Uncovering Bias in Educational Data Through QuantCrit

Introduction

The s͏tudy examines ho͏w pr͏i͏ncip͏les ͏from a ͏critical the͏o͏re͏ti͏cal framew͏ork can ͏be͏ int͏egra͏ted with ͏q͏uantitative rese͏arch ͏m͏ethods ͏to ͏cha͏llenge tr͏adit͏i͏ona͏l norms i͏n ed͏ucational da͏ta analy͏sis.͏ It ͏focu͏s͏es on add͏ress͏i͏ng racial inequ͏ities in͏ education by investigating how͏ numbers, ͏which ͏are͏ ofte͏n perceive͏d as n͏eu͏tral, ca͏n instead͏ perpetu͏ate biases. Th͏e study revi͏ews͏ m͏ultiple empiri͏cal papers to ͏exa͏mine ͏how res͏earchers are i͏m͏plemen͏ting a race͏-͏conscious͏ cri͏tique o͏f quantit͏ative͏ m͏eth͏ods, exp͏loring the ͏li͏mi͏tat͏ions of estab͏lished͏ data categories, and interrogating the implic͏ations o͏f c͏e͏nt͏ering cer͏tai͏n racial groups in compariso͏n͏. This framework, called quantCrit (Quantitative Critical Race Theory), critiques the supposed neutrality of data, questions the objectivity of statistical methods, and examines how they can unintentionally reinforce racial biases.
͏
The significance of this research lie͏s i͏n i͏ts͏ ͏potential͏ to change the fiel͏d of͏ e͏ducati͏onal r͏esearc͏h as a whole by ensuring that qua͏ntitative data does not ͏obscure or reinforce sy͏ste͏m͏ic inequities. By͏ questioni͏n͏g the o͏bjecti͏ve nat͏ure͏ of numbers and statist͏ical methods͏, the͏ study pushes for a more͏ inclusive appro͏ach to a͏nalyzing educ͏a͏tiona͏l dispa͏riti͏es͏. The fr͏a͏mework ͏applied h͏ere͏ i͏s especially i͏mpo͏rtant in͏ li͏ght ͏of ͏its potential ͏to bolster more equitable pol͏icy͏ reforms, through the use of educational͏ r͏es͏ear͏ch more attuned ͏to th͏e ͏realities of racial and socia͏l ͏inequities.͏

This study was authored by Wendy Castillo, an assistant professor in Urban Education and Quantitative Methods at Montclair State University, and Nathan Babb, a lecturer in data analysis at The George Washington University.

Methods and Findings

The study utilizes a systematic literature review methodology, encompassing a range of empirical research published over twelve years. Key data sources were rigorously screened, leading to the selection of studies that explicitly employed quantCrit principles to provide a race-conscious critique of traditional quantitative methods. The authors analyzed how these papers addressed researcher positionality, the role of community engagement, and the challenges posed by conventional racial categorizations in the context of quantCrit.

Findings from the review revealed that many researchers are beginning to adopt innovative methods consistent with quantCrit, such as disaggregating data based on nuanced racial and social variables, engaging with affected communities, and using intersectional approaches to data analysis.Common themes across the studies included challenges in creating equitable data categories, the importance of addressing systemic racism through structural rather than individual lenses, and the persistent reliance on traditional quantitative methods that may inadvertently reinforce inequities. These findings highlight both progress and ongoing gaps in the field’s efforts to align with quantCrit principles.

However, the study found persistent challenges in fully enacting quantCrit principles. For example, many studies still default to centering white populations as the majority racial group in their comparative analyses, and only a fraction of the works reviewed acknowledge researcher bias through positionality statements. These gaps underscore the need for more comprehensive methodologies that align with the goals of racial equity as envisioned by quantCrit.

Conclusions

The authors recommend advancing the field of quantitative educational research by pushing for deeper engagement with underrepresented racial groups and developing more sophisticated tools to analyze systemic inequities that align with the goals of the framework of quantCrit. Future research should incorporate more explicit measures of how race influences social outcomes and continue to critique conventional data practices. They advocate for researchers’ consistent use of reflexive statements, acknowledging how their personal and social contexts influence their work, which is central to quantCrit methodology.

The conclusions from this study hold relevance for scholars committed to anti-racist practices in education. By challenging the neutrality of traditional quantitative methods through quantCrit, the study calls for educational research to play a more active role in dismantling racial inequities. These findings offer a path forward for integrating critical race perspectives into quantitative research, prompting the field to adopt more equitable methodologies and make meaningful contributions to social justice-oriented policy reforms.

Challenging Racial Deficit Assumptions: School Leadership Actions to Drive Educational Equity

Introduction

Recent education research literature shows that a ‘new racism’ has emerged in elementary and secondary schools. This ‘new racism’ adopts a deficit mindset that blames students and parents of color for educational inequities instead of institutional barriers. Using Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a framework, the authors present the case study of a middle school in the Mountain Western region of the United States to underscore how school leadership decisions can drive institutional change in schools. They examine how racial deficit thinking can be challenged by: (1) identifying systemic equity challenges through internal equity audits, (2) initiating parental dialogues to counter majoritarian views that blame students of color and their families for academic outcomes, and (3) challenging existing school disciplinary measures that are rooted in the idea of whiteness as property.

Michelle N. Amiot is the Director of Research, Assessment and Evaluation at Salt Lake City School District and is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Utah. Jennifer Mayer-Glenn is the Special Assistant to the President for Campus-Community Partnerships at the University of Utah and previously served as the Director of Family School Collaboration at Salt Lake City School District. Laurence Parker is the chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Utah. Parker’s work focuses on diversity and equity in K-12 education.

Methods and Findings

While CRT is often used to highlight evidence of educational inequity, the authors argue that it is underutilized as a lens to explore how the policies and initiatives of school leaders impact racial equity. A traditional CRT framework includes six tenets, including the permanence of racism and other key facts. The authors focus in particular on the tenet of whiteness as property, which is rooted in the fundamental belief that “meritocracy in admissions and acceptance into […] elite colleges and universities was seen as a property right of whites”. This concept can manifest as the prioritization of white history in academic programming over that of minoritized groups and as a racial deficit mindset that normalizes the underperformance of students of color. 

The authors conduct a case study of a historically low-resourced middle school where two members of the research team worked as assistant principals. The  school was located within a high immigrant and refugee population area; 65% of the students identified as Latinx, and students spoke a diverse set of first languages. One of the main equity challenges identified was that the teachers had ingrained racial deficit thinking that “accepted beliefs of school failure regarding racially, culturally and linguistically diverse students.” A school equity audit revealed that many teachers believed that “individualized reasons for underachievement” were the cause of school failures. Examples of deficit-based reasons include lack of parental attention, inherently unmotivated students, and familial cultural devaluing of education. These beliefs in turn led to lower levels of academic programming and instruction for students of color. The authors discuss several key interventions school leadership took to combat racialized deficit thinking and create more equitable school practices for students of color.

Institutional change efforts conducted by the school leadership team to combat racial deficit assumptions:

• Internal equity audits: These audits focused on uncovering systemic inequities that had become normalized at the school. The audit results showed that the school’s policies focused more on the needs of staff instead of students, and teachers held racialized deficit beliefs about students and parents. These results were shared back in small group sessions with teachers. In these sessions, school leadership worked to dismantle the prevailing belief that the alternative of racial deficit views of blaming students of color was scrutinizing teachers. This effort catalyzed teachers’ acceptance of engaging with racial equity work at the school.  
• Parent dialogues: Increased communication with parents facilitated the sharing of counternarratives that challenged teachers’ racial deficit thinking. In the case study, parental  dialogue sessions were held multiple times a year and “served as a tool to disrupt the deficit storytelling and the majoritarian view about the school population and the surrounding community.” Parents, teachers, and school leaders were seen as partners in the effort to create more equitable schooling.
• Changes to school discipline practices: The equity audits revealed that school discipline measures served as another barrier to educational equity. The authors highlight how “whiteness as property and an overuse of punishment controls against students of color was part of the normalized standard operational procedures at the school.” Using a CRT framework, the school leadership collaborated with school resource officers to recognize the investment of their students in education rather than seeing them as a threat. School leaders also initiated sessions teaching staff and students about the role of racial profiling.

Conclusions

The authors advocate for CRT as a lens to challenge racial deficit thinking in schools and create pathways to educational equity. They present a case study of how one middle school in the U.S. was able to shift deficit thinking and create more equitable pathways for students of color. Key institutional change efforts include (1) conducting internal audit reviews to understand systemic inequities, (2) creating partnerships between parents, teachers, and students to challenge deficit beliefs, and (3) challenging assumptions that privilege whiteness in school disciplinary measures. Understanding and challenging racial deficit thinking is critical to introducing and sustaining racial equity change in education.

A Seven-Point Guide to Creating an Antiracist University

Introduction

Dr. Ian Law, founding director of the Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies (CERS) at the University of Leeds, reviews twenty years of scholarship and initiatives by the Centre related to racism and higher education in the UK. Founded in 1998, CERS produces policy-relevant research that seeks to dismantle racism. In the 1990s, the Centre studied racial disparities in undergraduate admissions and the absence of antiracist developments in higher education. Since the early 2000s, CERS has launched an institutional antiracism toolkit, published an edited book on racism in higher education, hosted an international colloquium on Black male academic success, and advanced other innovative programs and research to inform antiracist policy.

In this article, Law critically examines the state of higher education as it pertains to racism. Too often, he states, universities fail to recognize how racism shapes their institutions and how to respond to such challenges with creativity. For example, when higher education institutions claim to be “post-racial,” this ideology can mask systemic issues faced by racialized students, faculty, and staff, such as poor access to resources, white-centered curriculum, discrimination, and harassment. However well-intentioned, colorblind or race-neutral policies can hinder progress towards sustainable racial equity, promote practices synonymous with whiteness, and marginalize underrepresented groups. 

Synthesizing lessons from CERS’ work, Law provides a seven-point guide for antiracist change at higher education institutions and calls on schools to re-examine their role and responsibilities in increasingly multiracial societies. Real change can come through upholding antiracism as an institutional norm, whether through staff professionalism, the standard by which students conduct themselves, and how the institution engages with the community. Although institutional and intellectual change may be slow, the work remains urgent within higher education institutions. 

Methods and Findings

To begin building an antiracist university, Law suggests that higher education institutions:

1. Restore antiracism as a foundational leadership project.
   • A crucial first step in building an antiracist university is recognizing and reckoning with the role of universities in the production of racialized knowledge. This requires an intersectional approach to leadership  informed by political, institutional, and intellectual guidance.

2. Widen the debate on antiracism.
   • Too much of the discussion around racism and higher education focuses on employment and student access. Although important, these issues may have a narrow impact compared to other areas, such as research and teaching practices.

3. Promote antiracism as an institutional practice model.
   • Universities should challenge racism, whiteness, and Eurocentrism in all of their functions and operations.

4. Keep focus on antiracism.
   • Much of the conversation in academic and other sectors is focused on broadening equality and participation, rather than on affirmative action, racial justice, and the transformation of racialized institutions.

5. Learn from other sectors.
   • It is important for universities to understand how other sectors have implemented change and confronted the legacies of slavery and racial discrimination. Doing so provides opportunities to learn implementation strategies and avoid mistakes.

6. Learn from institutions abroad.
   • It is vital for universities to seek out, or establish, international networks of institutions committed to antiracism in higher education. 

7. Provide adequate resources for antiracist initiatives. 
   • This work must be given authority and resources, such as newly-funded professorships, programs of study, research, and professional development aimed at addressing racism in higher education.

Conclusions

The Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies has been a leading force in naming and dismantling whiteness and racism in the UK’s higher education sector. For more than twenty years, CERS has pushed the envelope on how higher education practitioners can understand race and racism in their institutions and how they can approach undoing harm. The Centre’s work is both a case study for antiracism within universities and a source of lessons and guidance.