by Bree Picower
INSTITUTIONAL RACIAL REFRAMES
The institutional domain focuses on the ways that interlaced institutional structures (housing, healthcare, education, criminal justice, etc.) and their entwined policies and procedures were created by and reproduce advantages for White people while oppressing people of Color, especially BIPOC. Because White people benefit from upholding institutional racism, it is imperative that we understand our role in its reproduction and perpetuation.
Particularly in education, the relationship between institutional racism and the other domains cannot be underestimated. We have seen how the beliefs of White teachers manifest as institutional racism, influencing how teachers act as gatekeepers to resources, pipelines, and opportunities. A preservice teacher realized, “I learned that while I might not directly express racist sentiments, I am still in a position of power, just by default of being born a White woman, and thus am obligated to institute that power to oppose the currently existing racial hierarchies.” In order to dismantle the systems that maintain racism, it is necessary to reframe how our positionality—not our intentions—provides us with power. In this section, the preservice teachers grapple with reframing their idea of teaching from a charitable act to instead reimagining their role as people who address institutional racism in order to move schooling toward justice.
INSTITUTIONAL REFRAME: REALIZING THAT RACISM IS INSTITUTIONAL, NOT INDIVIDUAL
Many White people understand racism as personal ignorance and discrimination, rather than an institutionalized practice. By assigning the title of racist only to overtly racist individuals such as members of the KKK, White people can disassociate ourselves and our lives from the taint of racism. This disavowal maintains racial hierarchies, because if we don’t think institutional racism exists, why would we be motivated to seek out systemic solutions? This way of thinking is directly implicated in how the examples of viral racist curriculum in chapter 1 were handled by admonishing the individual teacher, rather than addressing broader systems of racism. By scapegoating others, White people can maintain our position of innocence in the cycle of racism by claiming that we don’t make racist comments or jokes and have never personally discriminated against anyone. This false framing serves to take the focus off the mechanisms of racism that are most damaging to people of Color and is therefore one of the most essential reframes in order to move toward anti-racism. One preservice teacher explained her own shift: “I had generally thought of racism as acts of hate toward groups of people different than one’s own; I did not perceive racism in its relation to a system of power or privilege.”
INSTITUTIONAL REFRAME: SHIFTING BLAME TO THE SYSTEM, NOT THE TARGETS OF RACISM
Educators are often charged with solving intractable social problems, such as equalizing educational outcomes for all students despite a lack of equitable economic and political power across different groups in society. If teachers cannot reframe, they will blame students and families and develop solutions that aim to “fix” people of Color. This process of blaming the victim locates the origins of social problems in those marginalized by oppression rather than in structural inequity and has four identifiable steps.20 First, a social problem and the affected population are discerned, such as the so-called achievement gap that compares school achievement scores between Black and White students. Since Black students score lower in this achievement gap, they are framed as the problem to be fixed. Next, the values and behaviors of the targeted population are compared with those that are established as the “norm”—here, White students. Then, the source of the problem is identified as the difference between the affected group and the unaffected group—for example, Black culture, grit, intelligence, resilience, parental involvement—and finally, a treatment is created that tries to change the affected population, such as tutoring programs or parental involvement workshops.
This process allows teachers to rely on genetic and/or cultural explanations of achievement, placing blame on parents, “lazy” students, or culture while absolving educators or schools of any responsibility.21 Rather than looking at achievement data in a vacuum, teachers committed to anti-racism must examine the social and economic conditions of different communities and reframe blame from the targets of racism to the system that perpetuates it.22 Gloria Ladson-Billings reframed the achievement gap as the education debt and Asa Hilliard reframed it as the opportunity gap to refocus our attention on the differences in resources and opportunities among different groups of students.23 However, the ideology on achievement that remains dominant reinforces deficit thinking that blames children of Color. Any solutions that come from this framing will target students of Color or their families as in need of being “fixed.” The recent popularity of frameworks of grit and growth mindsets in schools are examples of such approaches, as they accuse Black children of being deficient in these areas and teach educators to “fix” something perceived to be missing in children rather than recognize the broader patterns of racism, trauma, and generational poverty that impact achievement.
By reframing from individuals to systems, teachers can move from deficit views that blame students and families to positioning themselves as people who understand how systemic barriers unfairly impact people of Color. One preservice teacher realized she was focused “primarily on the individual as a problem, as opposed to a systemic issue.” As an example, she stated: “School has been in session for two weeks already and students are still struggling to bring supplies, and parents express they don’t have money to purchase them.” She started to reframe: “Instead of questioning why the New Jersey Department of Education or the Newark Public Schools do not include school supplies in their budget for each classroom, I blamed the students and families. Thus, my initial political view was focused on questioning the individual and not the systemic issues behind why this was happening.” By shifting blame from those marginalized to the system, the preservice teachers refocused their direction for action. Rather than become frustrated with parents and frame them as “not caring about their children’s education,” White teachers can look to the systemic nature of school funding and make demands.
INSTITUTIONAL REFRAME: MOVING FROM CHARITY TO JUSTICE
As teachers reframe institutionally, they can start to ask different questions that can shift their target for change. As one preservice teacher suggested, “When we see an issue, we must figure out the root cause in order to make a permanent change. . . . We get so caught up in helping others that we forget to examine why others need the help in the first place. Why is there an achievement gap? Why is there overrepresentation of Black and Brown students in special education?” This preservice teacher went on to think about how this line of questioning shifted her thinking about her own role: “I wanted to work in an urban special education setting because I thought I would know how to teach these students and I want to help ‘fix’ the achievement gap. But now I find myself thinking about why certain people need to work harder than others, and why there even is an achievement gap or overrepresentation to begin with.” By reframing her thinking about the role of institutional oppression, rather than targeting individual students, this White teacher shifted her self-image as a helper with all the answers to that of a person who questions broader societal structures.
This shift leads teachers to be able to work from an anti-racist perspective, rather than seeing their role as charitable or viewing themselves as a good White person for helping “those kids.” When teachers work from a charitable perspective, they see themselves as pure-hearted for wanting to help students of Color. When teachers can reframe to start examining social issues, they can begin to question why some people are in need of help. Rather than make children feel more comfortable while experiencing oppression, teachers can start to change the conditions that leave certain people with less comfort.
This reframe from charity to justice plays a significant role in teachers laying down their curricular Tools of Whiteness for a number of reasons. First, they reframe themselves
as good, charitable people to recognize how they have benefited from a system. They can no longer congratulate themselves and think that simply their presence in schools is enough, but instead, they must learn about systemic issues facing their students. It also shifts their curriculum from teaching that there is something wrong with people of Color to teaching about how to change systems. One preservice teacher depicted this shift by saying, “When educators understand the effects that institutional racism [has] had on these ‘historically looted communities’ and people of Color, they can work against these systems of injustices such as the school-to-prison pipeline, and educate children in a positive and culturally relevant way.”24 She warned of what happens without the reframe:
On the flip side, educators who continue to perpetuate institutional racism hold the power to keep those who do not fit in with the ideals that society deem[s] desirable from doing well in school by labeling the child as having a behavior problem or referring the child for special education, or simply damaging the child’s self-worth, which will likely, in some way, limit the child’s ability to succeed. My goal moving forward as an educator is to ensure that I have no role in perpetuating these systems of oppression and instead work toward dismantling them.
INTERPERSONAL RACIAL REFRAMES
Many of the reframes within the previous three domains are cognitive shifts; they are about how we think about race writ large (ideological), how we understand power reproduction (institutional), and how we view ourselves (internalized). The interpersonal domain is where it all comes together because it is about how people engage across race. Through oppressive behaviors such as microaggressions, racist jokes, talking over, overlooking, and violence, White interpersonal racism is the behavioral manifestation of our beliefs in the other three I’s. Because of the deep disequilibrium caused by reframing within the other domains, the preservice teachers became like deer in headlights trying to figure out how to engage responsibly with their new awareness, given the harm that White people have produced and continue to cause.
As these White preservice teachers prepared to teach in urban schools of Color, this disequilibrium raised a number of questions about their role. Themes from the data arose such as: “How can I, as a White teacher, be anti-racist in a racist system?” “How can I, as a White teacher, ever be accepted in a school community of Color?” “How can I, as a White teacher, teach from a culturally relevant perspective?” For example, one preservice teacher elucidated, “Previously I felt that, as a White person, I was in a position to address race. As a person who has not experienced racism, and instead has benefitted from it, how could I possibly be involved in a style of teaching that addresses and seeks to understand how my students have been on the opposite side of the racial system?” Just as I ask questions about my role as a White scholar working toward racial justice, asking oneself these challenging questions is part of the process of decentering the White tendency to think we can do whatever we want, wherever we want. Critical self-questioning is therefore a vital part of developing racial consciousness—as long as it does not become an excuse to retreat.
INTERPERSONAL REFRAME: BE COGNIZANT OF IDENTITY WHEN TEACHING ABOUT RACE
One of the areas that caused the greatest apprehension for these White preservice teachers was teaching children of Color about race. For some of my more resistant students, this emerged from a fear that when students of Color learn about racism, they will hate White people writ large, but them specifically, potentially seeking revenge on them for historical actions. Other more reflective students worry about “getting it right.” A preservice teacher grappled with it this way: “As a White person teaching children of Color, how do I decide what information is best for them? I can look at a curriculum and criticize it, but do I know any better?” The teachers were receiving the message that they needed to be culturally relevant teachers who create mirrors in the curriculum for their students of Color to learn about their own history, but as newly conscious White teachers, they had concerns. He continued, “I did not have the same experience growing up as these children have, and it goes without saying that good intentions do not mean much. I cannot help but feel uncomfortable at the thought of a White teacher thinking he knows best what children of Color should be learning. . . . This is a question I know I will struggle with for some time.” This preservice teacher is in the midst of a productive struggle in which he is decentering his internalized sense of “White is right” and has started questioning his role as a White teacher. While it feels uncomfortable for him, this is a healthy place for us as White people to be in order to work to be accountable to people of Color.
Other preservice teachers worked through this struggle by becoming more comfortable with their own White racial identity. Diana, who taught the superhero unit in chapter 2 also named some of her initial discomfort: “I think I would have been too afraid to talk about race as a White woman in front of mostly Black students. I think I would’ve been too in my head about that and how to navigate it.” Because Diana had reframed the other domains, she became capable of teaching her Black students about race: “Just being more comfortable with my racial identity so that I can be more comfortable. I want to see you, I want you to see me.” Multiple domains of the Four I’s are interplaying here—without owning her White racial identity (internalized), Diana would not have taught her Black students about how race operates (interpersonal) because, as she said, “I think I would have been uncomfortable with the data [of overrepresentation of White superheroes]; I don’t know that I would have done it just out of my selfish discomfort level.” Diana was able to implement a transformative, racial justice unit because she owned her White racial identity rather than deny it. She didn’t just power through it or act like it didn’t matter and like anyone can teach about race. Instead, she did the tough work of reframing within all the domains, which positioned her to be clear about the identity and power of both herself and her students. By laying all of this out on the table, she became comfortable and capable of teaching about race in ways that resist, rather than reproduce, racism.
INTERPERSONAL REFRAME: QUESTIONING WHITE CULTURAL NORMS IN SCHOOLS
Another area of disequilibrium was wondering how to interact with students in institutions the preservice teachers now recognize as racist. Through reframes in the institutional domain, the preservice teachers began to recognize how Whiteness informs what and how students of Color were being taught. As one preservice teacher illuminated her struggle: “Structures and systems have been set up with White cultural standards in mind. So much of being a ‘highly effective’ teacher has to do with classroom management, and as I am seeing firsthand, that really has to do with keeping students acting a very specific way.” This preservice teacher began to question what that means for how she would balance what was expected of her and her new understandings of how race informs those expectations:
I am trying to reconcile that with internalized racial superiority. How do I, as a White teacher, walk into a classroom of mostly Black students, carrying with me the heavy baggage of racism, and then command control? And be evaluated on my ability to have the students remain quiet, seated, standing “heel to toe,” ensure seamless transitions, while all the time urging them forward with promises of college, which will make them “successful.”
She began to grasp that these values were not race-neutral: “All of which really means ‘act like White people decided that successful people act.’ And I am part of that system.” This preservice teacher recognized the conflicting expectations. On the one hand, she was being charged with and evaluated for upholding disciplinary practices rooted in White cultural norms that mirror prison and military tactics such as silence, straight lines, and strict obedience. On the other, she was being taught in my program to share power and build humanizing, democratic relationships with students of Color. This is a true challenge for teachers dedicated to anti-racism who are working in institutions. Without the racial reframes mentioned throughout the cha
pter, however, she would have unquestioningly upheld these White cultural norms, been evaluated as highly effective, and felt good about the ways in which she “commanded control” over her Black students. By reframing her understandings within all four domains, she is able to racially analyze the way she understands her own Whiteness, how it informs her interactions with her students of Color, particularly those who are BIPOC, and ultimately the role that plays in reproducing or interrupting racism.
CONCLUSION
While I write here about how teacher education can better prepare anti-racist teachers, this chapter, surprisingly, is not about curriculum, pedagogy, instruction, or content. Rather, this chapter is about thinking. In order to work toward racial justice and to lay down curricular Tools of Whiteness, it is critical for those of us in teacher education to attend to what teachers think and believe about race. As demonstrated in chapters 1 and 2, White teachers who believe racist thoughts about people of Color teach racism. Because the beliefs lead to the teaching, it is imperative that we address the beliefs as part of any attempts to teach curriculum and instruction. By interrogating and reframing their beliefs, educators can design their curriculum and enact their instruction in ways that work toward racial justice.
