Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096377
Shannon Audley, Maleka Donaldson
ABSTRACT Educational lore casts grit as a panacea for solving long-standing achievement disparities. Fifteen years of empirical research has not supported this claim, yet many schools still uphold grit. Why? This article examines when (and if) K-12 educators should emphasize grit in classrooms. We first define the construct and offer evidence-based critiques of grit’s conceptual claims. Next, we discuss grit’s influence on school achievement, which has, at best, a negligible impact on school achievement. However, at worst, grit reifies social inequalities by boosting the performance of already-privileged individuals and harming minoritized groups and those in under-resourced learning contexts. Finally, we argue that grit does not compensate for adverse circumstances—including poverty, racial/ethnic discrimination, dis/abilities, and intersections—but instead reinforces privilege. Building on these insights, we close with several recommendations for policymakers, schools, and teachers to reduce the inequitable opportunity gaps that undermine achievement and support students with research-based interventions.
{"title":"When to grit and when to quit: (How) should grit be taught in K-12 classrooms?","authors":"Shannon Audley, Maleka Donaldson","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096377","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Educational lore casts grit as a panacea for solving long-standing achievement disparities. Fifteen years of empirical research has not supported this claim, yet many schools still uphold grit. Why? This article examines when (and if) K-12 educators should emphasize grit in classrooms. We first define the construct and offer evidence-based critiques of grit’s conceptual claims. Next, we discuss grit’s influence on school achievement, which has, at best, a negligible impact on school achievement. However, at worst, grit reifies social inequalities by boosting the performance of already-privileged individuals and harming minoritized groups and those in under-resourced learning contexts. Finally, we argue that grit does not compensate for adverse circumstances—including poverty, racial/ethnic discrimination, dis/abilities, and intersections—but instead reinforces privilege. Building on these insights, we close with several recommendations for policymakers, schools, and teachers to reduce the inequitable opportunity gaps that undermine achievement and support students with research-based interventions.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"91 1","pages":"265 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89266257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096386
D. Shin, Minhye Lee, M. Bong
ABSTRACT Are there really “right-brained” and “left-brained” learners? The argument of left- and right-brain learning is the second most pervasive neuromyth in education. In this article, we debunk this myth by distinguishing fact from fiction. Each hemisphere indeed shows dominance in processing certain types of cognitive function. However, individual characteristics and learning potentials cannot be categorized into the left or the right brain. Not only is the entire brain required for any type of learning, but also there exist considerable individual differences in the hemispheric specialization of any specific function. Good teaching is not determining or matching instruction to who is left and who is right but engaging each student’s whole brain. Teachers should instead help students utilize and develop their whole brain by (a) delivering instruction in multiple modes and providing diverse encoding pathways, (b) involving students in the extensive practice of important skills, and (c) promoting students’ agency and self-regulation.
{"title":"Beyond left and right: Learning is a whole-brain process","authors":"D. Shin, Minhye Lee, M. Bong","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096386","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Are there really “right-brained” and “left-brained” learners? The argument of left- and right-brain learning is the second most pervasive neuromyth in education. In this article, we debunk this myth by distinguishing fact from fiction. Each hemisphere indeed shows dominance in processing certain types of cognitive function. However, individual characteristics and learning potentials cannot be categorized into the left or the right brain. Not only is the entire brain required for any type of learning, but also there exist considerable individual differences in the hemispheric specialization of any specific function. Good teaching is not determining or matching instruction to who is left and who is right but engaging each student’s whole brain. Teachers should instead help students utilize and develop their whole brain by (a) delivering instruction in multiple modes and providing diverse encoding pathways, (b) involving students in the extensive practice of important skills, and (c) promoting students’ agency and self-regulation.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"22 1","pages":"347 - 357"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81573740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371
Eric M. Anderman, D. Cristol
Most individuals would be extremely uncomfortable if they learned that their medical doctor was using medical practices that were convenient and easily implemented, but not actually supported by research. Many of us would quite likely seek a second opinion if we became aware of such behavior. But can the same be said of an educator who uses instructional practices that are not informed by research? Or if an educator uses instructional practices that research has clearly demonstrated as being ineffective? Education is a field that is rife with such controversies. Several recent books (e.g., Berliner & Glass, 2014; Proctor et al., 2015) have explored some of these controversies in depth. Despite this, it has been our observation that there are some educational practices that are widely used, despite there being ample evidence indicating their ineffectiveness. To put this into the current political context, it is important to note that debates have raged recently regarding both the content and instructional practices that schools should (and should not) be using. With regard to content, current debates have focused in particular on topics such as sex education, climate change, and race. Controversies also have been reignited with regard to the books that students should (and should not) be asked to read as part of the curriculum. This issue has received much media attention (e.g., this was recently covered by The New York Times). But current debates have focused not just on the content that is taught, but also on the types of instructional practices that educators use. For example, in some communities, instructional practices that focus on nurturing socioemotional outcomes are under attack (Prothero & Blad, 2021). As editors of Theory into Practice, we decided to devote an issue of the journal to an exploration of the research behind some contemporary controversial issues that are alive and well in schools. Rather than deciding on the issues that we deemed as relevant, we developed a call for proposals for articles for a special issue of the journal focusing on contemporary controversies in education. We put out an open call and disseminated it widely. In the end, we received an extraordinary number of extremely high-quality proposals. Given the quality of the proposals and the potential implications of the articles in positively impacting policy and practice, we decided to devote two issues of the journal to these articles. Thus we are delighted that the summer 2022 issue includes the first set of these articles.
{"title":"Confronting contemporary controversies in education","authors":"Eric M. Anderman, D. Cristol","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096371","url":null,"abstract":"Most individuals would be extremely uncomfortable if they learned that their medical doctor was using medical practices that were convenient and easily implemented, but not actually supported by research. Many of us would quite likely seek a second opinion if we became aware of such behavior. But can the same be said of an educator who uses instructional practices that are not informed by research? Or if an educator uses instructional practices that research has clearly demonstrated as being ineffective? Education is a field that is rife with such controversies. Several recent books (e.g., Berliner & Glass, 2014; Proctor et al., 2015) have explored some of these controversies in depth. Despite this, it has been our observation that there are some educational practices that are widely used, despite there being ample evidence indicating their ineffectiveness. To put this into the current political context, it is important to note that debates have raged recently regarding both the content and instructional practices that schools should (and should not) be using. With regard to content, current debates have focused in particular on topics such as sex education, climate change, and race. Controversies also have been reignited with regard to the books that students should (and should not) be asked to read as part of the curriculum. This issue has received much media attention (e.g., this was recently covered by The New York Times). But current debates have focused not just on the content that is taught, but also on the types of instructional practices that educators use. For example, in some communities, instructional practices that focus on nurturing socioemotional outcomes are under attack (Prothero & Blad, 2021). As editors of Theory into Practice, we decided to devote an issue of the journal to an exploration of the research behind some contemporary controversial issues that are alive and well in schools. Rather than deciding on the issues that we deemed as relevant, we developed a call for proposals for articles for a special issue of the journal focusing on contemporary controversies in education. We put out an open call and disseminated it widely. In the end, we received an extraordinary number of extremely high-quality proposals. Given the quality of the proposals and the potential implications of the articles in positively impacting policy and practice, we decided to devote two issues of the journal to these articles. Thus we are delighted that the summer 2022 issue includes the first set of these articles.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"42 1","pages":"251 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80596045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096380
Qiyang Zhang, N. Storey
ABSTRACT COVID learning loss has sparked fierce debate among stakeholders in education. There are debates among concerned educators about ways to understand learning loss reports, methods to measure learning loss, and strategies to recover from learning loss. In this article, we unpack opposing perspectives on these three controversies with the goal of extracting useful recommendations to guide post-pandemic education revival. Drawing from structural inequity theory, this article reviews the controversies through historical, current, and future lenses respectively: (1) Should we be talking about differential COVID learning loss? (2) Are we measuring COVID learning loss appropriately? and (3) Which recovery plans should we prioritize to address COVID learning loss? Within each controversy, the article makes suggestions on how practitioners may make sense of each controversy and integrate take-aways from them into their work.
{"title":"Controversies behind COVID learning loss: Historical issues, current measurements, and future strategies","authors":"Qiyang Zhang, N. Storey","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096380","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT COVID learning loss has sparked fierce debate among stakeholders in education. There are debates among concerned educators about ways to understand learning loss reports, methods to measure learning loss, and strategies to recover from learning loss. In this article, we unpack opposing perspectives on these three controversies with the goal of extracting useful recommendations to guide post-pandemic education revival. Drawing from structural inequity theory, this article reviews the controversies through historical, current, and future lenses respectively: (1) Should we be talking about differential COVID learning loss? (2) Are we measuring COVID learning loss appropriately? and (3) Which recovery plans should we prioritize to address COVID learning loss? Within each controversy, the article makes suggestions on how practitioners may make sense of each controversy and integrate take-aways from them into their work.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"14 1","pages":"300 - 311"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78961106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096384
R. Renbarger, David M. Rehfeld, Tracey Sulak
ABSTRACT With increased media coverage of school violence, communities and schools have hired school resource officers (SROs) in an attempt to reduce the violence. These SROs often have a variety of duties and training depending on a variety of factors both related and unrelated to school crime and violence prevention. These may include typical school staff duties such as mentoring but frequently are more similar to those of law enforcement personnel, such as patrolling. In this article, we review the literature on SROs, identifying their common roles as well as the benefits and drawbacks to their presence in public schools in the United States. The literature suggests that there is a complicated relationship between SROs and crime and violence prevention in schools, including different outcomes for different populations of students. Based on our review of the literature, we recommend changes regarding the use of SROs in public schools for policy makers, school practitioners, and researchers.
{"title":"Law enforcement in schools: Resource or barrier?","authors":"R. Renbarger, David M. Rehfeld, Tracey Sulak","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096384","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT With increased media coverage of school violence, communities and schools have hired school resource officers (SROs) in an attempt to reduce the violence. These SROs often have a variety of duties and training depending on a variety of factors both related and unrelated to school crime and violence prevention. These may include typical school staff duties such as mentoring but frequently are more similar to those of law enforcement personnel, such as patrolling. In this article, we review the literature on SROs, identifying their common roles as well as the benefits and drawbacks to their presence in public schools in the United States. The literature suggests that there is a complicated relationship between SROs and crime and violence prevention in schools, including different outcomes for different populations of students. Based on our review of the literature, we recommend changes regarding the use of SROs in public schools for policy makers, school practitioners, and researchers.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"4 1","pages":"336 - 346"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75002039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096382
W. Grolnick, E. Pomerantz
ABSTRACT Over the last decade, there has been debate about whether parents should be involved in their children’s schooling. Although some have argued that parent involvement benefits children, others have argued that it does not and even has costs. Drawing on the large body of research relevant to this controversy, we make the case that, in general, parent involvement in children’s schooling facilitates children’s motivation, engagement, and learning, particularly when such involvement is autonomy supportive and affectively positive. However, parent involvement can have costs for children when it is controlling and affectively negative, which may be most common in the homework context because of the pressure associated with it. We offer a set of recommendations for educators to consider in taking the pressure out of the parent involvement equation, thereby facilitating parents’ optimal support of children’s motivation, engagement, and learning.
{"title":"Should parents be involved in their children’s schooling?","authors":"W. Grolnick, E. Pomerantz","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096382","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the last decade, there has been debate about whether parents should be involved in their children’s schooling. Although some have argued that parent involvement benefits children, others have argued that it does not and even has costs. Drawing on the large body of research relevant to this controversy, we make the case that, in general, parent involvement in children’s schooling facilitates children’s motivation, engagement, and learning, particularly when such involvement is autonomy supportive and affectively positive. However, parent involvement can have costs for children when it is controlling and affectively negative, which may be most common in the homework context because of the pressure associated with it. We offer a set of recommendations for educators to consider in taking the pressure out of the parent involvement equation, thereby facilitating parents’ optimal support of children’s motivation, engagement, and learning.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"37 1","pages":"325 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81281406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096381
Elizabeth Kraatz, Jacqueline von Spiegel, Robin C. Sayers, Anna C. Brady
ABSTRACT Controversial topics may be uncomfortable for teachers to include in their in-class discussions. However, there are considerable cognitive and social-emotional benefits to engagement in controversial conversations, or classroom discussion about controversial topics. It is critical that teachers support students in respectful discussion to help them develop skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and the ability to consider issues from multiple perspectives. These skills can enable students to meet larger educational goals such as engaged citizenship. The goal of this article is to highlight the benefits of controversial conversations in the classroom and describe teaching approaches that facilitate effective controversial conversations. First, we identify important factors for teachers’ consideration in supporting effective and beneficial controversial conversations. Second, we provide examples of topics of conversations that may be appropriate for students of varying ages. Third, we review how the structure of conversation, scaffolding, classroom context, relationships, and students’ individual differences can shape controversial conversations.
{"title":"Should we “just stick to the facts”? The benefit of controversial conversations in classrooms","authors":"Elizabeth Kraatz, Jacqueline von Spiegel, Robin C. Sayers, Anna C. Brady","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096381","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Controversial topics may be uncomfortable for teachers to include in their in-class discussions. However, there are considerable cognitive and social-emotional benefits to engagement in controversial conversations, or classroom discussion about controversial topics. It is critical that teachers support students in respectful discussion to help them develop skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and the ability to consider issues from multiple perspectives. These skills can enable students to meet larger educational goals such as engaged citizenship. The goal of this article is to highlight the benefits of controversial conversations in the classroom and describe teaching approaches that facilitate effective controversial conversations. First, we identify important factors for teachers’ consideration in supporting effective and beneficial controversial conversations. Second, we provide examples of topics of conversations that may be appropriate for students of varying ages. Third, we review how the structure of conversation, scaffolding, classroom context, relationships, and students’ individual differences can shape controversial conversations.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"106 1","pages":"312 - 324"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87864777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096379
Nicole Barnes, C. Brighton, Helenrose Fives, C. Meyers, Tonya R. Moon
ABSTRACT Data use has gained policy traction at the federal, state, and local levels in the United States and internationally, and is now embedded in teacher, principal, and district leader standards in the U.S. However, many decisions implemented in policy and practice are being made on insufficient evidence and assume a relatively straightforward, intuitive, and coherent data use process in which educators have access to data; the data are appropriate for the task at hand; and that they have the skills to retrieve, analyze, and respond appropriately to directly or indirectly change instruction for the better. Yet, research indicates that in actuality the practice of educator data use is complicated and heavily influenced by both organizational and individual factors such as school leaders’ influence on teachers’ data use, and teachers’ beliefs about, capacity for, and use of data for instructional decisions. Because we and many others in the field of education have come to see the potential value and utility of data use by educators, we offer the five recommendations to improve educators’ data use for instructional practice.
{"title":"Where’s the data to support educators’ data use for instructional practice?","authors":"Nicole Barnes, C. Brighton, Helenrose Fives, C. Meyers, Tonya R. Moon","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2096379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2096379","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Data use has gained policy traction at the federal, state, and local levels in the United States and internationally, and is now embedded in teacher, principal, and district leader standards in the U.S. However, many decisions implemented in policy and practice are being made on insufficient evidence and assume a relatively straightforward, intuitive, and coherent data use process in which educators have access to data; the data are appropriate for the task at hand; and that they have the skills to retrieve, analyze, and respond appropriately to directly or indirectly change instruction for the better. Yet, research indicates that in actuality the practice of educator data use is complicated and heavily influenced by both organizational and individual factors such as school leaders’ influence on teachers’ data use, and teachers’ beliefs about, capacity for, and use of data for instructional decisions. Because we and many others in the field of education have come to see the potential value and utility of data use by educators, we offer the five recommendations to improve educators’ data use for instructional practice.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"27 1","pages":"277 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91339075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-18DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2043708
Dustin Miller, Brett Zyromski, Melvin J. Brown
As educational leaders and higher education faculty, we are drawn to the work of deconstructing racism in K-12 by an undergirding principle—all students deserve the opportunity to thrive in safe educational settings. Scholars (Ladson-Billings, 2021; Love, 2019; Shores et al., 2020, among others) have clearly articulated ways that the American educational system was built upon whiteness and continues to serve some students better than others. Further, when a public tragedy like the death of George Floyd occurs, it can impact Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) students by layering additional hurt, fear, and anger on top of daily biases they face. Ongoing discipline disparities (Graves et al., 2021), lack of access to higher level courses (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Shores et al., 2020), and implicit bias of educators (Khalifa et al., 2016) underscore a few examples of the continued presence of structural racism in K-12 schools. This reality naturally reinforces feelings of insecurity and fear for BIPOC students when their schools are not safe spaces designed for them to learn and grow (Ladson-Billings, 2021). Our call as educators is to deconstruct racist educational systems and policies and rebuild them in ways that serve all students (Love, 2019). This is the reason we have dedicated a special issue of Theory into Practice to an ongoing search for ways to deconstruct racism in K-12 schools. Deconstructing racism in schools continues to take on many forms, and can be oper-ationalized through anti-racist teacher education, culturally responsive leadership, authen-tic community engagement, critical policy analysis, curriculum revisions, evolved recruitment practices, and creating alternative approaches to instruction, among other approaches. As a continuation of this work, it is the intent of this special issue to explore how social emotional learning (SEL) approaches can be used to support the deconstruction
作为教育领导者和高等教育教师，我们被一个基本原则所吸引，即所有学生都应该有机会在安全的教育环境中茁壮成长，从而解构K-12中的种族主义。学者(Ladson-Billings, 2021;爱,2019年;Shores et al.(2020，等)清楚地表明，美国教育体系是建立在白人的基础上的，并且继续为一些学生提供比其他学生更好的服务。此外，当像乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)之死这样的公共悲剧发生时，黑人、土著和有色人种(BIPOC)学生在日常面临的偏见之上，会受到额外的伤害、恐惧和愤怒的影响。持续的学科差异(Graves et al.， 2021)，缺乏获得更高水平课程的机会(Ford & Grantham, 2003;Shores et al.， 2020)和教育者的隐性偏见(Khalifa et al.， 2016)强调了K-12学校中结构性种族主义持续存在的几个例子。当他们的学校不是为他们学习和成长而设计的安全空间时，这种现实自然会加强BIPOC学生的不安全感和恐惧感(Ladson-Billings, 2021)。作为教育工作者，我们的呼吁是解构种族主义的教育制度和政策，并以服务所有学生的方式重建它们(Love, 2019)。这就是为什么我们专门为《从理论到实践》(Theory into Practice)专刊，寻找解构K-12学校种族主义的方法。解构学校中的种族主义继续采取多种形式，并可以通过反种族主义教师教育、文化响应型领导、真正的社区参与、批判性政策分析、课程修订、发展招聘实践以及创造替代教学方法等方法来实现操作民族化。作为这项工作的延续，本期特刊的目的是探讨如何使用社会情绪学习(SEL)方法来支持解构
{"title":"Reimagining SEL as a tool to deconstruct racist educational systems","authors":"Dustin Miller, Brett Zyromski, Melvin J. Brown","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2043708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2043708","url":null,"abstract":"As educational leaders and higher education faculty, we are drawn to the work of deconstructing racism in K-12 by an undergirding principle—all students deserve the opportunity to thrive in safe educational settings. Scholars (Ladson-Billings, 2021; Love, 2019; Shores et al., 2020, among others) have clearly articulated ways that the American educational system was built upon whiteness and continues to serve some students better than others. Further, when a public tragedy like the death of George Floyd occurs, it can impact Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) students by layering additional hurt, fear, and anger on top of daily biases they face. Ongoing discipline disparities (Graves et al., 2021), lack of access to higher level courses (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Shores et al., 2020), and implicit bias of educators (Khalifa et al., 2016) underscore a few examples of the continued presence of structural racism in K-12 schools. This reality naturally reinforces feelings of insecurity and fear for BIPOC students when their schools are not safe spaces designed for them to learn and grow (Ladson-Billings, 2021). Our call as educators is to deconstruct racist educational systems and policies and rebuild them in ways that serve all students (Love, 2019). This is the reason we have dedicated a special issue of Theory into Practice to an ongoing search for ways to deconstruct racism in K-12 schools. Deconstructing racism in schools continues to take on many forms, and can be oper-ationalized through anti-racist teacher education, culturally responsive leadership, authen-tic community engagement, critical policy analysis, curriculum revisions, evolved recruitment practices, and creating alternative approaches to instruction, among other approaches. As a continuation of this work, it is the intent of this special issue to explore how social emotional learning (SEL) approaches can be used to support the deconstruction","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"20 1","pages":"141 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78278159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-10DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2036057
Dustin Miller, Jaime S. Stewart, Melvin J. Brown
ABSTRACT Arguably, K-12 schools are caught in the crossfire of a political divide in this country. This division is evidenced through examples of parent frustration toward school leaders’ attempts (or lack thereof) to address important topics like racism in schools. Although the democratic ideal promotes student exposure to differing viewpoints in order to become well-informed adults, school leaders are becoming more hesitant to broach controversial topics in schools. We believe this is more about parent perspectives being valued and less about a blatant resistance of childrens’ exposure to opposing viewpoints. To that end, we propose a crisis management model, framed through a social-emotional learning (SEL) lens, for school leaders to engage parents in collectively deconstructing controversial issues. First, we establishe how crisis management, through a SEL lens, can be used to address controversial issues in schools. Second, we apply this rationale to deconstructing racism in K-12. Through the use of stakeholder teams, we believe parents with differing viewpoints can be heard, find common ground, and learn to see the value of students’ exposure to controversial issues.
{"title":"Engaging frustrated parents: Utilizing stakeholder teams to collectively deconstruct controversial issues in K-12","authors":"Dustin Miller, Jaime S. Stewart, Melvin J. Brown","doi":"10.1080/00405841.2022.2036057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2036057","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Arguably, K-12 schools are caught in the crossfire of a political divide in this country. This division is evidenced through examples of parent frustration toward school leaders’ attempts (or lack thereof) to address important topics like racism in schools. Although the democratic ideal promotes student exposure to differing viewpoints in order to become well-informed adults, school leaders are becoming more hesitant to broach controversial topics in schools. We believe this is more about parent perspectives being valued and less about a blatant resistance of childrens’ exposure to opposing viewpoints. To that end, we propose a crisis management model, framed through a social-emotional learning (SEL) lens, for school leaders to engage parents in collectively deconstructing controversial issues. First, we establishe how crisis management, through a SEL lens, can be used to address controversial issues in schools. Second, we apply this rationale to deconstructing racism in K-12. Through the use of stakeholder teams, we believe parents with differing viewpoints can be heard, find common ground, and learn to see the value of students’ exposure to controversial issues.","PeriodicalId":48177,"journal":{"name":"Theory Into Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"168 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89457698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：