Wisconsin School District Policy Responses to Demographic Changes

Introduction

Many school districts throughout the United States have made efforts to respond to demographic and cultural changes related to poverty, race, and immigration. Conservative and liberal areas alike have adapted curriculums, imposed professional development for staff, and introduced new programs in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment to immigrant students and students of color. However, despite the proliferation of new initiatives to meet these cultural changes, author Erica O. Turner’s analysis revealed that some district leaders have not entirely been successful in creating policies that recognize systemic inequalities in many students’ lives. 

“Racial meaning” and “meaning-making” refers to one’s belief systems and decision-making processes as they relate to race. Turner’s findings showed that political and organizational contexts shaped “racial meaning” for school district policy makers. These contexts included the parameters of state and local laws, as well as pressures from white middle class constituents. This sense of “meaning-making” for decision makers was central to the development of school districts’ education policy responses to changes in racial demographics. 

Erica O. Turner is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Informed by sociocultural and critical race theories, her research focuses on how racism and inequity affects educational policymaking. Turner also examines how these school policies shape and influence  students, families, communities, schools, and policymakers.

Methods and Findings

This study was a comparative analysis of two school districts located in Wisconsin. Both were medium-sized, urban districts that experienced notable increases in non-white, low-income student enrollment – but the two districts had contrasting community attitudes. One district had a “struggling economy and a generally unaccepting attitude towards immigrants and people of color,” while the other district had a “stronger economy and a more inclusive attitude towards immigrants and people of color.” 

From 2009 to 2010, Turner interviewed 37 school policymakers across the two districts about their policy responses to demographic change. Turner identified several categories of policy responses embraced by both districts: 

• English Language Programs: District policymakers were primarily concerned with immigrant student’s English language acquisition needs and often hired bilingual staff to teach students to speak and understand English. School districts were also interested in implementing two-way immersion programs, which would place native English speakers with immigrant students in the same classroom so they can learn both languages (usually English and Spanish) from one another.
• Professional Development: Trainings for school staff focused on racial and ethnic diversity; school leadership often cited professional development tools focused on ethnicity as a proxy for race and poverty—rather than addressing each topic individually.
• Strategic Planning: District leaders pursued strategic planning efforts that addressed gaps in educational achievement between different demographic groups. 
• Marketing: Both schools developed marketing plans to tout the increase in demographic diversity as a means to help prepare white students for their future by exposing them to students with global languages and cultures. 
• Behavior and Discipline Policy: Leaders in both school districts adopted new behavior and discipline strategies, but each district had different perceptions and perspectives regarding  race that shaped their decision making. Policy makers in the more conservative district focused on shifting the attitudes of school staff and community members regarding the increase in students of color. Policy makers in the more liberal district prioritized strategic planning as a means to reduce the achievement gap.

Interestingly, Turner’s findings detail even more similarities between the liberal and conservative school districts. Both districts identified the same two challenges as most salient when discussing the “problem” of demographic change. (1) Leaders were concerned about the educational outcomes of immigrant students and students of color. (2) Leaders were concerned about the mostly white, middle-class families that were leaving the district or threatening to leave. 

Neither district raised significant concerns about problems associated with immigrant students or English as a Second Language (ESL) students. Most concerns centered around race and class inequality, like those described above. 

Turner identified the following factors as influential in shaping education policy in these Wisconsin school districts:

• Community Leaders of Color: Black and Latinx community leaders pressured schools to be more responsive to students of color in their curriculum. 
• White and Middle Class or Affluent Parents: School leaders leveraged marketing strategies to promote diversity and influence white families to stay in their districts.
• Federal and State Laws: Several policies and regulations related to race and language set requirements that the districts had to follow, including the creation of bilingual education programs.
• Organizational Affiliations and Professional Roles: Staff at various levels of school district leadership had different interpretations of the implications of demographic changes. For example, district administrators focused on the importance of professional development for staff whereas school board members were most concerned with family exits from the district. 

Conclusions

Turner’s key takeaway was: “discourses of cultural deficits and prejudice on the one hand and diversity and language on the other hand are ultimately limited in their ability to make schools designed to serve white, middle-class, non-immigrant children into schools that are high quality and socially just for all students and suggest an alternative framing and policies.” It is essential that advocates for immigrant students and students of color understand the realities of “racial meaning” in their local policy making to collaborate successfully on effective educational policies. Advocates must be aware of and interrogate both the political context of the district and the potential perspectives of local district educational policy makers to ensure the needs of immigrant students and students of color are elevated and addressed. 

Inquiry-Based Intervention as a tool for advancing racial equity in faculty hiring

Introduction

Many White-serving educational institutions focus on colorblind or race neutral policies to advance racial equity in faculty hiring. This approach has led to inequitable hiring practices and a lack of racially minoritized faculty. This study aims to interrogate how professors can rethink their organizational culture to advance racial equity in the hiring process. The study focuses on how a culture of niceness throughout the hiring process creates sharp inequities in hiring outcomes. In addition, the study explores methods professors can use to overcome challenges to advancing racial equity in hiring by examining the effectiveness of inquiry-based interventions, race-conscious language, and storytelling as mechanisms of change. A case study approach was used to collect qualitative data about faculty at a private, religious affiliated 4-year university over a 10-month period. Working with the faculty at Valley Oaks University (VOU) — a pseudonym that was created to ensure anonymity — Liera discovered meaningful ways to tackle the issue of engaging in meaningful and honest conversations around faculty hiring. This research has important implications for the future of racial equity and faculty hiring cultures at White-serving educational institutions. 

Methods and Findings

Liera used a case study approach involving observations and interviews to examine a group of faculty (called the “evidence team”). In conjunction with researchers at California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE), Liera led seven professional development workshops to evaluate and question campus culture and values via inquiry-based intervention. This intervention method provided opportunities for the group of faculty to collectively understand and interrogate their campus culture to identify solutions for hiring more racially minoritized professors.  

• The group consisted of 17 professors: 10 White, 4 Latinx, 2 Black, and 1 Asian. Only 11 professors were interviewed in addition to participating in team meetings. 
• Text Analysis Software, NVivo 11 was used to analyze field notes and provide a consistent comparative approach for interview transcripts, reflection memos, and analytic memos. Liera did two cycles of coding and compared codes in both instances. 
• Liera used the CHAT (Cultural History Activity Theory) framework  to categorize codes into activities and develop analytical questions that focused on faculty learning and development beyond only descriptions of activities. 

Liera found patterns and opportunities for growth on three levels: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional. Almost all levels interact with the “culture of niceness” at the university, which prioritizes comfort and the status quo over changing the experiences of racially minoritized professors. A key reason the study was fruitful was because it enabled professors to identify inner contradictions in their personal behavior and then apply that thinking to the culture and institution as a whole. 

From the intrapersonal perspective, Liera highlights the theme of “Maintaining a Culture of Niceness,” which was identified as a root challenge to beginning honest conversations around racism at the University. In these exercises, the evidence team defined what racial equity and inquiry meant to them and established rules for having difficult conversations. Through this process most evidence team members recognized that the religious affiliation of the school played a large role in the culture of niceness. Secondly, there was an acknowledgement that this culture made it particularly difficult to have confrontational and honest conversations about race and hiring faculty of color.

Disrupting a culture of niceness focused on the experiences of racially minoritized faculty, which in turn, shaped the agency of the White faculty on the evidence team. Many White faculty had to engage with feelings of the racially-minoritized faculty in a way they had not done before. This engagement laid the groundwork for discussing the issues of racial equity within the faculty hiring process. Another of Liera’s findings from observing the evidence team was the organizational changes the team made to adjust the culture and hiring process for racially minoritized faculty. The evidence team agreed to use equity-minded language, include other members of the organization (staff, administration) in the hiring process, and focus on specific actions they could take to move beyond the culture of niceness. Many evidence team members were eager to redesign job descriptions and other university templates to include more equity-mind language. In addition, they suggested implicit bias training for all members of the faculty search committee. 

Conclusions

Faculty hiring requires a race-conscious focus and cannot be race neutral. Inquiry-based interventions that focus on institutional and individual reflection are crucial to helping faculty understand their own internal biases and general culture of any school or university. It also helps to create race-conscious language that facilitates interrogation of culture and positionality. Once faculty have generated new thoughts from this process, they are more likely to find tangible ways to change their templates, search committee guidelines, and more. Ultimately, in order to change policy, senior administrators and multiple faculty must be involved. 

Participants in this study overcame many challenges connected to the practice of identifying inner contradictions first and then applying that same lens to the institution as a whole. Following this reflection, many faculty and administrators were willing to actively engage with that process. Both White and racially minoritized faculty engaged in this process, which created two interacting activities to help facilitate group growth. This inquiry-based methodology is emotionally-driven and relies on individuals sharing their personal experiences with racism. A key contribution from this research centers around the power of equity-minded inquiry and personal stories of racism as vehicles for achieving policy change in faculty hiring. 

Putting Racial and Socioeconomic Equity at the Center of Education Policy

Introduction

The 1990’s was a watershed moment in American education reform. Prior to the start of the decade, in 1983, the newly formed National Commission on Excellence in Education produced a scathing 52-page report titled ​A Nation at Risk t​hat charged American education with mediocrity and lack of international competitiveness. If ​A Nation at Risk w​as a report card, America’s grade on education was an F. To get a better grade, the report concluded, America needed to raise its academic standards and hold schools accountable for student performance.

After the publication of ​A Nation at Risk​, many states raised performance standards and used high-stakes testing to hold schools accountable. However, states did not consider whether this performance-focused accountability mandate promoted or hindered racial and socioeconomic equity. Although these mandates may narrow achievement gaps* by ​motivating under-performing students and schools to improve achievement, ​gaps could widen without adequate support and equity in school resources. Education researchers Jaekyung Lee and Kenneth K. Wong, two recognized leaders in accountability and equity in U.S. education, sought to answer the question: Were states’ accountability policies of the 1990’s able to improve the achievement of historically marginalized students and make school resources more equitable?

Jaekyung Lee, PhD, is a professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Buffalo. He is also a ​Richard P. Nathan Public Policy Fellow of the Rockefeller Institute of Government ​and a​ fellow of the American Educational Research Association​. ​His primary areas of focus include educational policy for accountability and equity, and international and comparative education. ​Kenneth K. Wong ​is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Chair for Education Policy, and Professor of Urban Studies, International and Public Affairs, and Political Science Brown University. He is also the director of the Urban Education Policy Program at Brown. His research focuses on the politics of education and outcome-based accountability, among other education-related topics.

*The language surrounding achievement in education has shifted since this paper was published in 2004. Once referred to as ‘achievement gap,’ the disparities observed in achievement between racially and socioeconomically minoritized and majoritized groups is now called the ‘opportunity gap’ to reflect that inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities are better determinants of achievement.

Methods and Findings

The researchers analyzed the role of educational accountability policies and the relationship they have with the racial and socioeconomic distribution of school resources and math achievement. They classified 50 states into either a strong accountability or weak accountability group to assess the impact of the states’ accountability policies on improving and equalizing math learning outcomes, specifically for minoritized students. States with strong accountability policies used school ratings, offered rewards for successful schools, and made major modifications for underperforming schools, while states with weak accountability did not take these measures. They found:

●  Significant racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps in 1992 that did not change with time, and were poorly associated to states’ accountability policies

●  No significant difference between the accountability of strong and weak states in their impact on school resources such as per-pupil spending, class size, and qualified teachers

●  Strong accountability states’ policies were positively related to gains in math achievement, but the effects were insignificant when other factors were taken into account

●  School resources had a positive effect on the change in the Hispanic-White achievement gap, but these same results were not significant when states’ demographic factors were taken into account

●  States’ math achievement is significantly associated with school resources

Conclusions

The researchers found no evidence that accountability policies of the 90’s significantly improved school resources nor did it significantly change the distribution of student achievement in math. Although the researchers found no evidence of negative impacts of accountability policy on equity in educational resources or student achievement, this is hardly a compliment. The authors posed the results of the study as a challenge to states: while accountability policies did not hurt adequacy or equity in schooling conditions, they didn’t lead to improvements either. Adopting high-stakes testing was not related to changes in racial and socioeconomic gaps nor equality of resource allocations.

Accountability practices such as adopting high-stakes tests, with an exclusive emphasis on performance outcomes and disregard for resource allocation issues, lack of support for school improvement, and limited attention to achievement gap issues, will fall short of achieving racial and socioeconomic equity. Accountability policies need to maintain a balance between state pressure and allocation of support to make movement on equity. The researchers are clear on this: given that states’ adoption of high-stakes testing policies was not related to changes in the racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps or to changes in the equality of resource allocations, racial socioeconomic equity should be at the core of accountability policies. Doing so would properly address the real problem: gaps in ​opportunity​ experienced by racially and socioeconomically minoritized groups.

Combating Institutional Anti-Blackness in Higher Education: Lessons from HBCU Presidents

Introduction

Despite the wide ranging accomplishments earned by historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), narratives regarding HBCUs often use deficit-oriented framing that erase their achievements. This context of pervasive institutional anti-blackness is rooted in the historical marginalization of HBCUs that continues to reinforce itself through less favorable depictions of HBCUs in the media and ultimately in public policy. For example, recent headlines such as “Struggling HBCUs Look for Help From the Trump Administration” (Camera, 2017) and ‘‘6-year Graduation Rates at Many HBCUs Lower Than 20 Percent’’ (AJC, 2018) suggest institutional fragility and deficiency at HBCUs that can influence public perceptions. 

Considering both the segregated origins of HBCUs, and how common discourse concerning HBCUs reflects larger institutional anti-blackness sentiments, researchers focused on the underreported strengths of HBCUs, as told by their presidents. By studying counter-narratives shared by chief executives closely tied to these institutions, researchers employed methodology from critical race theory to create greater public awareness of the benefits of HBCUs and their contributions to American society. Three primary themes emerged from their findings: HBCUs play important roles in (1) cultivating Black students’ leadership and development, (2) serving students with financial barriers, and (3) tapping the potential of students who were marginalized in prior academic settings.  

Each of this study’s authors conduct scholarly work on the experiences of historically marginalized students, as well as on the organizations that serve them, and of the policies that impact them. In addition, as each of the authors identifies as Black and/or African American, they acknowledge their unique interests and experiences in this study’s topical area, their collective efforts to mitigate potential bias, and how their shared identities serve as a source of pride and deeper understanding that prevents the loss of key data that may be overlooked by researchers with different identities.

Methods and Findings

Focusing solely on small and private HBCUs, the researchers consulted with practitioners, administrators, and scholars familiar with HBCUs to identify potential study participants known for their professional background and leadership. The seven HBCU presidents in the sample, referred to by pseudonyms throughout the study, differ by geographic location, gender, years of service, and prior HBCU attendance as students. Between July 2016 and May 2017, the principal investigator conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with each of these seven HBCU presidents. Cognizant of presidents’ limited availability, interviews were conducted via phone or in person, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Presidents were primed for the interview with a list of common HBCU challenges depicted in media and literature, including alumni engagement, enrollment and matriculation, limited financial resources, accreditation challenges, and questions pertaining to the value of HBCUs. During the interviews, HBCU presidents were invited to reflect on those challenges and any strategic approaches taken by their institution to address them. 

From the counter-narratives shared by HBCU presidents, three major findings emerged:

1. Transforming students into leaders: Given their history of fostering leadership development for students of color, HBCUs have had a significant impact on both the Black community and American society. One president highlighted that a quarter of African Americans with STEM degrees are HBCU graduates, and others emphasized HBCUs’ important role in educating diverse students given demographic trends and minority-majority projections.

2. Serving low-income students: Evidence suggests that a high percentage of HBCU students are from low-income families. Presidents navigate tensions between the federal government and HBCUs, while also facing various economic challenges including high student debt levels, and racial wealth disparities that affect students’ educational experiences. Yet, HBCU presidents have found creative ways to secure additional funding and shift orientations toward opportunities and away from perceived obstacles. 

3. Supporting students who faced prior academic structural barriers: HBCUs serve as uplifting institutions for many first-generation college students and other students traditionally underserved by American public schools. Presidents describe setting high expectations for students, pairing those expectations with support systems, rooting team-based collaboration in practices across the school, and hiring and reorganizing staff to be more responsive to students’ needs. 

Conclusions

This study underscores HBCUs’ significant contributions in Black leadership development, supporting students with financial challenges, and maximizing the potential of students marginalized in prior academic settings. Given current projections that low-income student enrollment will continue to increase, and that people of color will ultimately represent the majority of the U.S. population, the researchers advise state and federal policymakers to invest in schools with historic and ongoing service to low-income students, students of color, and students requiring additional academic support.

The authors also recommend enhanced communication between policymakers and HBCUs, including through the assistance of organizations and foundations with existing partnerships with both parties. Stronger communication would ensure educational institutions are represented in educational policy decision-making, that policymakers remain updated on HBCU accomplishments, and that both parties are combating less favorable media depictions and social perceptions of HBCUs. 

Educational institutions can also play a key role in countering deficit framing and invisibility as tools of institutional anti-blackness. As some continue to depict America as post-racial, according to the researchers, HBCUs continue to face questions regarding their value and relevance. The researchers recommend that HBCUs reclaim their own story through a systematic approach that centers the voices of stakeholders within these institutions. Whether through developing new communications strategies, hiring communications specialists, utilizing existing research and human resources offices, or participating in cross-institutional initiatives, proactive steps by HBCUs can leverage limited resources, shift the narrative about HBCUs, and have meaningful policy implications for institutions and their students.