Brown@65 | Growing Critically Conscious Teachers: The Responsibility of Educational Leaders by Brandi N. Hinnant-Crawford, PhD
In 1935, in the Journal of Negro Education, WEB DuBois posed the question: Does the Negro need separate schools? His answer foreshadowed the aftermath of forced desegregation when he explained:
“They are needed just so far as they are necessary for the proper education of the Negro race. The proper education of any people includes sympathetic touch between teacher [emphasis added] and pupil; knowledge on the part of the teacher [emphasis added], not simply of the individual taught, but of his surroundings and background, and the history of his class and group; such contact between pupils, and between teacher [emphasis added] and pupil, on the basis of perfect social equality, as will increase this sympathy and knowledge . . . ” (1935, p. 328)
Much of what DuBois describes as necessary for proper education deals with the teacher. He went on to suggest exposing Black children to White attitudes would be detrimental to their growth and development. The desegregated school would presumably lack the institutional care present within the Black school (Siddle-Walker, 1996). The experiment of desegregation placed the burden primarily on Black children to attend White schools, and did not integrate Black teachers into those schools (Ethridge, 1979; Milner & Howard, 2004; Tillman, 2004). Sixty-five years after the Brown decision, we witness the impact of the dismantling of the separate schools. Higher suspension and expulsion rates, over-identification in special education, under-identification in gifted education, disparate assessment outcomes on all levels are the fruit of Black children being educated in environments hostile to who they are. Teachers serve as conduits for the educational opportunity gap with their colorblindness, belief in the myth of meritocracy, context-neutral mindsets, subscription to deficit ideology, and the cultural dissonance they generate in the classroom (Milner, 2012).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the fall of 2015, more than half of White students attended schools that were 75% White, and more than half of Black students attended schools that were at least 75% students of color. Yet, across the board, the majority of teachers (80%) are White. The irony is 65 years after Brown, Black children do indeed attend separate schools, but without the benefits DuBois outlined.
So today, we are faced with a different question, what is the role of educational leaders in cultivating the teacher that DuBois described—a critically conscious teacher? To begin, I define a critically conscious teacher as one who:
- Has a realistic appraisal of the world and the ability to imagine a better world
- Sees their work as a part of creating a better world
- Understands the socio-political and economic realities of their students
- Is concerned about the educational opportunities of all children, especially marginalized children
- Reflects on their own practice to see how better to serve all children
- Is aware of and seeks to challenge policies/practices within their school and the broader society that marginalize children
- Employs asset-based, student-centered, deeper learning pedagogies
Teachers are the most important factor influencing student achievement, and school leaders are next in line (NASSP & NAESP, 2013). Much of leaders’ impact is mediated through their influence on teachers. For a plant to grow, it needs good soil, water, and sunlight. Similarly, growing a critically conscious teacher requires a school climate and culture built on equity and justice–soil, a coherent induction and professional learning model that prioritizes maximizing opportunities to learn for all children–water, and a parental and community outreach agenda that recognizes the expertise and values the contributions of a wide array of stakeholders, particularly those from marginalized communities–sun. Educational leadership is often distributed and takes many forms in K-12 schools, including principals, assistant principals, teacher leaders, and instructional coaches (Neumerski, 2012). However, designated as the chief instructional officer, this essay will focus on the principal’s role in the husbandry of critically conscious teachers.
Sixty-five years after Brown, we need leaders who support critically conscious teachers, and these leaders are those who see their mission as disrupting patterns and practices of schooling that have led to the proliferation of gaps in opportunities to learn.
Soil
In the New Testament, there is a parable of a sower throwing seeds on four types of soil, and the outcome of the seeds differed depending on the type of soil they fell upon. This is analogous to planting a new teacher in different school cultures and climates. The climate and culture of a school can either enhance their development as a critically conscious teacher or detract from that development. Take the case of Bob, a teacher who was taught student-centered pedagogical practices in his teacher preparation program, but explained his school only prioritized scores. As he described his teaching, he said he stopped doing what he learned in his MAT program and became more didactic and teacher centered in his instruction (Hinnant-Crawford, 2019). This was a direct response to the culture and climate of the school.
School climate and culture are often conflated, but are distinct concepts (MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009; Van Hotte, 2005). Climate refers to the overall quality of experience in the schools and the practices that lead to that experience. Culture, on the other hand, is the inherent values and shared beliefs. Climate is influenced by culture. A culture that nurtures critically conscious teachers is one where the leader has established a shared mission and vision that centers on creating equitable access to opportunities to learn with an ultimate goal of dismantling structures that lead to marginalization and disenfranchisement. But beyond establishing the mission and vison of the organization, the leader must understand and model the critical self-reflection necessary for justice work (Khalifa, Gooden & Davis, 2016), possess an asset-based view of the students and community served (Green, 2015), and genuinely value collaboration over competition. This type of culture will produce a climate that elicits feelings of inclusivity. Furthermore, practices common in this type of climate will include soliciting input from a variety of stakeholders, engaging in continuous improvement efforts, and disaggregating data frequently to determine who is not being served well.
Water
Literature on teacher learning often organizes that learning in three distinct phases–preparation, induction, and continual professional learning after the induction phase (Feimen-Nemser, 2001). Teacher preparation programs provide an initial foundation. Often, when teachers are not producing desired outcomes, we blame teacher preparation (Darling Hammond, 2000). However, when we examine the three-part trajectory, it is evident that teacher preparation is only one piece of teacher development. School principals play a vital role in the teacher development trajectory (Angelle, 2006) and thus can be a catalyst for the development of critically conscious teachers.
Growing critically conscious teachers requires a coherent induction and professional learning model that prioritizes maximizing opportunities to learn for all children. Induction is seen as generally having two goals, retaining new teachers and improving their instruction–but it is in fact socialization into the school setting (Angelle, 2006). Angelle explains, “Ineffective schools continue to remain ineffective as the process of socializing teachers into ‘diseased’ cultures becomes cyclical. Until the members of ineffective school communities are willing to be immunized, the sickness will continue to grow (Angelle, 2006, p. 330).” Induction must be intentional, and when it is for critically conscious teachers it must go beyond what is mandated by the state or district. Most state induction programs require some type of mentoring, but the school leader must not expect the mentor to bear the burden of induction. The principal should be visible to new teachers (i.e., in their classrooms), giving instructional feedback (Wood, 2005), and culture and climate feedback explicating the norms of the school.
While induction is targeted learning for beginning teachers, the principal is responsible for building capacity among every teacher in the school. In designing professional learning opportunities, leaders who cultivate critically conscious teachers, design a coherent educational program that focuses on developing knowledge of the craft of teaching as well as knowledge of the students and their socio-political realities. Indeed, maximizing learning opportunities for students requires pedagogical knowledge as well as cultural consciousness. Prophetic imagination and imagining a new world should be encouraged. Students should be inspired to create the world that they imagine; only teachers can be the catalyst for this possibility. In this regard, the role of the principal is of critical importance; they must be intentional with content, physically interact with teachers in classrooms and during professional development, and understand the uniqueness of adult learning. By way of illustration, cultural mismatches between students and teachers, as well as complex trauma experienced within a community, must be addressed by the principal’s instructional program. Principals must, in short, display culturally responsive leadership. Additionally, it is the responsibility of leadership to connect concepts such as cultural sustainability and relevance with curricular content. For example, when there are professional learning opportunities geared toward math instruction, the leader must pose the question: how do we present this while sustaining student’s home culture?
Leaders must also be present. Leaders cannot bring in an expert to teach something to teachers, and be in their office or elsewhere when this is happening. Their presence alone sends a sense of importance. Moreover, the leader must show everyone how each professional learning opportunity is related to the overall school mission of increasing student opportunities to learn. Lastly, as leaders develop an instructional program, they have to understand how adults learn. “Sit and get” and “one shot” designs for professional development will not produce growth in instructional capacity. Leaders must design professional learning opportunities that introduce a strategy, give teachers a chance to practice it, and reconvene to reflect. Leaders should use best practices for adult learning when developing an instructional program, like those put forth by Learning Forward.
Sun
Last but not least, the sun is necessary for all life. The sun provides energy, warmth, and light. Educational leaders developing critically conscious teachers must develop a robust parental and community outreach agenda that recognizes the expertise and values the contributions of a wide array for stakeholders, particularly those from marginalized communities (Lomotey, 1993). This is not simply about number of contacts, but meaningful contact—where the knowledge and expertise of parents and the community are used to illuminate the learning and operational processes within the school. Leaders must be willing to use their light as guidance. To do this well, there must also be a willingness to abdicate power and decision making in deference to those stakeholders on some occasions. This type of leadership is what Auerbach (2010) describes as “leadership for authentic partnerships” on her leadership continuum for school-family partnerships (p. 734). As a school leader allows space for various stakeholder expertise, he or she models how new teachers can capitalize on student expertise.
In more practical terms, these leaders are experts on the communities they serve, and they teach their faculty and staff about the community. These leaders initiate contact with parents and stakeholders and establish community partnerships. Last but not least, they encourage their teachers to do the same.
Growing Critically Conscious Teachers
Soil. Water. Sun. A teacher who has not been nourished will be unlikely to bear good fruit. Educator preparation programs are like nurseries, they take novice teachers from seeds to seedlings. But the gardener who plants the seedling, the principal, has greater influence on whether it ever bears fruit.
When DuBois asked if the Black child needed separate schools, his concern was based on the idea of Black children being taught by teachers who refused to see their potential or recognize their humanity. Teachers who grew up in the United States have been subconsciously taught things about minoritized youth their entire lives, which in turn, impacts their teaching. For example, the discourse around the achievement gap has made it ostensibly normative and the result of disparate ability. Even now, for teachers to see the potential and full humanity of minoritzed youth, they must look with intentionality for something they were socialized to believe is not there.
This is why leadership matters (NASSP & NAESP, 2013; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). It is incumbent upon school leaders to direct teachers who look, and look again. They challenge teachers to question their assumptions about student failure being rooted in student deficiencies, and to examine how their own practices may contribute to the marginalization of children. Scholars have described school leaders who have the capacity to cultivate critically conscious teachers before. Principals with an ethno-humanist identity (Lomotey, 1993), leaders for social justice (Theoharris, 2007), and culturally responsive school leaders (Horsford, Grosland, & Gunn, 2011; Khalifa, Gooden, Davis, 2016) all seek to nurture the development of teachers who will do exactly what DuBois described in 1935. Sixty-five years after Brown, we need leaders who support critically conscious teachers, and these leaders are those who see their mission as disrupting patterns and practices of schooling that have led to the proliferation of gaps in opportunities to learn. The question remains when a principal’s reappointment is contingent on their school’s performance, how do we cultivate school leaders up to the task?
This is the third installment in our Brown@65 Series. Contributors to this series for the AJE Forum presented these pieces at the Brown@65 Conference hosted by Penn State’s Center for Education and Civil Rights and the university’s Africana Research Center.We invite you to join our conversation by commenting below, engaging us on AJE’s social media platforms, or submitting an essay of your own.
Brandi Hinnant-Crawford is an Assistant Professor of Educational Research at Western Carolina University. Hinnant-Crawford’s work seeks to expose policies and practices related to exploitation, domination, and marginalization—while simultaneously exploring remedies to alleviate the impact of those policies and practices. Her broad research interests include: asset based pedagogies, deeper learning pedagogies, culturally responsive school leadership, educator activism, and improvement science.
References
Angelle, P. S. (2006). Instructional leadership and monitoring: Increasing teacher intent to stay through socialization. NASSP Bulletin, 90(4), 318-334.
Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school–family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728-757.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1935). Does the Negro need separate schools? Journal of Negro Education 4(3), 423-431.
Ethridge, S. B. (1979). Impact of the 1954 Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision on Black educators. The Negro Educational Review, 30(4), 217.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From Preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Green, T. L. (2015). Places of inequality, places of possibility: Mapping “opportunity in geography” across urban school-communities. The Urban Review, 47(4), 717-741.
Hinnant-Crawford, B. N. (2019). Legislating instruction in urban schools: Unintended consequences of accountability policy on teacher-reported classroom goal structures. Urban Education, [online first] 0042085919838004.
Horsford, S. D., Grosland, T. & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(4), 582-601.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A. & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311.
Lomotey, K. (1993). African American principals: Bureaucrat/administrators and ethno-humanists. Urban Education, 27(4), 395-412.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.
Milner IV, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693-718.
Milner IV, H. R., & Howard, T. C. (2004). Black teachers, Black students, Black communities, and Brown: Perspectives and insights from experts. Journal of Negro Education, 285-297.
National Association of Secondary School Principals & National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2013). Leadership Matters: What Research Says About the Importance of Principal Leadership. Reston, VA: NASSP.
Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational administration quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
Walker, V.S. (1996). Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational administration quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.
Tillman, L. C. (2004). (Un) intended consequences? The impact of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on the employment status of black educators. Education and urban society, 36(3), 280-303.
Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 71-89.
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in novice teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39-62.
