Abstract
We present a case analysis of the controversy and public debate generated from a school district’s efforts to address racial inequities in educational outcomes by diverting special funds from the highest performing students seeking elite college admissions to the lowest performing students who were struggling to graduate from high school. Widespread arguments against the proposed change emphasized the identification of highly successful students as “worthy” and others as “unworthy” of resources. Through an analysis of print and digital public texts, we identify a narrative cycle that informed public debate: (a) colorblind rhetoric, (b) academic performance is presumed to emerge solely from talent and effort, so (c) academic performance then becomes a measure of worth, and finally, (d) efforts to address racial disparities are “unfair.” We argue that narratives identifying some students as worthy and others unworthy are highly influential in the outcomes of many educational policy and funding debates.
Those who endeavor to address racial inequities and injustices in education are often confronted with a stark and disturbing reality: These efforts are typically met with concerted, persistent, and often vociferous resistance. Again and again, we see this resistance in liberal as well as conservative communities (Brantlinger, 2003; Lee, 2005; Noguera, 2003; Noguera & Wing, 2008; Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Pollack & Zirkel, 2013). Resistance inevitably comes from the affluent parents of high-achieving children (Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Vaught, 2011), but it frequently comes from educators as well (Castagno, 2014; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000). This resistance can take many forms and can involve a variety of strategies—from the “White flight” from newly integrated schools in the 1950s and 1960s to modern, tech-savvy campaigns to change policy—but this resistance is nearly always framed as “simply” a concern about “quality” and “declining standards” (see e.g., Lee, 2005; Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997; Pollack & Zirkel, 2013). Often, as in this case, the efforts to preserve resources utilized by the highest performing students from the most affluent families at the expense of resources for struggling, often lower-income students are successful. These efforts to protect funds for the highest performing students, then, become a central practice in the perpetuation of the racial, ethnic, and economic achievement gap in schools. In this article, we seek to uncover the narratives about race, merit, and worth that underlie many efforts to resist equity efforts in a wide range of educational settings.
We focus in on one such resistance effort by examining the narratives that informed public debates about a reform effort explicitly designed to address racial and ethnic disparities in educational outcomes. We analyze the public dialog and debate concerning a district proposal to move all required science lab instruction into the regular school day and to cease funding before and after school science lab instruction. The before and after school schedule was found to interfere with some students’ ability to pass a required class and thus was harming their ability to graduate. This had a disproportionate effect on low-income students and thus students of color at this high school. Details about the proposed change and its rationale can be found below. Resistance to the reform came from parents and community members keen to protect the extra resources for high-achieving students who used the additional instructional time to take a large number of advanced placement (AP) science classes. The questions at stake were urgent and the money substantial.
The Story: Berkeley High, the “Achievement Gap,” and the Science Lab Dilemma
Berkeley High School 1 (BHS) is the sole comprehensive public high school in Berkeley, California, and is racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. The school has been the site of much research and reporting on issues of race and the so-called achievement gap for more than 30 years (e.g., Noguera, 1994; Noguera & Wing, 2008). The city of Berkeley is a university town that sits within a geographic context that is highly racially and economically segregated and in which schools and districts vary enormously in terms of student test scores or other measures of how well students are learning (Noguera, 2003). The city is characterized by strong racial housing segregation, with expensive hills communities to the north and east and less expensive flatland communities in the south and west. Housing booms over the past 25 years have exacerbated existing economic disparities between racial and economic groups. Houses in the hills of Berkeley or in wealthier eastern streets at the time cost upwards of $1 million, but even small two-bedroom houses in the flatlands cost $500,000 or more. Even so, the city and BHS manage to maintain economic diversity through rent stabilization, public housing, and requirements that developers include below–market rate housing in their projects.
Berkeley High School has a large and persistent racial, ethnic, and economic achievement gap: Table 1 presents data from BHS’s School Accountability Report Card (SARC) (Berkeley Unified School District [BUSD], 2013), showing racial, ethnic, and economic differences in academic performance at the time of these events. This racialized pattern has a longstanding and persistent history at Berkeley High (e.g., Noguera & Wing, 2008), and when Berkeley High was once again named the high school with the largest racial and ethnic achievement gap in California in 2009 (Barglow, 2009; Knobel, 2009), the BHS School Governance Council (SGC) 2 sought targeted ways to improve the educational outcomes of struggling students by focusing on specific barriers to student success. One particularly visible barrier, especially for low-income and African American and Latina/o students, involved the way in which science labs were scheduled at BHS.
Berkeley High School Demographic and Student Achievement Information
Source. Berkeley High School Accountability Report Card, 2013.
Data reported here for Filipino students only; other students too few to report anonymously.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged defined by State of California as meeting at least one of the following criteria: (a) Neither parent has a high school diploma or (b) student is eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch.
The — in the table indicates that no data were reported, usually because there are too few students to report anonymously.
The Science Laboratory Dilemma
Berkeley High had a longstanding commitment to provide additional instructional minutes for science education, more than virtually any other comprehensive public high school in the state. In the years leading up to these events, these extra instructional minutes had taken the form of required before- and after-school science labs. The district was proud of the extra instructional time it offered in science as this additional time allowed many high-performing students to complete several AP classes in science. However, the before- and after-school science labs were very poorly attended for a number of complex reasons, and this pattern was causing many poor students, typically students of color, to fail required science courses. This prevented them from receiving a high school diploma. Moreover, holding labs outside of the school day was a costly model because teachers had to be paid a salary supplement for the overtime work, and this limited the school’s financial capacity to attempt other interventions.
Over time, it became increasingly clear that the before- and after-school labs, designed to improve science learning, were actually exacerbating rather than mitigating the school’s racial and ethnic achievement gap, leading the Governance Council to recommend eliminating the before- and after-school labs and integrating the laboratory curriculum into the regular class time. The rationale for this change was to: (a) increase access for all students to required science courses, (b) improve integration of the curricular content of the lab and lecture portions of the coursework, and (c) release funds to address what school leadership saw as an educational priority: improving the educational outcomes of the districts’ large African American and Latina/o student populations. The decision would result in an overall reduction in the number of instructional minutes allocated for laboratory science classes but would free up a substantial amount of money used to pay science teachers for the additional work outside of the regular school day (for more detail, see Pollack & Zirkel, 2013). This decision was announced in December 2009 and was to be implemented at the beginning of the 2010–2011 school year.
Resistance and Resolution
A well-organized campaign to reverse the decision was quickly launched by a relatively small group of (predominantly White and more affluent) parents and teachers of the high-achieving students who had been especially well served by the before- and after-school labs. The before- and after-school lab arrangement gave this relatively small, elite group of students a clear competitive edge in admission to highly selective colleges. The additional instructional minutes had enabled BHS to get a waiver allowing students to take AP science classes without first taking the prerequisite high school courses (as is the case in most other high schools), thus enabling students to complete far more AP science classes than would be possible if AP students were required to take, for example, high school chemistry before AP chemistry as students are at other schools.
One especially effective aspect of this resistance was its successful engagement of several local news organizations. The story spread around the greater metropolitan area and to Southern California in a matter of days. Those opposed to the change effectively framed the way it was presented to news organizations and various education and science bloggers, who then presented the story as one in which “crazy,” “liberal” school personnel were planning to cut science labs because “too many White students” were enrolled. This debate moved to a number of online comment boards with some comments containing a viciously racist tone. Over a period of months, the ideological battle over the proposed change reached a fevered pitch, with critics becoming increasingly vocal and vitriolic and some parents calling for the high school principal to step down. The district superintendent tried to tone down the public rhetoric by engaging the public in various ways, including a letter to the community pointing out that moving science labs to the regular school day could have many pedagogical benefits to offset the loss of instructional time. The parents did not back down, however, and eventually Superintendent Huyett decided that a compromise with the parents and teachers of AP students was the only way forward. This plan kept the before- and after-school labs in place, but only for AP classes, thus ensuring that AP students retained additional resources. Some hoped this would calm the loud parental anger and angst about the proposal. Klein (2010) notes, a compromise proposal negotiated by Berkeley’s school Superintendent William Huyett may help ease some of the anger generated by the original plan. . . . Huyett said in an interview that the “healthy debate” over the science labs issue was a good sign that the community cares a lot about the academic achievement of all of its kids. He only hopes now that things can cool down and a “less intense dialogue” will follow with a “focus on the issues.”
By leaving intact the extra funding for AP science labs before and after school, three important changes resulted from the compromise: (a) The AP students retained the extra resources and additional instructional time they had always had; (b) to the extent that the before- and after-school labs were a problem for a subset of students (poor students, students of color), the barrier to their enrollment in AP classes was now codified with a formal barrier; and (c) the AP science teachers were able to keep their extra pay.
As two White women educators living in the area who are committed to creating racially just schools and colleges, we found ourselves shocked by both the tone of the debate and the near-complete silencing of voices in support of the proposal. As White women, we were also subject to vitriolic dialogs in a variety of situations in which others assumed that we “must see how stupid this is.” We also taught educational leadership students struggling to make sense of similar parent dynamics as they were trying to make changes to address related needs in their schools. This article emerged from our exploration of that pattern, in which educational leaders propose changes to address what they see as injustices in their school’s practices and affluent, privileged parents put up a successful resistance to those efforts. Our goal here is less to examine this particular change than to explore some of the narratives used to thwart these efforts to explore what these narratives reveal about how the public make meaning of efforts to create more equitable schools.
Conceptual Framework
Critical race theory (CRT), LatCrit theory, and the social construction of merit and worth provided the theoretical frames we used to guide our study. We gave particular attention to CRT’s conception of the ways that Whiteness is employed to access resources and material advantage (e.g., Crenshaw & Gotanda, 1995; Gillborn, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2014; Harris, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 2012) and the majoritarian narratives that support these efforts (e.g., Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Yosso, 2006).
Critical Race Theory
We highlight two ways that CRT can help us make sense of the public debates that we see in this case: (a) CRT’s focus on the allocation of resources and educational CRT theorists’ conceptualization of educational resources as both signals of and tools that protect advantage and (b) majoritarian narratives as a means by which differential access to educational resources is both explained and justified. A core insight from critical race theorists has been the role of race and racism in policing the allocation of resources. CRT theorists highlight the ways that racism is both centrally concerned with the distribution of resources and a means of distributing resources unequally. Education is no stranger to these processes (Bell, 1992; Gillborn, 2013, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2012). Educational resources—be they teachers, curricula, technological, or physical—are seen as both scarce and highly desirable. In this present work, we examine public discourse about a proposed reallocation of a small portion of a school’s resources from the most advantaged students to the least. CRT helps to illuminate the ways this specific debate is part of a larger struggle over access to advantage.
CRT has also highlighted the importance of stories as vehicles of racism (Bell, 1992). Solórzano and Yosso (2002; Yosso, 2006) coined the term majoritarian narratives to describe stories that reflect what Delgado and Stefancic (1993) refer to as the “bundle of presuppositions, perceived wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant race bring to the discussion of race” (p. 462). Solórzano and Yosso note that because majoritarian narratives generate from a legacy of racial privilege, they are stories in which racial privilege seems “natural” (2002, p. 28). Such narratives support the status quo and explain, justify, rationalize, and support the existing pattern of racially unequal allocation of resources (see also Brantlinger, 2003; Castagno, 2014; Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Vaught, 2011). In this article, we explore how majoritarian narratives inform debate about who “deserves” or “merits” financial support.
Social Construction of Merit
Baez (2006) reminds us that merit is a social construction whose meaning and purpose is determined by how it is used within schools and other institutions, and therefore, merit practices tell us much more about the society and institutions that use them than about the individuals who are subjected to them. The unchallenged acceptance and use of the concept of merit as a real and legitimate means for identifying individual worthiness formed a basic underlying assumption upon which the debate discussed in this article was staged and rationalized. “Merit” becomes an organizing principle for resource allocation by constructing and codifying some students as more “worthy” or “deserving” than others (see also El-Haj, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2012; Oakes, 2008). Although merit is by definition a judgment of the observer and not an actual characteristic that resides within the person being judged, merit is made to appear legitimate because of how it is used to bind together meaning (deservingness) and utility (determining and measuring value or talent) in the service of a higher purpose (e.g., fairness, excellence, efficiency, and the health and prosperity of a democratic society) (Baez, 2006). Leonardo and Broderick (2011) highlight the way that “smartness” operates as an ideology and a form of property within educational settings. We build on these ideas to reveal how majoritarian narratives of smartness and merit render some students and their families as worthy and others unworthy of scarce educational resources (Castagno, 2014; El-Haj, 2006).
Overview
We analyze text and quotes from the public discussion that took place over a period of months in late 2009 and early 2010 concerning school officials’ plans to cease funding before- and after-school science labs at Berkeley High School and divert those funds to struggling students in an effort to improve the overall high school graduation rate. The story and the subsequent debate about the decision was carried in every local newspaper, local and National Public Radio (NPR) talk shows featured the story and encouraged public debate about it, and it was picked up by media outlets across the state and even internationally. As a result, a tremendous amount of text was generated regarding the proposed change, its meaning, and public reactions to it. This text includes actual news stories, news headlines, content from blogs, public comments posted to websites, and letters to the editor. Using qualitative analysis, we examine this public discourse to reveal what we are terming a narrative cycle of race, merit, and worth in which stories are presented as arguments supporting the dedication of scarce educational resources to only the most high-achieving, typically affluent, students. Our purpose is to use this case study to explore how these narrative frames diverted attention away from the larger question of whether or not the schools in the district were serving all students adequately and instead focused attention on discussions of success, merit, race, and ultimately, worth.
Methods
We used a qualitative approach to analyze public comments made in reaction to the news stories. These comments are typically, though not exclusively, made anonymously, and as such they offer individuals an opportunity to express private views without concern for public sanctions (e.g., Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Zirkel et al., 2011). Given the social prescriptions about “race talk” in contemporary life (Myers & Williamson, 2001; Pollock, 2005; Villenas & Angeles, 2013), along with the public’s increasing reliance on online platforms for news, commentary, and engagement in public debate on social issues (Purcell, Rainie, Mitchell, Rosenstiel, & Olmstead, 2010), we believe that anonymous online public forums represent an opportunity to explore ideas and perspectives that may not be openly expressed in other public contexts. We feel that this new public sphere in which issues of public import are discussed and debated (Taylor, 2004) represents an especially valuable source of data for examining views related to issues of race and equity, particularly because online environments can be so disinhibiting (Suler, 2004).
Materials and Sources
Through Internet searches using Google and Lexus-Nexus using the terms Berkeley High School, science labs, science lab controversy, and Berkeley science labs, we were able to find 39 news stories about the BHS controversy in print and/or online versions of 10 different news outlets, 4 of which identify as progressive papers (East Bay Express, Berkeley Daily Planet, Berkeleyside, and Daily Californian) and 6 as politically moderate or neutral (San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Contra Costa Times, Los Angeles Times, KGO-TV Online, and Berkeley High Jacket). Readers posted 347 online comments in response to the BHS controversy. About one-third of these comments (123) were not identifying a position or were off topic. 3 Of the 224 news site comments that took a position on the proposed change, 188 comments (84%) were opposed to the change and/or critical of the underlying goal of the change (e.g., “So yet again, White students are forced to lower themselves instead of the minorities raising themselves. Praise multiculturalism!”). Thirty-six comments (16%) were in favor of or sympathetic to the proposed change (e.g., “I think this is a GREAT idea. White skin privilege rules our society and ought to be left at the door when students enter our public schools. As demographics change in our society, it is important that we are mindful of those changes and modify our curriculum accordingly”).
In addition, 17 (non-newspaper) interactive websites posted a commentary or report on BHS’s proposal to eliminate before- and after-school science labs. These include 1 politically progressive blog on huffingtonpost.com and 9 self-described conservative websites: Americanthinker.com, christopherfountain.com, freerepublic.com, humanevents.com, michellemalkin.com, thenewamerican.com, pajamasmedia.com, townhall.com, and eutimes.com. The remaining 7 websites focus on topics other than politics or express views that do not reflect one predominant political leaning. These are: techdirt.com and eGFI-k12.org (both focus on science and technology education), joannejacobs.com (general K–12 education), bayareaskeptics.org (science-based media analysis), richarddawkins.net (science-based critical thinking), perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com (Anglican conservative), and creators.com (“Los Angeles media company that does content syndication, digital/audio publishing, and licensing content for film and TV”). We identified a total of 675 comments (including blog posts) on the BHS story posted to these websites, 129 of which were off topic or expressed no opinion. Of the 546 comments expressing an opinion, 19 (3%) were in favor of or sympathetic to the proposed change, and 527 (97%) were opposed to the change or critical of its goals.
Across both categories of sources, then, we identified 770 comments expressing an opinion, 715 of which were negative or opposed and 55 of which were supportive of the proposed change. Our focus from the start was exploring resistance to educators’ change efforts, and so our analysis here is limited to the 93% of comments that opposed the change.
Data Analysis
Comments were downloaded from the Internet and stored electronically in folders to which each author had access. We awarded our attention on the negative comments because this was the largest category of comments by far. We began by reading and considering all 715 public comments opposed to the change. The process of analyzing the comments took place over a period of more than a year and was completed manually. Each author read through the comments repeatedly, and we met regularly to discuss what we were observing in the comments. We looked for themes that emerged in order to explore the extent to which our conceptual frameworks accounted for the totality of comments. Following Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2013), themes were identified, discussed, and collapsed into broader categories. Once a reasonable set of themes was identified, each author read through all comments and coded comments individually. Often, different sections of an individual comment might touch on more than one theme. We then came together to discuss our coding over many meetings covering several months. Our initial coding of material showed broad agreement: We agreed on 87% of the codes in our first round. Focusing on comments about which we differed, we found that we needed to revisit the codes we were using to more precisely understand what we were seeing. We discussed at length the precise meaning and labels of codes. Throughout this period, we discussed the codes with each other and with colleagues and made professional presentations of this work to ensure that our codes accurately reflected the comments reported. Having reworked the codes to more accurately reflect the data, we were in agreement on the coding of all comments, with a full understanding that qualitative data are inherently interpretive. The discursive themes that we identified were remarkably consistent across sites, with only a few exceptions: In a few cases, more liberal sources and more conservative sources presented different aspects of a similar theme (see the following). In identifying the four final themes noted in the following, we found that they formed a circular narrative. That is, rather than just four independent themes, we have identified what we see as a circular narrative in which each theme leads to the next to form a majoritarian narrative that both explains and justifies the allocation of greater resources to the most privileged students.
Narrative Themes Embedded in the Public Debate
Four narrative themes emerged from our analysis of the text and quotes from the public discussion that ensued in response to school officials’ plans to cease funding before- and after-school science labs. These themes, typically presented as arguments, together form a circular majoritarian narrative that tells a story from a privileged perspective (Yosso, 2006) about who deserves access to scarce educational resources and who does not. We conceptualize these four themes as an explanatory majoritarian narrative and refer to them collectively as the narrative cycle of race, merit, and worth (see Figure 1). The four components of this narrative are: (a) colorblind rhetoric, in which it is argued that race and ethnicity should be ignored in discussions of educational policy; (b) academic performance, deficit narratives, and the rhetoric of individual responsibility, in which commenters emphasize that academic performance differences are to be expected and are grounded in individual effort, not social structures; and (c) academic performance gaps render some students “worthy” and others “unworthy.” Because academic performance is linked primarily to individual or family effort, then we can use performance as a measure of “worth,” and finally, (d) equity efforts are unfair to White people—therefore, any “change” proposal that gives resources to those who are doing less well in school must do so without taking away from the most “worthy” or it is inherently “unfair.”
Narrative cycle of race, merit, and worth.
Colorblind Rhetoric
A strong colorblind rhetoric emerges in many of these comments, and it sets the stage for other parts of this narrative cycle. Many commenters to the different news stories argued that race “simply does not matter” and, in fact, suggested that all this focus on race was the “real” problem. Several people wrote about this general idea, including commenters to Right-wing blogs, Left-wing newspapers, and politically neutral science websites alike. For example, a person writes to the East Bay Express, a generally Left-leaning local weekly: “Try treating people as individuals and provide assistance on the basis of their individual abilities and needs instead of their skin color” (posted by zl1n0x on http://eastbayexpress.com, December 28, 2009). Similarly, another commenter to the relatively Left-leaning Huffington Post writes: The teachers and counselors [when I was in high school] were looking at the content of our characters. . . . There were plenty of debates about tracking back then. But as I recall, pursuing excellence won out, and no one had too much heartburn over race. (posted by ReasonIsMyReligion on http://huffingtonpost.com, February 20, 2010)
Bonilla-Silva (2006) has effectively argued that much colorblind rhetoric can and often does serve to support institutional racism, all while allowing the speaker to appear nonracist because he or she explicitly espouses equality. In these comments, speakers suggest that “all” that needs to happen to ensure that all students have access to the highest quality education is to “treat them as individuals.” This rhetoric harkens back to what King (1991) termed dysconscious racism, in which many White people have limited and distorted understandings of racial inequality, uncritical acceptance of racial inequities, and therefore tend to espouse ideas suggesting that fairness and justice are served by ignoring issues of race and “treating everyone the same.”
This colorblind view is not always innocuous or naively racist, however. Some comments reveal the more malicious aspects of a colorblind view in their sarcasm and assumptions. For example, another commenter to the local Left-wing weekly paper writes: If schools would stop pitting whites against blacks or brown against black, and instead pit the students against themselves and their own sense of acheivement [sic], maybe the cream would rise to the top and all the bickering would stop . . . no . . . wait . . . cream is white. Sorry. Never mind. (posted by “Mike Miller” on http://eastbayexpress.com, December 27, 2009)
Similarly, a commenter on a conservative website posts: Wasn’t the whole point of the de-segregation of schools in the U.S. to give all races the chance to learn together and enjoy the same opportunities? If student A (white) is smarter than student B (black), whose fault is that? (posted by Toronto Girl on http://pajamasmedia.com, January 15, 2010)
The colorblind rhetoric describing how things ought to be neatly morphs into an assumption that everyone does in fact have equal opportunity. For example, “Steven D” writes on Techdirt.com, a science-focused website: The issue with low and high performing kids is not one of race. The kids who get into AP classes apply for AP classes and voluntarily choose to be in science. NO ONE keeps any kid out because of racial bias. (http://techdirt.com, February 6, 2010)
In this version of the colorblind rhetoric, colorblindness is not presented just as an ideal but is presumed to describe “the way things are.” This leads inevitably to the next theme we identify in these online comments—that differences in academic achievement are perceived to emerge solely from within individual students and families rather than from the structure, practices, policies, and curricula within schools.
Academic Performance, Deficit Narratives, and the Rhetoric of Individual Responsibility
The second theme that emerged from these public debates and discussions reveals a deep belief in immutable differences between individuals and groups—differences that are described as unchanging, often unchangeable, and that warrant different, separate, and largely unequal educational opportunities (Zirkel & Johnson, 2016). Commenters consistently insisted that large, persistent, group-based differences were to be expected and presumed “natural.” Sometimes these ideas were expressed as frustration that schools would even try to address these disparities—since commenters frequently suggested that this was a futile effort and a waste of resources. For example, “Walled Lake Taxpayer” writes: “The black-white gap exists at EVERY school in the country, and is not a function of school structure” (http://sfexaminer.com, December 29, 2009).
The underlying assumption is that these racial disparities are perfectly normal because they are so pervasive and persistent throughout society. These comments reflect a whole category of public attitudes rooted in the uncritical acceptance of racial disparities in academic achievement as simply the “natural order” or things and therefore large performance differences should be both expected and accepted as unchangeable. This point was stressed repeatedly in an episode of the NPR show “Forum” that was devoted to this issue. A member of the BHS School Governance Council who voted against the change notes this in a larger quote about the diversity at Berkeley High: The achievement gap exists all over the United States. That is a tragic part of the past that is still with us today. . . . All our kids go to school together and that’s part of what we love about living in Berkeley. . . . Kids at the top—many of them are children of academics—and we also have urban poor and a very diverse group of kids who are struggling and who didn’t get a great start in school and those are the kids who are struggling at the bottom. (SGC member on Krasney, 2010)
By emphasizing that this is a problem of kids from different backgrounds coming together, she inadvertently de-emphasizes that these children are attending the same schools where some are “not getting a great start.” “DavidShort” writes in response to a Left-leaning Huffington Post blog about these events: Of course there will always be a “gap” between students. There always have been, and always will be. There are those that are gifted, those that try harder, and those that just do not care. But working the system to “shrink” this gap is futile. (http://huffingtonpost.com, February 9, 2010)
These group-based performance differences are presumed to be “normal” and “natural” because they are explained through a large number of deficit narratives (Valencia, 1997, 2010; Valencia & Solórzano, 1997). School failure is attributed exclusively to a variety of internal attributes of those who are struggling. Students who are struggling (and sometimes their families) are described as lacking: They are lacking in “talent” (Bradbury, 2013; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2007; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004), motivation, and effort (Bomer, Dworin, May, & Semingson, 2008; Foley, 1997) or suffering from a number of “cultural deficiencies” (e.g., Valencia, 1997, 2010) that prevent their succeeding in school.
Genetic Theories
Contemporary deficit thinking is a direct descendant of the blatantly racist, pseudo-scientific genetic pathology theory as described by Gillborn and Youdell (2000). It shares with it the same basic underlying assumptions about the immutability of group differences rooted in hereditarianism. Although discredited scientifically, such views maintain their hold on many members of the lay public as well as among a few controversial academics. Many of these comments, primarily posted to politically conservative websites, describe racial differences in disturbingly racist terms, and for that reason, they are difficult to read. These views are not generally given voice in public settings (Myers & Williamson, 2001)—however, the anonymous nature of many online comments allows for their expression (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Suler, 2004). “Artichokegrower” writes: “The White and Asian kids will still find ways to study science. It’s in their genes” (http://freerepublic.com, December 27, 2009). Others use discredited scientific evidence to support their views of the presumed genetic differences between students. The following comment was posted to the San Francisco Chronicle: Mr. Huyett [the District Superintendent] appears to be ignorant of the research and data concerning the fact that ethnoracial groups differ greatly in average levels of IQ. IQ-type intelligence is a highly heritable mental trait. Because Blacks and Hispanics have lower average IQ, they do worse than most Whites (and especially those Whites who inherited high-IQ genes from their brilliant Berkeley faculty parents). Similarly because high-caste Indians, Chinese and Jews tend to have higher IQs, they tend to do better than non-Jewish Whites. For the past 40 years, Arthur Jensen, UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology, has published research on ethnoracial differences in IQ-type intelligence. At UC Berkeley, Professor Jensen is one of their all-time most eminent scholars. (posted by rifraf on http://sfchronicle.com, February 21, 2010)
Still others used sarcasm to “flame” those who would think, naively, that racism played a role in these processes. “Morrisminor” posts on techdirt.com: “Math and science are so racist cause blacks and Hispanics sukk [sic] at it” (January 2, 2010). Such views, expressed here anonymously, are often hidden from publicly held policy debates, but we argue that they are still present— discussed in private settings and informing public opinion about how best to use public resources. Anonymous, online discussions are one of the few public places where one can hear such arguments being forcefully made.
Effort and Motivation
A second set of comments about the presumed cause for the group-based differences in performance concerns students’ effort and motivation to succeed. Struggling in high school is seen as a choice—a choice not to spend time studying or a “choice” not to “care” about school. Because success in school is seen as wholly within the efforts and motivation of students, the emphasis here is on the presumed moral weakness of those who are not doing well. “Karen” posts on eastbayexpress.com: “Perhaps it’s time to realize that those students who do poorly, do so mostly because it is their choice” (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 20, 2009). “Heymanoutdoors” explains the performance gap in this way: “So . . . the white kids choose to attend the labs and the ‘non-whites’ choose to find excuses not to attend” (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/index, January 4, 2010). Another commenter also makes a similar argument, again suggesting that students have complete control over their performance: “Your outcome is the results of your inputs. Your life is what you make of it; it’s not what someone gives you. If you want change, work at it” (posted by techies on http://sfchronicle.com, February 19, 2010). These comments were pervasive and represent a particular, culturally bound point of view that emphasizes personal control over all aspects of life (Savani, Stephens, & Markus, 2011). We see in many of these comments a very simplistic vision in which effort is the only factor that can explain group differences, along with the corresponding idea that those who do not “see” this “obvious” “fact” are simply being obstinate—a vision only made feasible if one believes that everyone has access to the same opportunities within a completely colorblind society.
This decision mocks the concept of equality and transforms it into the rather specious notion of “equity.” The author admits that the Berkeley school district has made great efforts to narrow the achievement gap between whites/asians and blacks/hispanics, yet the gap remains. Perhaps the district should conclude the obvious: blacks/hispanics are as intelligent as whites/asians but the former are not as willing to expend the effort in work and study. (posted by octavian on http://sfchronicle, February 13, 2010)
We see these and similar comments repeated regularly on a variety of sites reflecting a fairly broad political spectrum. Whereas comments invoking genetic differences were more common on conservative websites, an emphasis on students’ presumed lack of effort was evident across a broader range of political contexts. In the narrative that emerges from these comments, motivation and effort are seen as emerging solely from within an individual and as “fixed” and easily discernable. That is, students are defined as either “motivated” or “unmotivated.” Motivation and drive are seen as a characteristic of students’ personality or self—as knowable, measurable, and most importantly, unchangeable (e.g., Rattan, Savani, Naidu, & Dweck, 2012)—and no allowance is made for the social context of motivation.
“Cultural” Deficits
Parents of struggling students came under tremendous criticism as well. “Uncaring parents,” “a lack of value for education,” and “laziness” were the most commonly cited cultural deficits used to explain group-based differences. Rather than blaming the effort of students, these commenters blame families for what are defined as “deficient” values, behaviors, or both. These explanations point to supposed cultural deficits as the source of the problem, that is, success is possible for every student but only if families would “care more,” “try harder,” and adopt the “right” values. The school itself is described as having little, if anything, to do with student performance. For example, Nancy, who called into the Forum radio show, speaks as a local: “I’ve lived in Berkeley since the ’60s. My son went to Berkeley High and he has been teaching chemistry there for 11 years.” She goes on: A lot of it has to do with the parents. Um, I know that it’s very difficult to get a lot of those parents involved and I do not think that it is really all the school of even half the school’s problem. It’s just home situations and the school is doing an uphill battle. (Nancy on Krasney, 2010)
A commenter to the Huffington Post blog writes: “Life is unfair. Parents who care about their kids’ education will work hard to ensure its quality” (posted by OldSchoolLiberal on http://huffingtonpost.com, February 10, 2009). Others make these arguments more aggressively: “The truth is that it’s a hell of a lot easier and less politically incorrect to do away with classes than to hold minority parents and communities to task for not raising their damn children” (posted by Dark Helmet on http://techdirt.com, December 28, 2009). Another person writes: The so-called “achievement gap” is really a function of what I call “the concerned parent gap.” Students who come from concerned two parent families will naturally score higher as a group than students who come from co-habitating or single parent families who do not have the time or resources to assist in the education of their children. (posted by martinfrosa on http://huffingonpost.com, February 10, 2010)
This blaming of parents was at times remarkably hostile and at other times extremely deterministic—often as deterministic as those who purported a “genetic” view of group-based differences. The following comment, posted by “Godric” on techdirt.com, is an example: “The adage is true: You can take them out of the projects, but you can’t take the projects out of them. Sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but it is the truth” (December 28, 2009).
“Deprivation” and Other Deficits
Finally, some commenters laid blame for group-based performance differences on vague notions of “deprivation”: Students of color who were not doing well were presumed to suffer from any number of “deprivations” that make their success impossible. Although such views did not presume that student failure emerged necessarily from genetic differences between groups or some presumed moral failing on the part of students, they were often just as fatalistic. These so-called deprivations were often ill-defined or ill-informed “moral panics” about so-called race-related social “pathologies.” These moral panics inform the narrative of deprivation that permeates lay understanding of schools and students. Some, for example, exaggerated the social differences between White and Asian American students on the one hand and African American or Latina/o students on the other, suggesting White and Asian students are all the children of Nobel prize winners and African American and Latina/o students are “out-of-towner crack babies”: The White and Asian students will continue to excel despite any efforts to ensure their failure on the part of the administration. The White students at BHS are the children of professors and intellectuals who are naturally bright and inquisitive. Many of the black students at BHS are the children of broken inner-city families in Oakland and Richmond who use a relative’s address in Berkeley to fraudulently enroll their kids in a school that is at least better than the horrifying Oakland and Richmond schools. Will grown-up crack babies ever be able to compete with the children of Nobel Prize winners, regardless of the curriculum or how much money is thrown at them? Probably not. (posted by Old-school Berkeleyite on http://eastbayexpress.com, February 4, 2010)
(In point of fact, the academic outcomes of Asian American students at Berkeley High are highly mixed and represent the diversity of Asian American experiences, as seen in Table 1; BUSD, 2013.)
These perspectives are disturbing in their fatalism. These social and economic patterns are not seen as something that can be addressed through, perhaps, access to specialized resources, such as the expensive professional tutors that are available to more affluent students. Instead, the issues are seen as somehow leading these students to be “unsalvageable”—regrettably perhaps, but “unsalvageable” nevertheless: The main issue of concern [is] the diversion of limited resources from one use to another for the sake of addressing the achievement gap. I would add that much of the frustration may stem from the concern that this diversion will likely, in the end, do little to alter the achievement gap. I believe schools have, in general, very limited power to address all the psychological and emotional challenges that students from disadvantaged backgrounds must overcome in order to excel. (posted by jy177 on http://berkeleyside.com, December 30, 2009)
Together, these models of group-based differences frame those differences as deeply embedded within students and their families and remarkably resistant to change. Across a broad political spectrum, we see commenters suggesting that for various reasons—genetic, moral, cultural, or economic—students who are struggling, poor students, and/or students of color who are not doing well are “beyond help.” Large, group-based differences in performance are described as “natural” and expected, and fatalism pervades all of the explanations offered for why some students are doing well and some are not. This pessimism about schools’ ability to have any influence on student outcomes—either because it is up to students and families alone to shape student outcomes or because some students “can” and some “cannot” leads to a social construction of some students as “worthy” and others “unworthy” of resources and attention.
Academic Performance Gap Renders Some Students “Worthy” and Others “Unworthy”
The debates expressed in this case example, like many in public discussions of education, are about how to allocate scarce resources, and ultimately these become conversations about which students and families are worthy and which are unworthy of these resources. Conversations move quickly from the initial equity concerns of the Governance Council (how best to allocate scarce resources and serve the greatest number of students) to questions about which students are “deserving” of these scarce resources and conversely, who is not. Many members of the public construed the proposed change as moving funds from “good,” “motivated,” “hardworking,” “successful” students and giving them instead to “delinquent,” “uncaring,” “lazy,” “failing” students. In this formulation, student success and student character are inextricably linked (for the persistence of these ideas in modern times, see Zirkel & Johnson, 2016).
This argument flows naturally to the next step in the narrative cycle we articulate in this article: that some students are worthy of time and investment (because of their talent, motivation, and effort) and others are unworthy (because of their lack of the same). This position is articulated by “Seanx,” whose post to the Left-leaning East Bay Express forms the basis of this article’s title: “It is time to just let the worst students go. With state and local budgets destroyed, it is time to save those worth saving. Regardless of race. Hurting the good students is obscene. And very possibly criminal fraud” (December 27, 2009). “Seanx” is not alone in his thinking. Several other people add similar comments to this and other publications running this story. “Tickyul” writes: The top 10 percent in this school are the ones who will make great advances for this country. . . . The biggest dollars should be poured into the brightest students, not the dummies or even the average students. Take money away from the smartest and waste it on dumbells, not a good idea. (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 28, 2009)
Similarly, Nancy, the mother of a Berkeley High graduate who blamed the “parents of those kids” for their struggles, continues that “cutting the science labs for achieving students who really need this background in order to achieve in college is terrible” (Krasney, 2010). “NickEdee,” another commenter to the same publication, articulates succinctly the way these two perspectives are linked. He argues that those who are not succeeding are not worthy of investment because they can never succeed: Whatever, they can try to knock the good students down as much as they want. It won’t work. The dumb kids will still be dumb and the smart kids will still be smart and go on to have happy and successful lives. The crappy kids with their crappy parents will still be crappy. (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 28, 2009)
The anger in these comments is palpable and highlights the emotionally charged nature of the debate. Conversations about the allocation of resources are rarely dispassionate. Even so, many of these comments were particularly ugly, and the previous comments are only a few that indicated extreme levels of contempt and even disgust for students who were not performing well in school. For example, “Sycion” writes: “You people are making this overly complicated. Boot out the blacks/Hispanics and the problem is solved” (http://techdirt.com, January 3, 2010), and “VB-Pirate” suggests that If the underachievers can’t hack the curriculum then put them on the short bus and put them in special education classes where they belong. But “DON’T” inhibit those students who are capable of achieving great things because the underachievers can’t hack the curriculum. (http://techdirt.com, December 31, 2009)
Several commenters (posting to both mainstream and conservative websites) used particularly insulting language to express their opinions of students that they see as not just undeserving of public resources but also unworthy of basic human concern; for example: “Keep catering to the thug and (c)rap ‘culture’ and see where it gets the nation!! Usually those ‘struggling’ students are those who refuse to learn and disrupt the educational process for those who do want to learn” (posted by j davis on http://sfexaminer.com, January 4, 2010).
Equity Efforts Unfair to White People
The final narrative theme that we identify consists of a set of arguments suggesting that efforts to address racial equity in school are inherently unfair and ill-conceived because they redirect money from hardworking, successful, “worthy” students and direct them toward the needs of lazy, unsuccessful, “unworthy” students. Within these comments, we see two different aspects of the idea that efforts to address the racial achievement gap are inherently “unfair.” One set of comments centers on the idea that efforts to divert funds to support struggling students are naïve, ill-conceived, and tantamount to “the pursuit of mediocrity.” The second set of comments more explicitly state that these efforts are “unfair” and “anti-White.”
Addressing Racial Inequities “Naïve and Ill-Conceived”
On a wide range of websites carrying this story, commenters routinely made the argument that the school’s efforts to address the extensive and enduring racial achievement gap were naïve and ill-conceived and that the change proposal itself reflects a widespread and even deliberate “dumbing down” of American society. This point was made with remarkably similar language across websites and political communities—from the Left and the Right. For example, “Mary Eisenhart” writes: “So everyone’s education should be dragged down to the level of the least successful? I don’t think so. That’s obscene” (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 23, 2009). “FMFDOC6” writes: “Rather than pursue excellence, we have chosen to pursue mediocrity; make everyone equally stupid!” (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 28, 2009). Another version of this comes from “san fran”: “It seems to me that the advocates of ‘social justice’ are going beyond their usual promotion of mediocrity” (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 31, 2009). There were dozens of comments that made this point—it was in fact one of the most frequent points made in the comments.
Across a wide variety of websites, commenters also argued that redirecting resources in an attempt to raise the achievement of underperforming students is tantamount to punishing the more “deserving,” high-achieving students. For example, the following comments were posted in local, politically moderate online newspapers: “Cutting off the legs of white children does not make black kids taller, but I do understand that it makes Liberals feel better to say that at least there will be less gap between the two” (posted by Bernie from Planck’s Constant on http://berkeleyside.com, December 28,2009), and “It is unconscionable to penalize the academically inclined and motivated students because other students aren’t doing as well as they are” (posted by hadji1966 on http://sfchronicle.com, February 21, 2010). Strikingly similar comments were posted to conservative websites; for example: “But if closing the achievement gap is what counts, the plan makes sense. After all, the gap can be closed by harming the more successful group, even if no benefits accrue to the less successful group” (posted by Don Bemont on http://joannejacobs.com, December 28, 2009), and “Unsaid (and unsayable in politically correct speech) in this debate is the obvious. If classes are open to all students, why should those students who choose the harder classes be punished in the name of students who did not choose to work as hard” (posted by “Ed Roger Hedgewick” on http://HumanEvents.com, January 29, 2010). These comments are reminiscent of those seen in response to other efforts to create greater educational equity, in which such efforts are feared to “bring down” successful students (e.g., Castagno, 2014; Lee, 2005; Oakes et al., 1997; Oakes & Lipton, 2002; Vaught, 2011; Welner & Burris, 2006).
Addressing Racial Inequities “Unfair” and “Anti-White”
Many of those commenting on these stories argued that the efforts of Berkeley High School to realign their science curriculum to meet the needs of students who were not doing well under the current system were not “fair.” Appearing on the Forum radio broadcast, a member of the School Governance Council who had voted against the proposed change first expressed her surprise that far fewer Black and Latinx youth were taking lab science. She then dismisses educators’ assessments of why that might be and instead changes the way we should frame “fairness”: We really need to put this in context. Berkeley has a ten-year history of giving a lot of support to science and the parcel tax is the money we are talking about for this specific issue today. It is a parcel tax, and what that means is the people with the biggest houses in Berkeley are paying the highest parcel tax. (Krasney, 2010)
Others saw this effort as part of a “widespread” pattern of “discrimination against White people” that can be seen in many areas of society. These comments were especially prevalent on more conservative websites. “Just making sure. . . . It’s OK to discriminate against whites, but bad to discriminate against blacks” (posted by “Mattm” on http://michellemalkin.com, January 1, 2010). “Marsh” writes: “[This is] the work of you leftist diversity mongers who think it’s perfectly ok to discriminate against White people in the pursuit of ‘diversity’” (http://pajamasmedia.com, January 15, 2010). Within this context, several people drew parallels between the overrepresentation of African Americans in sports on the one hand and science labs that educators had decided were not serving the needs of many students of color on the other. In drawing these parallels, commenters are implying that there is no difference in terms of educational or social benefit between students’ participation in extracurricular athletic programs and academic subjects required for graduation. For example, “wingfat” writes: “Can they stop Basket Ball [sic] because no whites are taking it? No . . . so how do they do this . . . super lame” (http://techdirt.com, December 28, 2009). Another commenter, “Wrath of God,” went to the trouble of investigating the racial makeup of sports teams at Berkeley High School: Just went to the [school newspapers’] website to check out the football and basketball programs. 3 or 4 token whites on the fb team and not a single white face on the bb team. I’m sure in the interest of diversity they’ll be cutting those programs as well. (http://pajamasmedia.com, January 15, 2010).
Similarly, “BJ” writes: “I guess we had better get rid of the NBA. It’s far too black. That’s discrimination against white people. Oh wait, I forgot. It’s okay to discriminate against white people” (http://thenewamerican.com, January 9, 2010).
Many of these comments were vicious or sarcastic in tone, as seen previously. Some were extreme in their arguments, including calling those who proposed this policy change Nazis. “Foxtrot1” writes: “The administrators demonstrated one thing, and that is that they are anti-White. They and the authors of this [newspaper] article display the same attitude as the Nazis and their obsessive genocidal ambitions targeting one group” (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 27, 2009). Others stated that these efforts were part of an anti-White conspiracy, arguing that similar attention is never given to the “needs” of White students and that White students are in fact “under attack.” “Civilwar2” argues: “Perhaps it’s time for the White students to demand a culturally sensitive curriculum that meets their cultural needs. Like lab” (http://michellemalin.com, December 27, 2009). “RCL” states, “When I left [Berkeley High School], the White kids were thinking of forming a European Culture Club, clearly a reaction to feeling put upon by all the other race oriented clubs out there” (http://pajamasmedia.com, January 18, 2010). “Moira” writes: “MOST OF THE FEEL-GOOD CLASSES ARE DESIGNED TO FOSTER ‘WHITE GUILT’ WHICH IS AN ATTACK ON WHITE STUDENTS” [capitalized in original] (http://pajamasmedia.com, January 15, 2010). Finally, “spqr,” writing on the more Left-leaning East Bay Express, simply makes the direct claim: “Anti-racist is code for anti-White” (http://eastbayexpress.com, December 27, 2010).
These comments reveal a tremendous amount of anger and frustration with what are perceived to be policies and practices that somehow denigrate or ignore the “needs” of White students in favor of the needs of students of color. Institutional racism is neither understood nor given consideration. Emerging from, and indeed building on, the logical progression of narratives we discuss previously, this perspective leads naturally back to where we began; that is, schools ought to be “colorblind.” To the extent that school personnel attend to race at all, the narrative goes, it is only to the detriment of White people and to serve as an “artificial” raising of “other” students by “lowering” White students. As these arguments unfold, we see a narrative cycle that serves to protect White property and White interests. Any efforts that question White students’ entitlement to disproportionate educational resources are ultimately deemed “reverse discrimination.”
General Discussion
In this public discourse about the proposed BHS lab schedule change, we have identified several themes that together form what we refer to as a narrative cycle of race, merit, and worth. These themes build on each other to tell a story that forms a circular argument in which a particular way of understanding schools and the people in them is articulated. The arguments that form this narrative cycle represent a social imaginary—an understanding of the way the world works—one that simultaneously emerges from and reinforces a perspective that places tremendous value on ideals of individual agency and individually based models of talent, intelligence, effort, merit, and worth in educational settings. For this reason, the narrative cycle of race, merit, and worth represents a compelling explanatory story that renders alternative ideas and counternarratives invisible or implausible. Through implicit assumptions about the fixed nature and exclusive role of constructs such as talent and effort in learning and achievement, as well as explicit ridicule of ideas suggesting that school policies and practices can play a role in these outcomes, the narrative presented by these arguments suggests educators play no part in student motivation or outcomes. Such narratives actively endeavor to inhibit the social change and equity-oriented efforts of educators and instead blame individual students and families who are identified as undeserving and unworthy of educational resources.
Narratives, or Stories, as Carriers of “Social Imaginary” in Policy Debates
We are calling the cycle of themes identified here a narrative because the set of individual discursive themes or arguments link together to form a story—a story leading from an abstract idea (a “colorblind ideology”) through a series of events with heroes (“successful,” “hardworking,” “motivated” students and their families) and villains (“unsuccessful,” “lazy,” and “unmotivated” students and their families and those who want to “reward” them) and concluding with a moral lesson about students and families and how schools should operate that leads right back to the abstract ideology of colorblindness. We argue that the narratives embedded within the comments presented here form a way of building an argument.
Narratives are a fundamental component of the way we think about and understand the world around us, and they form a central component of our cognitive processing of information. They are a means by which we communicate social imaginaries with each other (Taylor, 2004). By encoding implicit, often unexamined ideas, narratives form a means by which we can communicate understandings of how the world works in ways that would otherwise be difficult to articulate and communicate (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, Lewis, & Embrick, 2004; van Dijk, 1993). The story presented here is different than other stories that could be told—indeed than other stories that likely are told—in different social circles wherein different social imaginaries prevail. Represented here is a majoritarian narrative (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Yosso, 2006) that represents a particular point of view. We would encourage educational leaders to attend to stories—and to produce and highlight counterstories to these majoritarian narratives (see also Pollack & Zirkel, 2013; Zirkel et al., 2011). Although we cannot know the race or ethnicity of individual speakers, the people speaking here takes the perspective of the White middle-class or affluent parents who often wield enormous and disproportionate influence on schools and school policy (see e.g., Lee, 2005; Noguera & Wing, 2008; Oakes et al., 1997).
The study of the influence of narratives in policy debates forms an area of scholarship within public policy (e.g., Roe, 1994; Shanahan, McBeth, & Hathaway, 2011). Stories form much of the basis on which individuals both make arguments about policy and make sense of arguments about policy. Narrative policy analysts remind us that those who employ narratives typically prevail in policy debates as compared to those who put forward only abstract arguments (Shanahan et al., 2011). Similarly, sociologists have also highlighted the role that “stock stories” can play in politics and policy—framing debates by defining how groups of people are seen (see e.g., Skeggs, 2011). These stock stories need not be true (think Reagan’s “welfare queens”) or even consistent: Gillborn (2010) highlights two different conservative narratives about the White working class in Britain that existed simultaneously and were deployed in different contexts (White working class as victim of immigrants and White working class as degenerates and a threat to society). Counterstories, as CRT suggests, offer additional insights into how stories can powerfully be used to help educators frame the issues as they see them (Yosso, 2006). We see this pattern here—those arguing in favor of the change often appealed to abstract principals, whereas those opposed relied on narratives (majoritarian narratives) and prevailed.
In presenting a narrative of individual responsibility for the outcomes of one’s life, the stories that undergirded the BHS debate were shaped by a social imaginary consistent with that of many who ultimately chose to support the concerns of AP students and their families, including school board members, district personnel, and teachers in the school. Gillborn and Youdell’s (2000) insightful ethnography of two British secondary schools illuminates the way that even educators who wish to espouse a perspective of human potential and the power of teaching to transform young people often reveal deeper beliefs that some students “have it” and some just “do not.” Bradbury (2013) demonstrates the same with teachers of very young students. Such views are pervasive in educational settings and undermine effective change efforts.
The Implicit and Explicit Influence of Neoliberal Models of Choice and Agency
Social constructions of merit in the United States is informed by culturally bound ideologies of individual agency and control in which individuals are seen as entirely responsible for their fate. Walkerdine (2003) refers to contemporary constructions of the individual as the neoliberal subject—in which individuals are construed as the sole architects or authors of themselves and their lives (“entrepreneurs of the self”). The work of Markus and her colleagues reveals that this ideology of individual agency and control represents a specific cultural frame—a frame that is primarily Western, White, and middle class (Savani et al., 2011; Stephens, Markus, & Fryberg, 2012). Conceptions of individual agency permeate the public narratives told about students of color and their families, here and elsewhere (e.g., Castagno, 2014; Lee, 2005; Vaught, 2011). In this article, we pay particular attention to the ways that some students (and their parents) are seen as “good” workers and “entrepreneurs of the self,” while others are constructed as “bad” workers and “entrepreneurs” who do not take appropriate responsibility for their self-construction (Savani, Markus, Naidu, Kumar, & Berila, 2010; Walkerdine, 2003). This fits with what Taylor (2004) identifies as a core component of a modern social imaginary—seeing oneself as the primary influence on one’s life. Within this frame, people are each individually responsible for making their own choices, and therefore, success and failure are seen as expressions of individual effort and talent. This social imaginary fits with a particularly Western view that only some people can be highly intelligent (Rattan et al., 2012), and therefore it is presumed to be most effective to target resources to those who can achieve the most.
We argue that the ideals of individual agency and control expressed in the narrative we have identified run so deep in American society and in the middle-class American psyche that educators themselves often abandon professional ideals about the role of educators and education in forming students’ educational outcomes when they hear such arguments. Although much of the work of educators is based on the understanding that what happens in schools matters for young people and their lives, neoliberal ideals about personal talent, effort, and responsibility are so deeply and often implicitly held that educators themselves are often struck silent in the face of such arguments. In the case presented here, we saw a broad array of people from a range of political viewpoints argue fervently and consistently that student participation in advanced science classes and performance in science generally was in no way influenced by policies or pedagogies in the classroom. Educators’ response to such critiques was largely silence. A few attempts were made to push back against the narrative embedded within the kinds of arguments presented here: The Berkeley Unified superintendent (Huyett, 2010) and school board president (Hemphill on Krasney, 2010) argued strongly that required labs for core academic courses should not happen outside of the school day, and a BHS teacher called in to voice support for the students the change was designed to support (Phillip, on Krasney, 2010). Very rarely, however, did members of the public voice support for the proposed change in any venue.
Theories of Ability and Motivation as Fixed and Known
The perspectives presented in these online comment boards point to a strong belief in both ability and motivation as fixed and knowable: fixed in the sense that each person has a certain amount of immutable talent, ability, or motivation and knowable in the sense that these individual characteristics can be measured and assigned value in some real and meaningful way. These characteristics, then, are seen as attributes of the students rather than as emerging from some interaction between individual students and their social environment. Based on their degree of academic success in school (i.e., test scores and grades), students are presumed to be either talented or not, motivated or not, and within the dominant narrative, these characteristics are not seen as something that are or can be influenced or developed by schools. This view stands in contrast to other perspectives from different cultural traditions in which many are seen as having the potential to become highly intelligent ( for South Asian views, see Rattan et al., 2012), a view that would be consistent with a very different plan for allocating educational resources.
Pervasive assumptions, embedded within these comments, that students’ motivation and effort were also relatively fixed capacities were surprising and disturbing. We repeatedly saw students’ level of motivation described as a core attribute of students that schools and teachers can have little hope of influencing. The view expressed in this narrative is one in which student motivation comes from either within the student or perhaps from parents, but in either case, commenters seemed to see little opportunity to influence it. Viewing motivation as a fixed capacity seems even more potentially damaging to students than viewing intelligence that way. It is this conceptualization of motivation as a fixed attribute of the student rather than the outcome of a complex interplay of students and schools, curriculum, pedagogy, opportunities, student, and teacher relationships and expectations that leads to the construction of motivation as a moral judgment (i.e., some students care about education and bettering themselves, and some do not).
Limitations: A Note on Method
We wish to explore and discuss the strengths and limitations of our approach to studying public discussions. We do not mean to suggest that in analyzing public conversations that take place on newspaper comment boards we are observing the full range of views on a given issue. Undoubtedly, there are a number of selection factors at work—in terms of who reads particular media accounts online, who has access to the technology to post their views, who feels enough a part of a given community to contribute to the conversation, and finally, who has the time and inclination to do so. There is no question that all views or perspectives are not encapsulated in these comments. However, we argue that the perspectives offered on these comment boards are not those of people whose opinions are far removed from routine, mainstream, and conventional views. Public comment boards are becoming an increasingly mainstream way for members of the lay public to have debates and discussions about issues of concern. As technology becomes more ubiquitous, increasing numbers of people are participating in this process. A recent study by Purcell and her colleagues (2010) highlights the widespread and growing engagement with social and news media as a means of engaging in public debates, engagement that is beginning to reduce the long discussed digital divide in Internet use (Smith, 2014). Taylor (2004) described online public forums as the public sphere of our time.
There is no question that the tone of the anonymous online comments was certainly less civil and more vitriolic than comments made in less anonymous venues, but the sentiments expressed were similar to those that were expressed in other settings. The anonymous nature of these online comment boards had, we believe, a disinhibiting effect (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Suler, 2004). As Castagno (2014) and Pollock (2005) demonstrate, “niceness” in conversations about race can obscure actions that speak otherwise. These ideas were expressed more politely in school board meetings, radio show call-ins, and parent and teacher conversations with school leadership, but they were nevertheless expressed. Although neither of us is affiliated with the school district, we live and work in the area and were privy to many conversations about the proposed change in personal and professional circles. These conversations mirrored many of the comments here in content, if not in tone. Moreover, similar views about students’ educational worth have been seen in other responses to reform efforts (e.g., Lee, 2005; Oakes et al., 1997; Wells & Serna, 1996; Welner & Burris, 2006).
Although we contend that the views expressed in these public comments are fairly mainstream, we also argue that they primarily represent the views of those whose children were benefitting from the status quo. In a very few instances, people made comments empathetic with students and families who were struggling with the current system. However, in no case did we see commenters identify themselves as students or families who were struggling. No one ever identified himself or herself as a student or the parent of a student who was failing this science class or in danger of not graduating. Many, however, stated that they felt “persecuted” for being White—or that certain students were being “persecuted” for being high achieving. In other words, a few people spoke on behalf of poor students or students who were struggling in school, but no one spoke openly as a member of those groups. Ours is a study of resistance to social justice change efforts—but the participation (or lack thereof) of parents of struggling students in public debates about their schools’ policies is worthy of further study: What are the contexts in which parents of students who are struggling in school can and do speak for their own needs? In what ways do schools close off these opportunities? Others have highlighted the pattern we see here in many racially integrated schools, in which more privileged parents exert disproportionate influence and—intentionally or not—parents of color are silenced, discounted, or dismissed (e.g., Bailey, 2011; Lee, 2005; Lewis & Diamond, 2015; Lewis, Diamond, & Forman, 2015; Noguera & Wing, 2008). We urge educators and researchers to further explore these issues and to help school leaders think about how to better engage a broader participation among parents in debates and discussions about school policies and practices.
Implications for School Policy and School Change
We conclude with an exploration of a few of the implications of these findings for educational policy, the process of educational change, and educational leadership. First, we wish to highlight the importance of anticipating resistance to school change efforts—particularly school change efforts that do not conform to middle-class notions of individual agency and control. We do not suggest that changes that go against the majoritarian narratives of socially powerful parents should not be attempted—indeed, we believe it is often essential to do so. Instead, we suggest that school leaders would do well to know their audience and anticipate and prepare for resistance to certain ideas or policies.
We also wish to emphasize the importance of narratives as a means of framing policy decisions and suggest that the power of narratives in policy discussions and debates can be harnessed and deployed in educational policy change efforts. As we note previously, the narrative that underlies the cycle we articulate here is only one possible narrative that could be presented to frame this policy debate. Other narratives went unspoken: narratives about students juggling many competing demands on their before- and after-school time, of students struggling to engage with lab material that seems divorced from the core material presented in lecture portions of classes, of an out-of-date science curriculum that doesn’t integrate lab and lecture in daily learning, of families struggling to get adolescent students up and ready for a 7:00 a.m. science laboratory, or narratives about school resources being lavished on the most wealthy, privileged, and otherwise well-supported students who want another AP class to improve their chances at the Ivy League competing for resources with students struggling to graduate from high school. These real, everyday lived experiences form the kinds of counternarratives that were rarely, if ever, presented but that could have illuminated issues raised by these events. Where were these other narratives? Compelling stories could have been constructed for public debate but were not. We suggest that debates about educational policies often take place between and among members of the middle class, and it is middle-class narratives—and often White middle-class narratives—that are presented, listened to, and understood. To the extent that educators and educational leaders are often White and middle class themselves, these narratives have a certain verisimilitude and explanatory power among educational policymakers, even if educators struggle to hold and maintain other narratives simultaneously. We encourage educators to examine the extent to which policy debates are centered on the social imaginary of the middle class and focus on majoritarian narratives at the expense of other perspectives or ways of making sense of what is happening in schools.
Summary and Conclusions
We analyzed a series of public debates about a proposed change of resource allocation to reveal a series of racialized pubic narratives that protect the extensive use of educational resources in support of affluent and successful students’ efforts to gain admission to elite universities rather than divert that money to efforts to help more students graduate from high school. The racialized nature of this debate is revealing and plays an important role in shaping which students are seen as worthy of educational resources and which are not. We see the arguments that members of the public use to frame this debate as forming a narrative cycle. Building on deficit narratives about students of color and/or students struggling in school, this narrative cycle becomes a self-perpetuating and self-justifying circular argument in which schools are seen as fair, except when they try to address the needs of struggling students, and every effort should be made to help struggling students as long as it does not take resources away from the most privileged students. We believe that this narrative cycle or ones like it influence many educational policy debates, and we highlight its use here in an effort to shine a light on the destructive nature these narratives have for students, families, schools, and communities.
Footnotes
Sabrina Zirkel is grateful to Mills College for sabbatical research support during part of the time this article was in development.
Notes
S
T