinx immigrant students experienced more microaggressions than U.S.-born Latinx students with one immigrant parent. In addition, the longer the student resided in the United States, the less prevalent microaggressions became (Nadal et al., 2014). This information is beneficial for educators in classrooms who are welcoming students new to the United States, as newer students may be more at risk and need special attention for several months (Nadal et al., 2014). Finally, Latina students may experience microaggressions in ways that differ from Latino students, resulting in increased physiological and reproductive symptom experiences described in the literature (Nadal et al., 2014; Pérez Huber & Cueva, 2012). Author A. Steketee, who is White with a multicultural family formed by adoption, had a counseling session with an educational psychologist. He suggested sterilization of her Latina 6-year-old daughter; the justification was that sterilization would ensure that the kindergartener would not grow up to have “a bunch of babies” who would “drain the system.”
Johnston-Goodstar and VeLure Roholt (2017) reported the impact of nativist microaggressions in schools or school-related sporting events on Native American students. These microaggressions include name-calling, purposeful discrimination, disrespect through the use of Native American mascots, implicit stereotypes, and explicit taunting. Shear et al. (2015) noted that, in all 50 states, Indigenous communities are presented in K–12 history standards through a Euro-American narrative that marginalizes culture and knowledge. Johnston-Goodstar and Velure Roholt (2017) described the impact of both overt and covert daily nativist microaggressions resulting in native youth feeling unsafe, uncomfortable, and invisible.
Immigrant-origin microaggressions in schools
Less is known about microaggressions with immigrant-origin students, particularly Latino immigrants (Ayón & Philbin, 2017). In the United States, 13% of children are immigrants (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), and an estimated 23% of children between the ages of 5 and 17 years old speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017b). Of those students, 20% report difficulty with English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a). Undocumented immigrants represent a growing percentage of students. Of the 3.9 million K–12 students with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent in 2014, 3.5 million were born in the United States (Passel & Cohn, 2016). Immigrant-origin youth can be defined as adolescents and emerging adults who are either first-generation immigrants (i.e., foreign born), second-generation immigrants (i.e., native born to immigrant parents), or third-generation immigrants (i.e., grandparents who were immigrants; Arce et al., 2020). The 1.5 immigrant-generation category (Rumbaut, 2004), which refers specifically to immigrants who are children, is also salient. Immigrant-origin youth come from immigrant groups that represent “some of the most and least advantaged groups in the U.S. in terms of skills, education, and assets” (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015, p. 1), which means that some immigrant youth will fare much better than their native same-ethnicity peers. Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015) noted that many immigrant-origin youth struggle academically, encounter barriers with language, and face microaggressions.
Regardless of differences in country of origin or designation as first-generation or second-generation, Arora et al. (2021) described the similar risk factors and stressors experienced by immigrant-origin youth. These can include issues pre- and postmigration stressors. Limited English proficiency, immigration-status concerns, limited social support, and national immigration policies can also lead to increased stress for immigrant-origin students (Arora et al., 2021). Central to the development of these youth is their ability to navigate their memberships to the native and dominant national culture and develop multiple group identities (i.e., native and national); however, discrimination resulting from immigration status and membership in racial/ethnic groups can lead to increased depression for immigrant-origin youth (Arora et al., 2021).
Immigrant children whose families have migrated less than 10 years ago, often categorized as new arrivals, face several challenges: Their family income is most likely under the poverty threshold, their families are less likely to utilize programs deemed as social-safety nets, and their parents are less likely to provide educational or institutional guidance (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015) noted that new immigrants to the United States are predominantly people of color from non-European countries. Specifically, by region of birth, Asia accounts for 28% of immigrants, and Mexico accounts for 25% of immigrants (Pew Research Center, 2020; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). As a result, their descendants are placed at risk for treatment as perpetual foreigners and microaggressions (Q. L. Huynh et al., 2011).
Fleras (2016) noted that microaggression definitions require nuanced differences for diverse populations, including immigrants, because of immigrants’ and refugees’ various lived experiences. Although immigrant-origin microaggressions are nested under racial and nativist categories, specific qualities define immigrants’ discrimination experiences (Gold, 2017). El-Bialy and Mulay (2020) described a theme of uprootedness that reflects how immigrants’ and refugees’ right to belong is continually challenged. Unlike nativist microaggressions, which highlight natives, immigrant-origin microaggressions focus on immigrants’ rights to place roots in their country of residence. Students experience this resulting microaggression as a perpetual foreigner (V. W. Huynh, 2012; Kwan, 2015; Nadal et al., 2014). Finally, the linguistic capital of students from their heritage language places some immigrant-origin students at risk of language loss; however, if immigrant-origin students persist with their heritage language within the school ecology in which academic English is valued, they are at risk for increased discrimination and anti-immigrant microaggressions (Kwan, 2015). In summary, immigrant-origin microaggressions challenge belongingness, highlight a sense of foreignness, and devalue heritage language and culture.
Specific microaggressions for K–12 immigrant-origin students included the following: teasing and name-calling, derogatory comments (including threats of deportation), and questioning of legal status and nativity (Ayón & Philbin, 2017). Author B. T. Valencia illustrated immigrant-origin microaggressions with this recollection: In second grade, I wanted to take a bike to school. I longed to be like the other children. I recall locking up my bike, but I never secured it to the actual bike rack. I had no experience with locking up a bicycle. Two older White boys decided to have fun and play with the bike. Unable to defend myself fully because of limited English, I watched in silence as they tried to destroy the bike while simultaneously laughing and calling me a “wetback.” I never brought a bike to school again.
This type of lived experience is supported in the literature; Nadal et al. (2014) noted that Latino/Latina immigrants report more experiences of being treated inferior—as perpetual and inferior foreigners—compared with their native American-born counterparts. Dreby (2012) also noted that questions about legality and threats about deportation could inspire “fears of separation among children regardless of their own legal status or family members’ actual involvement with immigration officials” (p. 830). These microaggressions’ cumulative impact on children can be profound (Ayón & Philbin, 2017; Dreby, 2012). Negative mental health outcomes were significantly associated with racism, especially for Latino/Latina and Asian youth, including immigrants (Priest et al., 2013).
Although more information is needed to understand these processes, it is necessary to recognize that immigrant-origin students are not a monolithic group. Educational research is just beginning to reflect variations within populations to give educators a clearer picture of within-group differences (Nadal et al., 2014). Regardless of the ethnic origin, gender, or age, research on racial and language microaggressions has implications for classrooms in K–12 schools through higher education, especially for informing stakeholders with information about the impact on students of all backgrounds and ages.
Implications of Microaggressions for Achievement and Well-Being
For ethnoracial students and immigrant-origin students, discrimination is a strong predictor of both academic outcomes and psychological outcomes (Guerra et al., 2019). Because microaggressions are discriminatory, the effects of perceived discrimination stay with the student—whether the microaggression occurred in classroom, on the playground, during lunch, or even outside of school (Lin et al., 2016). Verkuyten et al. (2019), reporting on the effect of discrimination on children in school, noted resulting psychological disengagement in the classroom. Author B. T. Valencia shared this memory of the journey from academic achievement to academic disengagement as a result of racial stress: In 7th grade, I was part of the National Honor Society. I recall the first meeting. I entered the room, and the sponsoring teacher immediately said, “Sorry, this is the National Honor Society.” I felt angry and switched off the lights. Immediately, she kicked me out of the class, and, shortly thereafter, from the National Honor Society, for lack of respect. From that moment, I started to lose interest in obtaining good grades.
Engagement is a necessary component for academic achievement (Lei et al., 2018) and is negatively affected by teacher discriminatory attitudes and actions toward all students, including immigrant students (Jiang & Dong, 2020). When the sponsoring teacher’s words caused B. T. Valencia to feel disowned by the Honor Society, she disengaged psychologically and academically.
Although we have discussed 16 racial microaggressions, we briefly want to consider one additional area in which racial disparity becomes a microaggression for K–12 students: technology. Samuels et al. (2020) noted that technology microaggressions negatively affected academics. Although at first this might not seem to be a racial, nativist, or immigrant-origin issue, the online curriculum in Samuels et al. (2020) was not translated into other languages for students who needed it. This technology barrier extended to the students’ homes, in that limited access was noted for some families. Álvarez (2020) described both the lack of technology and the lack of Internet access that has been prevalent in communities of color for several decades. As the poverty level increases in communities, the “continuity of learning” is more at risk because of limited access to technology and broadband. Nine to twelve million students and some teachers are affected in this way: They are currently lacking home Internet access and cannot participate in education (Álvarez, 2020), leading to dire academic consequences. The students most affected by these changes include immigrant students and racialized students (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020). Samuels et al. (2020) listed “technology barrier” as a microaggression in schools, along with the racial color-blindness microaggression and the nativist second-class-citizen microaggression. When COVID-19 necessitated the shift to virtual educational settings, ethnoracial families and immigrant-origin families reached out to author A. Steketee as an educational advocate for computers and training. Without both, children would have lost access to education. Although we do not include technology in our list of microaggressions, we see how a seemingly tangential and ancillary issue can become a racial, nativist, or immigrant-origin microaggression for K–12 students.
For K–12 students, although there is a growing body of knowledge on the impact of racial discrimination on academic achievement, there is less information on the association between microaggressions and academic well-being (Benner & Graham, 2011; Keels et al., 2017). The effects of discrimination on children are traumatic, resulting in anxiety and depression (Anderson et al., 2020), an impaired sense of well-being (Verkuyten et al., 2019), and decreased motivation and school belonging (Guerra et al., 2019). In addition, because microaggressions are often subtle, the ambiguity of the offense can lead the student to become distracted; this distraction, in turn, can decrease the student’s attention for classroom activities and tasks (Brown, 2015).
There is some support for the notion that racial microaggressions affect academic development in different ways across different high school student populations. For example, Keels et al. (2017) found that the microaggressions experienced in high school by Black and Latinx students were contingent on the racial and ethnic composition of and grade levels for the school. In other words, as students transitioned from a high school with one racial profile to a college with a different profile, the exposure to microaggressions changed. Keels et al. (2017) noted that “racially ethnically hostile educational contexts are detrimental for students’ academic achievement and mental health” (p. 22) and strongly recommended that more consideration be given to racial stress and stressors in primary and secondary schools.
Structural discrimination, found in certain school policies, can keep parents of ethnoracial or immigrant students from fully engaging with school systems and teachers. However, this can be detrimental to students’ achievement and well-being because when parents cannot connect to schools, they cannot effectively advocate for their children’s academic engagement, sense of school belonging, and well-being (Adair, 2015). Author A. Steketee, who works as an educational advocate, recalled that a Black student who had relocated to Southern California from Georgia asked for assistance with communicating with his public school: He lacked one semester of math to graduate, yet the advising office would not allow his mother onto campus again to sign a waiver to transfer him to a new class because “she was too big and loud” for the advising office. As his advocate, we quickly worked together to rectify this situation, but I worried about other students whose parents and support circles had been estranged from campus.
It was daunting to consider how many students might face barriers between academic achievement and well-being because of administrators using the avoiding/distancing or pathologizing-minority-appearance microaggressions with parents.
Barriers to Effective Microaggression Prevention
To prevent microaggressions in the K–12 school ecology, teachers can utilize specific strategies; however, engaging these strategies will be less effective if educators lack an understanding of stereotype threat, racial bias, language bias, and color-blind bias. Although these areas cannot be entirely eradicated, educators can reduce their negative thinking, behaviors, and practices by gaining greater insight into each area and its link to deleterious student outcomes.
Stereotype threat
When educators understand stereotype threat, it can help minimize the negative impact on students (J. Aronson, 2004). Stereotype threat is the threat a student feels about being judged by a negative stereotype or fear of confirming a negative stereotype about their group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000) described stereotype threat as placing an extra burden on students cognitively as they worry about confirming low expectations or stereotypes. Stereotype threat was first noted with African American college students (Steele & Aronson, 1995), but it has also been noted with other ethnoracial groups (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Gonzales et al., 2002). Although this worry or threat can affect the students’ academics (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Ford et al., 2008), stereotype threat can also impede students’ psychological well-being, as it is linked to anxiety (Osborne, 2007). Diverse stereotypes (e.g., negative and positive thoughts about students based on their racial and ethnic background) can damage students’ achievement and well-being. Likewise, positive stereotypes, as in the case of “model minorities” and Asian American students, can be harmful as well (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Lee et al., 2009).
Much of the research on stereotype threat has been focused on higher education (Anderson & Martin, 2018), intellectual underperformance (J. Aronson et al., 2002), and IQ-test disparities (Steele & Aronson, 1995); however, stereotype threat occurs in the K–12 school ecology as well. The effects of stereotype threat can be reduced by (a) maintaining a positive, safe ecology in the classroom, so that students’ mistakes are seen as a natural course of learning and not are perceived by students as being related to or reflective of their race (Anderson & Martin, 2018); (b) explicitly teaching students about stereotype threat (McGlone & Aronson, 2007); and (c) having teachers engage in PD about these important topics.
Racial biases
Teachers have been shown to hold implicit and explicit racial biases that especially favor White students (Starck et al., 2020). Implicit biases are automatic thoughts or associations made without conscious thought (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 1998; Staats, 2016; Starck et al., 2020). Staats (2016) noted that several conditions increase the likelihood of implicit biases to form, such as when people have time constraints and incomplete information or are distracted or fatigued. Staats stressed that these are often conditions faced by teachers in the K–12 school ecology. Research has indicated that implicit biases fluctuate over time, are not as stable as explicit biases, and are highly contextual (Gawronski, 2019). The proportion of White women teaching students of color has increased (Goldring et al., 2014), and bias-based beliefs and expectations negatively affect educational practices (Fergus, 2017), especially when teachers have low self-efficacy (Fergus, 2016). Educators’ biases may contribute to racial disparities in various school outcomes, such as discipline and special-education referrals (Chin et al., 2020).
Language biases
In addition to racial biases, Alfaro and Bartolomé (2018) reported that many educators historically perceived code switching (moving between two languages) and using nonstandard English as deficient language practices for students, especially students in the linguistic minority. Specifically, “many educators continue to subscribe to assimilationist viewpoints and believe that linguistic minority and immigrant students would conform to the mainstream culture” (Alfaro & Bartolomé, 2018, p. 17). The implications of this viewpoint can then extend to a disdain for the languages spoken at home by linguistic-minority students. In sociolinguistics, there is a move toward translanguaging (García & Wei, 2014), which includes multiple practices used by bilingual speakers without monolingual norms. Even with this movement, U.S. education has maintained a monolingual orientation in language policy and practice (Menken, 2013; Menken & Sánchez, 2019). Menken and Sánchez (2019) concluded that educators who utilized a monolingual perspective and did not consider home language practices saw students less favorably than educators who adopted translanguaging perspectives and strategies.
Color-blind biases
Color-blind biases have long existed in K–12 school systems. The deleterious effects of maintaining a color-blind attitude have been empirically supported among diverse populations (e.g., Neville et al., 2000). Color-blind ideology is based on the idea of treating everyone the same regardless of race (Terwilliger et al., 2013). This ideology is often harmful and is related to racism, racial privilege, and discrimination (Neville et al., 2000). It can also invalidate the unique experiences of students of color and positive aspects of culture broadly defined. Color-blind statements such as “I don’t see race” communicate that the experiences of people of color are unimportant or that their racial or ethnic identity is irrelevant. Students of color are often proud of their cultural background; therefore, minimizing a person’s heritage and experiential reality can be damaging. Furthermore, a color-blind ideology encourages White American students not to understand the benefits and strengths associated with race and culture in American society. This lack of understanding can foster an ignorance toward the obstacles and harm (including death) encountered by people of color. Further, a color-blind approach typically means that White American students may never understand how their racial privilege influences their advantages currently and later in the workplace.
Students of color may be taught that everyone is equal regardless of race or country of origin and then have confusing experiences in the real world when they are, in fact, experiencing microaggression because of their backgrounds. Great harm can result when young people of color realize through these “subtle” mechanisms that teachers, peers, or others do not favor them; when experiencing these slights with no clear explanation, they start to believe that they are at fault or inherently defective (Nadal et al., 2014; Thai et al., 2017).
Because of the negative consequences of teaching from a color-blind approach, we suggest that instructors utilize a culturally responsive framework instead. A culturally responsive or multicultural approach to education emphasizes differences among cultural groups and celebrates these differences instead of ignoring or minimizing them (Terwilliger et al., 2013). This cultural approach not only ensures that the identities of immigrants and students of color are validated but also assists all in understanding the role of culture in society. By helping White students acknowledge the role of culture, they can better understand different cultural groups’ strengths and uniqueness. Color-blind frameworks in teaching limit adolescent students’ abilities to think critically about race and racism (Aldana & Byrd, 2015). Given that a color-blind ideology is harmful to all students, teachers can model embracing a multicultural, culturally responsive approach in their classrooms. This teaching example may reduce students’ likelihood of committing microaggressions and increase students’ possibility of validating their peers’ racial, ethnic, and linguistic preferences and experiences.
Prevention Strategies
Because of the potential harm of microaggressions in the school setting, educational stakeholders should attempt to reduce the likelihood of microaggressions occurring. There are several ways to do this, all of which require openness to other cultures that may be unfamiliar and the acknowledgment of biases one may hold as an educator, advisor, or administrator.
Importance of culturally sustaining approach
Because of the paucity of K–12 microaggression research, there are fewer evidence-based strategies to discuss. However, Sleeter (2011) described overall findings from the field of K–12 ethnic studies, highlighting a culturally responsive approach and multicultural curricula, which “consistently find a relationship between academic achievement, high level of awareness of race and racism, and positive identification with one’s own racial group” (p. 8). Sleeter encouraged the dissemination of this information to educators to frame strategic instruction to benefit all students. Operationalizing a culturally responsive pedagogy for bilingual and ELLs will also have a positive impact on all students. Because of space constraints, seven of the strategies (i.e., develop a cultural framework, establish school-wide strategies, consider language-based interventions, combat stereotype threat, overtly teach about microaggressions, and assess and address educator biases) are included below; however, we encourage educators to consider continuing to develop a cultural understanding in addition to using these various strategies.
Before we discuss the seven strategies for educators, we offer an additional thought. Culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) expands and enlarges on culturally responsive pedagogy by seeking “to perpetuate and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling” (Paris, 2012, p. 95). Alim and Paris (2017) described the impact of CSP in schools as sustaining communities of color rather than eradicating them. CSP promotes the power of culture by reminding educators that “the future is a multilingual and multiethnic one” (p. 6). Because CSP responds to Whiteness, oppression, and the colonial practices in schooling, it is a powerful framework for educators to reflexively consider—not as a collection of best practices but as a call to educational transformation.
Develop a cultural framework
A framework built on culture can be the foundation of a teaching practice. Responsiveness to culture, in a deep and sustaining way, informs both teaching relationships and teaching practices in ways that benefit students’ cognition and emotion. Hammond (2015) posited a framework, built on neuroscience, that includes three layers of culture: surface culture, shallow culture, and deep culture.
Surface culture includes the observable artifacts of culture such as food, music, art, clothes, and hairstyles. Although these surface-culture topics have a low emotional impact (Hammond, 2015), they could provide an entry point for teachers of young students or teachers who are less familiar with multicultural education. Changes on this level are frequent (think about shifts in music or entertainment). This surface layer is typically what is considered as the most simplistic cultural teaching. Rather than simply celebrating a holiday or essentializing cultural food, educators could highlight the strength in culture and present culture as a strength (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Although this surface culture could be considered only an introduction, especially with younger children, it does not represent deep culture. However, one author, a college professor, was surprised by the intensity of student responses to food issues raised during a class discussion with young adults. Students of color and students of economic and geographic diversity all had painful stories of marginalization centered around cultural foods. It was decided to have a “Stick It to the Man” day, a day for students to protest, denounce the status quo (Jones, 2005), and take back their cultural narratives that had been disrespected by years of K–12 microaggressions in the lunchroom: Students would bring their multicultural foods to share without shame. Students brought bento boxes, kimchi, bean burritos, cornbread, and black-eyed peas—even green-bean cake. Sharing food that had been a source of shame became a symbol of strength. Although food, music, art, literature, hairstyles, and holidays can be problematic if educators “stop at that level, thinking the work of being culturally relevant and responsive with their students is complete” (Cuauhtin, 2019, p. 26), this level can be powerful if the educator adopts a mindset for racial pride, equity, and social change (Gay, 2010).
The next level is called shallow culture, and it includes teaching about interactions between people that might not be overt (e.g., microaggressions). This area has a high emotional impact and includes restorative practices, handling emotions and conflict, and responses to trauma (Hammond, 2015). The covert or nonspoken aspect at this level can be both negative and positive: Behaviors that can lead to feelings of disrespect or offense are negative, whereas behaviors that can be interpreted in ways that build rapport and trust in communities are positive. Hammond (2015) described the brain’s tendency toward negativity bias in interpreting and responding to the negative interactions. Norris (2019) noted that, in contrast to positive information and experiences, this negativity bias means that “Negative information has stronger effects on attention, perception, memory, physiology, affect, behavior, motivation, and decision-making than does equally extreme and arousing positive information” (p. 3).
For older students, in particular, the deep-culture level will form the culturally relevant classroom’s foundation. At this level, students are grappling with the concept of self, ideas of fairness and equity, collaboration and community, values, and their worldview—especially the definition of kinship. It is at the deep cultural level that students learn and encode new ideas, and it is because of deep culture that two different students can have a different interpretation of one phrase or event (Hammond, 2015). An educator could respond endearingly to a student in class by saying fondly, “Well, bless your heart!” However, for a student from the Deep South, this same phrase could also be interpreted as insulting. Students carry their worldview with them, even when they move from one place to another. Deep culture is a vital consideration for educators of immigrant students and ELLs who might have different worldviews or deep cultural norms.
Hammond (2015) described the three levels of culture using the symbol of a tree, with the deep culture as the roots, the shallow culture as the trunk and branches, and the surface culture as the leaves. With the tree as a helpful metaphor for educators, it engenders the idea that the surface and shallow culture can shift and change like leaves and branches, but deep culture remains constant over time like deep roots.
Question cultural generalizations
A final consideration from culturally responsive teaching is the idea of whether a culture is a collectivist culture or an individualistic culture (Hofstede et al., 2010). Some students from a collectivist culture, such as Guatemala, Ecuador, South Korea, and Mexico, may lean more toward interdependence and positive community relationships. This collectivism contrasts with Westernized countries, such as the United States, that are highly individualistic cultures that value competition and self-reliance (Hammond, 2015). Not all cultures practice collectivism in the same ways, but it is helpful for educators to consider this aspect of student identity. It should be noted that the distinction between collectivist and individualistic cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010) has received some critique (Courtright et al., 2011; Guthey & Jackson, 2011). Notwithstanding the critique, the distinction between pathological stereotypes and cultural values is important to consider (M. T. Williams, 2020b), especially as many U.S. professionals are educated and socialized with Western modes of thinking (for a more detailed discussion on collectivism, see M. T. Williams, 2020a, pp. 60–62).
Pathological stereotypes are false ideas or overgeneralized stereotypes about groups that justify inequities, whereas cultural values are actual differences between groups (M. T. Williams, 2020a). As an educational advocate, author A. Steketee worked with an Asian American family who had an unusually complicated educational issue with their high school senior daughter. She was an honor student who had been accepted at an Ivy League college but was unjustly accused of an issue pertaining to artistic expression and expelled. Her parents were not willing or able to confront the school officials because this was disrespectful in their culture. By working with a community Asian American liaison, A. Steketee developed a respectful plan and—eventually—prevailed in connecting the student with legal representation, which led to a successful adjudication of the case.
Illustrative examples of a cultural framework for immigrant students
Kang and Garran (2018) noted that a teacher’s lack of attention for a less vocal student, especially in particular racialized situations, could be considered a microaggression. Drawing on Hammond’s (2015) three layers of culture, the following examples from B. T. Valencia illustrate the types of microaggressions experienced by immigrant-origin students in K–12 school settings: Many microaggression examples of student name-calling, continual bullying, and othering were encouraged by the English-only policy of my first school. However, I also experienced more subtle microaggressions. To give an example of racial microaggression in the environment, I can easily recall the first song I learned as one of only four immigrant students in the school: “This Land Is Your Land.” As a young child and a recent immigrant, I wondered if Mexico had disappeared. For the Pledge of Allegiance, I placed my hand over my heart and moved my mouth. Repetition helped me learn to fit in, but not belong. In Mexico, raising your hand was equal to interrupting the teacher; in the United States, I watched the teacher praise those who raised their hands. Thus, I was unnoticed because I adhered to cultural norms. Finally, if I did speak Spanish, verbal admonishment, standing in the corner, and humiliation shamed me from my language of origin. Eventually, I would not speak Spanish at school to suffer fewer microaggressions and less discrimination
Teachers lead by example, and recognizing and appreciating differences can help students feel a sense of belonging (Allen & Bowles, 2012; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009). Teachers are not expected to know the details of all cultures represented in their classrooms; however, being open to cultures and focusing on the roots of culture (Hammond, 2015) can inform teaching and reduce the risk of microaggressions against students.
School-wide strategies for immigrant students
Cardoza (2019) reported on school-based strategies utilized by U.S. schools receiving the tens of thousands of Central American migrant students around the country. From Texas to Delaware to Wyoming, several whole-school strategies have included environmental additions, such as country flags, additional books in the library in the students’ language of origin, and home visits. In addition, culturally responsive strategies may also include trauma-informed care developed for school systems. Cardoza noted that students might have behavioral differences stemming from trauma in home countries; having strategies for students to take a break, leave the room with a pass, or access other mental-health interventions is important. PD to provide training on trauma, as well as information about the lives of immigrants, can provide school and class environments conducive for the reduction of microaggressions. Diversity training in PD has revealed some evidence supporting the reduction of certain cognitive biases (Pendry et al., 2007). Because there are cultural assumptions and misunderstandings about migrant children that can lead to “upsetting encounters” for immigrant students (Cardoza, 2019, para. 29), whole-school strategies are necessary to positively affect the environment for all students.
Language-based interventions
Teachers of bilingual students and ELLs can sometimes confuse language needs with cognitive needs (Smolarek, 2018). For instance, a student might require a placement test for the English language but not for academic achievement. As a college-access specialist for ELLs, A. Steketee’s immigrant students often encountered an issue: Students could have a perfect score on the SAT math section, yet high school teachers would ask parents to approve an individualized education program because of language-acquisition issues. Smolarek (2018) reflected that K–12 teachers advocate for the incorrect assessment or placement because they assume that the needs of ELLs and special-education students are the same. This language-based misunderstanding can foster a deficit-based assumption that places students on a track in middle school and high school that leads them away from lifelong learning and productive life outcomes. Even the label ELL can carry racial and linguistic marginalization (Smolarek, 2018). Pérez Huber (2011) cautioned educators against framing the language of origin as “impairment” and “deficiency” because this is a form of racial microaggression and harmful to students.
B. Aronson and Laughter (2016) emphasized that educators can be effective with ELL students when they learn with students, gaining information about students’ culture and language. In addition, allowing for code switching and multilingualism in the classroom are additional connections through language that created a welcoming space for students. As with other researchers, Aronson and Laughter encouraged teachers to be mindful of ELLs who are refugees from war-torn or conflict-filled areas in their native countries; these students could have a greater risk of not having received formal schooling before immigrating to the United States. There can be a wide variation in the academic preparation of ELLs.
Combat stereotype threat
Stereotyped ideas about various groups prevail when there is insufficient evidence to the contrary, which is why it becomes imperative to include curricular materials that are culturally responsive. As mentioned earlier, perceiving discrimination may increase the likelihood of behavioral disengagement from coursework. Disengagement may be partially explained by stereotype threat, which can inhibit academic performance through negative stereotypes, suggesting that students from certain racial groups cannot achieve academically (Picho & Brown, 2011; Steele, 1997). With students of color in the class, it may be useful to use lesson plans outlining the achievements of immigrant and racialized group members as well as traditionally recognized notables to help offset the harmful effects of stereotype threat. Specifically, it may instill confidence and hope in students of color that they can accomplish many things despite coming from backgrounds that have less celebrated success stories than their White peers.
More importantly, including curricula that highlight the contributions of racialized students may disconfirm stereotypes held by White students. If these students have not previously had close contact with people from other ethnoracial groups, they may adhere to stereotypes on the basis of negative and inaccurate media portrayals, which could potentially develop into negative biases. Having several lesson plans throughout the school year devoted to the success of prominent people of color may directly contradict negative stereotypes, thereby providing White students an alternate perspective. Positive multicultural messages should also be infused into all lessons, fostering White students’ perceived value of other cultures and, in turn, the value of their peers who are part of these cultures.
Teachers would also see cultural-sensitivity benefits in their classrooms from teaching social-justice activism throughout history. Although historical facts about the oppression of various groups may already be covered, it is vital that people of color not be depicted as mere victims. Oppressed cultural groups have many strengths, such as close-knit families, communities, resourcefulness, and spirituality, which has allowed them to persevere and often succeed in the face of adversity. Learning about these qualities is valuable for racialized students. It informs students from all ethnoracial and national backgrounds about social movements that fought, continue to fight, and have prevailed against the oppressive systems that are inbred in the United States.
Teach about microaggressions
Because of the pervasive nature of microaggressions, developmentally appropriate and formal methods of educating K–12 students on microaggressions’ presence and impact are needed. Much of the current research on how microaggressions are taught is focused on adult learners but may be beneficial if tailored to younger students. Educators substantially affect the conversation’s tone and depth and should moderate the learning experience to foster collaboration, sincerity, and safety (Ortega et al., 2018). Terms and concepts (i.e., microaggressions, racism, privilege) should be defined early, and visual representations are encouraged. For example, Fisher et al. (2017) discussed a workshop in which the term “stereotypes” was given a visual elaboration in a role-playing exercise in which a person of color performed daily activities while a few participants who were named after stereotypes (e.g., single mother, impoverished) followed close behind them. Whether through role-play, video, or other media, these representations may help students understand these concepts and how they apply to everyday life. Training may also include discussing students’ reactions to microaggressions or suggestions for bystander interventions (Fisher et al., 2017). It may be beneficial to end the discussion with students’ feelings about the class material and for teachers to facilitate healthy interpersonal communication skills (Ortega et al., 2018). As with all lesson plans, the examples of microaggressions and facilitation of discussion should be appropriate for students’ age groups. In light of the detrimental outcomes for students of color, the scarcity of research on the microaggressions curriculum for K–12 students highlights the need for student education on issues of subtle discrimination.
Address microaggressions
Because pointing out microaggressions is typically met with social punishment, students may have already learned that they cannot respond when they experience or witness a microaggression. Thus, the onus is on the teacher to point out microaggressions when they occur, explain that they are not acceptable, and invite students to report them when they occur. Students must understand that they are welcome to point out microaggressions, no matter who the offender is, even if it is the teacher. This example from the teacher will communicate safety and fairness to students of color and model responsible ownership of mistakes to potential offending students.
Therefore, if a student shares an experience about microaggressions, the teacher should take time to talk to the student in private about his or her feelings and learn details about why the comment or behavior was distressing. If the student is amenable, the teacher can facilitate a conversation between the student and offender to help the offender develop a deeper understanding of the origins of these thoughts and behaviors and build empathy surrounding his or her impact on others.
Teachers should also be alert for the occurrence of microaggressions in the classroom and not hesitate to call them out when they occur. Targets of microaggressions may feel shock, confusion, or shame that prevents them from effectively responding in the moment. Children who receive help from teachers will feel supported and will learn how to respond on their own for future occurrences. Further, by acting in the moment, teachers can use the event as an opportunity for learning. Teachers can ask microaggressive students questions such as the following: “What makes you think that?” “How do you know that about those groups?” “How do you imagine [the target] might be hearing what you just said?” “How might others understand the statement you made?” Teaching about microaggressions should not be punitive but informational. Students can be reminded that these mistakes are common and that cultivating cultural understanding is a life-long process.
Assess and address educator biases
Although it is important to create a safe place in the classroom for students of all races and ethnicities, it is even more crucial for teachers to continually assess their own racial biases. Microaggressions go unnoticed by offenders because they occur as automatic reactions to unconscious biases and stereotypes. Dovidio and Gaertner (1998) described aversive racism as negative feelings toward people of color that include uneasiness, disgust, or fear but do not appear as open hostility. Aversive racists usually claim to have progressive and egalitarian views and may not be aware of their negative biases.
Researchers have traditionally measured teachers’ explicit racial attitudes; however, this may not capture the unconscious nature of aversive feelings toward particular groups of individuals. Glock et al. (2013) reviewed the many difficulties that come with measuring explicit attitudes: When assessing teacher attitudes toward students who traditionally suffer from low educational achievement, teachers endorsed positive, overt attitudes toward the student’s cultural group; however, their implicit attitudes were more likely to be negative and more indicative of their actual behaviors, such as relying on stereotypes when interacting with students of color. Educators may hold positive, conscious attitudes toward particular groups but may not be aware of unconscious attitudes. These unconscious attitudes may be more likely to drive behavior when interacting with immigrants and students of color.
Teachers can increase self-awareness of microaggressions that they perpetrate by examining their own biases, reflecting on the prior language they have used and creating a classroom environment in which students feel welcome and comfortable reporting microaggressive statements. Sue and colleagues (2019) described how teachers who have microaggressed could better support the targeted student by reducing their own feelings of defensiveness, acknowledging that their statement or behavior may have been hurtful and affirming the student’s emotional experience. Those on the receiving end of microaggressions may also benefit from receiving the explicit encouragement that they are cared about as individuals and as members of their ethnoracial community (Sue et al., 2019). When teachers are aware of their own biases, their likeliness to commit microaggressions is lessened (Pearce, 2019). Educators checking their own biases and responding empathetically to microaggressions can help students of color feel valued while modeling healthy conversations surrounding race and discrimination.
Conclusion
In this article, we discussed racial and language microaggressions in the K–12 school ecology experienced by diverse students. Much of the empirical evidence on microaggressions is not derived from educational research but rather from psychological research (e.g., Forrest-Bank & Jenson, 2015; V. W. Huynh, 2012; Thai et al., 2017). Teachers, school building leaders, and staff must have the knowledge, skills, and awareness about students’ experience of racial discrimination as expressed through microaggressions. This knowledge can lead to a better understanding of the challenges faced by students of color, new immigrants, and English learners and how these challenges are implicated in important student outcomes.
We have shared strategies for educators to consider when dealing with microaggressions in the school ecology. Education theory and practice have moved from the surface experience of sharing cultural foods and holidays to considering deeper cultural reflections to reframe K–12 instruction with cultural relevance. Developing a culturally sustaining framework with school-wide support can help educators ensure that racial microaggressions do not derail students’ resilience. By combating stereotype threat, educators can both teach about microaggressions and respond to microaggressions. Teachers should also become aware of their own racial biases and how these relate to their classroom behavior concerning microaggressions. Holding a color-blind ideology may make it difficult to see differences, which is why exploring biases may help in understanding the experience of an increasingly diverse student population. These prevention strategies can foster an equitable atmosphere in the classroom, in which students of all races are provided with a safe environment to learn, communicate, and grow. As Samuels et al. (2020) noted, “Although there are numerous examples of microaggressions that permeate our classrooms, teachers are the centrifugal force to decrease discourses that negate learning” (p. 300). Microaggressions have a destructive influence, but teachers can have a strong transformational impact in the lives of K–12 students.
