Category Archives: Teacher Training

How Can Teachers Reduce Racial Microaggressions?

Source: http://racialmicroaggressions.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/how-can-teachers-reduce-racial-microaggressions/

 

Teachers, consider the possibility that you may unconsciously commit racial microaggressions in the classroom? Watch this short video, titled ‘The Invisible Discriminator’ – Stop. Think. Respect.  This Public Service Announcement provides clear examples of microaggressions in everyday life. Racial microaggressions such as these may occur across all types of interracial communications; however, those that have the potential for the greatest harm are those perpetrated by majority culture individuals toward persons in disempowered racial groups.

According to Derald Wing Sue, Professor of Psychology and Education in TC’s Counseling Psychology program in the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, racial microaggressions are “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative racial slights and insults that potentially have harmful psychological impact on the target person or group”

Let’s switch the scene to your classroom. Now, reflect on your physical, verbal and non-verbal behaviors towards students of color.

Ask yourself three tough questions.

1. How do I behave and act around students of color?

2. How do students of color perceive my behaviors and actions toward them?

3. Do I commit racial microaggressions toward students of color?

Consider the possibility that you may commit racial microaggressions.  Stop and think about how those comments or actions may cause real distress and harm to them.

Four strategies that may reduce racial microaggressions

1. Acknowledge – acknowledge you may unconsciously commit racial microaggressions. Only then can then change your subconscious attitudes and ultimately your behavior towards students of color. We can’t change what we don’t acknowledge.

2. Counter – counter your hidden bias with positive images of people of color. Distribute stories and pictures that portray stereotype-busting images – posters, newsletters, annual reports, speaker series, and podcasts throughout your classroom.

3. Engage – engage with students of color by focusing on your similarities, yet appreciating your differences. You can achieve this by engaging with students of color in situations that involve meaningful activity.

4. Accept – accept their racial reality by looking at situations or experiences from their vantage. Do not minimize  their racial identity, or avoid the discomfort of discussing racial issues with them.

All of these strategies require work and I encourage you to keep doing them. As long as racial microaggressions remain hidden, invisible, unspoken and excused as innocent slights with minimal harm, individuals will continue to insult, demean, alienate, and oppress marginalized groups. It is incumbent upon educators to make every effort to recognize and address racial microaggressions in our schools.

 

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

The National Teachers Hall of Fame

The mission of The National Teachers Hall of Fame is to recognize and honor exceptional career teachers, encourage excellence in teaching, and preserve the rich heritage of the teaching profession in the United States.

The vision of The National Teachers Hall of Fame is to be a prominent national organization that enhances the public’s awareness of the vital role of education in society by working collaboratively with national education organizations and building linkages with other national teacher recognition programs. The Hall of Fame will recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of exceptional career teachers, preserve their careers in museum and virtual formats, and utilize their skills and experiences to elevate teacher quality and student learning through integrated programming.

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

Intensive Institutes – NAME 24th International ANNUAL Conference in Tucson AZ – Nov. 5 – 9, 2014

NAME 24th International ANNUAL Conference in Tucson AZ – Nov. 5 – 9, 2014

NAME’s annual Intensive Institutes offer extended focus on particularly critical issues and opportunities to work with noted NAME activists. The institutes are scheduled so that participants do NOT miss the general sessions. Additional fees and pre-registration are required.
Institutes can be “added-on” to existing registration through the on-line registration process. Space is limited.  go to www.nameorg.org

Fees for institutes:
•  NAME the Change Sessions: $25 for members/ $49 for non-members
•  Afternoon Institutes: $49 for members/ $69 for non-members

•••

Weds, Nov. 5 – 2pm to 5pm
W1. Developing a Multicultural Education Course – Higher Education

This new interactive Intensive Institute is designed specifically for faculty who teach or wish to teach courses in multicultural education. The presenter has taught multicultural education for almost twenty years in workshop settings, traditional classroom settings, blended courses, and online courses. Join in discussions about resistant students, mono-cultural and mono-lingual students, balancing theory and practice, the struggles of online teaching and more. Content includes review of sample course syllabi, use of simulations, video, assignments and assessment.
Presenter:  William A. Howe, Past-President of NAME, CT Department of Education and University of Connecticut, Albertus Magnus College and Quinnipiac University.
Fee: $49 for members/ $69 for non-members

 


 

Sat Nov 8 Afternoon – 2 – 4:50pm
S12. Developing a Multicultural Curriculum– PK-12 and Community Settings

Since 1995, more than 4,000 people have taken this nationally recognized program to learn how to create a multicultural curriculum.  Content will cover fundamental theory, definitions, goals, objectives and models.  Participants will learn a method for creating lesson plans that are multicultural.  Learning outcomes include how to prepare all students for a diverse workforce and a global economy; and how to increase student achievement through culturally responsive teaching.
Presenter:  William A. Howe, Past-President of NAME, CT Department of Education; University of Connecticut, Albertus Magnus College and Quinnipiac University

Fee: $49 for members/ $69 for non-members

 

 

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

Douchebag: The White Racial Slur We’ve All Been Waiting For

 

 

douche

by Michael Mark Cohen

“The white folks had sure brought their white to work with them that morning.”Chester Himes, If He Hollers Let Him Go.


On Shouting White Racial Slurs in Public

I am a white, middle class male professor at a big, public university, and every year I get up in front of a hundred and fifty to two hundred undergraduates in a class on the history of race in America and I ask them to shout white racial slurs at me.

The results are usually disappointing.

 

Read more —–

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

Rita Pierson: Every kid needs a champion

Published on May 3, 2013

Rita Pierson, a teacher for 40 years, once heard a colleague say, “They don’t pay me to like the kids.” Her response: “Kids don’t learn from people they don’t like.'” A rousing call to educators to believe in their students and actually connect with them on a real, human, personal level.

 

 

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

Students fight assault on history

Students fight assault on history

This is a tale of two countries.

The first country was built on a radical new promise of human equality and a guarantee of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That country made it possible for even those born in the humblest and most meager circumstances to climb to the pinnacle of prosperity and achievement. It helped save the world in a great global conflagration, fed and rebuilt the devastated nations of Europe, planted the first footprints on another world.

The second country was built on the uncompensated labor of human beings owned from birth till death by other human beings. That country committed genocide against its indigenous people, fabricated a war in order to snatch territory belonging to its neighbor, put its own citizens in concentration camps. And it practiced the “science” of eugenics with such enthusiasm that it inspired advocates of mandatory sterilization and racial purity all over the world. One was an obscure German politician named Adolf Hitler.

Obviously, the first of those countries is America. But the second is, too.

This would not come as a surprise to any reasonably competent student of American history. But that is a category that soon may not include students in Jefferson County, Colo. The good news is, they are not taking it lying down.

To the contrary, hundreds of them staged mass walkouts from at least five area high schools last week. They chanted and held up signs in protest of a proposed directive from a newly elected conservative school board member that would require teachers of history to “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system.”

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

New Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on Resource Equity

From: U.S. Department of Education
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:56 AM
Subject: New Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on Resource Equity

Dear Colleague:

Today, the U.S. Department of Education, through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), released guidance in the form of a Dear Colleague Letter to ensure that students have equal access to educational resources. The guidance provides detailed and concrete information to educators on the standards established by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The guidance is one part of President Obama’s larger equity agenda and takes into account the ongoing efforts of states, school districts, and schools to improve equity. All students—regardless of race, color, national origin, or zip code—deserve a high-quality education that includes resources such as academic and extracurricular programs, strong teaching, technology and instructional materials, and safe school facilities.

The guidance is directed to all federal fund recipients that oversee or operate elementary and secondary education programs, including state and local superintendents, school board members, principals, and other education officials. It will help educators, parents, students, and advocates understand how OCR addresses resource equity in our nation’s schools. Today’s guidance builds upon the resource equity guidance issued by the Department in 2001.

  • To read the new Dear Colleague Letter and related materials (including a Resource Equity Fact Sheet, today’s press release, and a list of available technical assistance), please click here.
  • La página de datos sobre recursos de equidad y el comunicado de prensa están disponibles en español aqui.

Please share this information widely with your members, affiliates, and networks.

Thank you,

Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education

 

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare

Dare to disagree

Most people instinctively avoid conflict, but as Margaret Heffernan shows us, good disagreement is central to progress. She illustrates (sometimes counterintuitively) how the best partners aren’t echo chambers — and how great research teams, relationships and businesses allow people to deeply disagree.

 

A great TED TALKs: http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree

 

 

Transcript

0:15 In Oxford in the 1950s, there was a fantastic doctor, who was very unusual, named Alice Stewart. And Alice was unusual partly because, of course, she was a woman, which was pretty rare in the 1950s.And she was brilliant, she was one of the, at the time, the youngest Fellow to be elected to the Royal College of Physicians. She was unusual too because she continued to work after she got married, after she had kids, and even after she got divorced and was a single parent, she continued her medical work.

0:47And she was unusual because she was really interested in a new science, the emerging field of epidemiology, the study of patterns in disease. But like every scientist, she appreciated that to make her mark, what she needed to do was find a hard problem and solve it. The hard problem that Alice chose was the rising incidence of childhood cancers. Most disease is correlated with poverty, but in the case of childhood cancers, the children who were dying seemed mostly to come from affluent families. So, what, she wanted to know, could explain this anomaly?

1:27Now, Alice had trouble getting funding for her research. In the end, she got just 1,000 pounds from the Lady Tata Memorial prize. And that meant she knew she only had one shot at collecting her data. Now, she had no idea what to look for. This really was a needle in a haystack sort of search, so she asked everything she could think of. Had the children eaten boiled sweets? Had they consumed colored drinks? Did they eat fish and chips? Did they have indoor or outdoor plumbing? What time of life had they started school?

1:58And when her carbon copied questionnaire started to come back, one thing and one thing only jumped out with the statistical clarity of a kind that most scientists can only dream of. By a rate of two to one,the children who had died had had mothers who had been X-rayed when pregnant. Now that finding flew in the face of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom held that everything was safe up to a point, a threshold. It flew in the face of conventional wisdom, which was huge enthusiasm for the cool new technology of that age, which was the X-ray machine. And it flew in the face of doctors’ idea of themselves, which was as people who helped patients, they didn’t harm them.

2:50Nevertheless, Alice Stewart rushed to publish her preliminary findings in The Lancet in 1956. People got very excited, there was talk of the Nobel Prize, and Alice really was in a big hurry to try to study all the cases of childhood cancer she could find before they disappeared. In fact, she need not have hurried. It was fully 25 years before the British and medical — British and American medical establishments abandoned the practice of X-raying pregnant women. The data was out there, it was open, it was freely available, but nobody wanted to know. A child a week was dying, but nothing changed. Openness alone can’t drive change.

3:48So for 25 years Alice Stewart had a very big fight on her hands. So, how did she know that she was right? Well, she had a fantastic model for thinking. She worked with a statistician named George Kneale, and George was pretty much everything that Alice wasn’t. So, Alice was very outgoing and sociable, and George was a recluse. Alice was very warm, very empathetic with her patients. George frankly preferred numbers to people. But he said this fantastic thing about their working relationship. He said, “My job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong.” He actively sought disconfirmation. Different ways of looking at her models, at her statistics, different ways of crunching the data in order to disprove her. He saw his job as creating conflict around her theories. Because it was only by not being able to prove that she was wrong, that George could give Alice the confidence she needed to know that she was right.

4:59It’s a fantastic model of collaboration — thinking partners who aren’t echo chambers. I wonder how many of us have, or dare to have, such collaborators. Alice and George were very good at conflict.They saw it as thinking.

5:25So what does that kind of constructive conflict require? Well, first of all, it requires that we find peoplewho are very different from ourselves. That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive, which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves, and it means we have to seek out people with different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking and different experience, and find ways to engage with them. That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.

6:01And the more I’ve thought about this, the more I think, really, that that’s a kind of love. Because you simply won’t commit that kind of energy and time if you don’t really care. And it also means that we have to be prepared to change our minds. Alice’s daughter told me that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist, they made her think and think and think again. “My mother,” she said, “My mother didn’t enjoy a fight, but she was really good at them.”

6:39So it’s one thing to do that in a one-to-one relationship. But it strikes me that the biggest problems we face, many of the biggest disasters that we’ve experienced, mostly haven’t come from individuals, they’ve come from organizations, some of them bigger than countries, many of them capable of affecting hundreds, thousands, even millions of lives. So how do organizations think? Well, for the most part, they don’t. And that isn’t because they don’t want to, it’s really because they can’t. And they can’t because the people inside of them are too afraid of conflict.

7:23In surveys of European and American executives, fully 85 percent of them acknowledged that they had issues or concerns at work that they were afraid to raise. Afraid of the conflict that that would provoke, afraid to get embroiled in arguments that they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose. Eighty-five percent is a really big number. It means that organizations mostly can’t do what George and Alice so triumphantly did. They can’t think together. And it means that people like many of us, who have run organizations, and gone out of our way to try to find the very best people we can, mostly fail to get the best out of them.

8:18So how do we develop the skills that we need? Because it does take skill and practice, too. If we aren’t going to be afraid of conflict, we have to see it as thinking, and then we have to get really good at it. So, recently, I worked with an executive named Joe, and Joe worked for a medical device company. And Joe was very worried about the device that he was working on. He thought that it was too complicatedand he thought that its complexity created margins of error that could really hurt people. He was afraid of doing damage to the patients he was trying to help. But when he looked around his organization, nobody else seemed to be at all worried. So, he didn’t really want to say anything. After all, maybe they knew something he didn’t. Maybe he’d look stupid. But he kept worrying about it, and he worried about it so much that he got to the point where he thought the only thing he could do was leave a job he loved.

9:25In the end, Joe and I found a way for him to raise his concerns. And what happened then is what almost always happens in this situation. It turned out everybody had exactly the same questions and doubts. So now Joe had allies. They could think together. And yes, there was a lot of conflict and debate and argument, but that allowed everyone around the table to be creative, to solve the problem, and to change the device.

10:00Joe was what a lot of people might think of as a whistle-blower, except that like almost all whistle-blowers, he wasn’t a crank at all, he was passionately devoted to the organization and the higher purposes that that organization served. But he had been so afraid of conflict, until finally he became more afraid of the silence. And when he dared to speak, he discovered much more inside himself and much more give in the system than he had ever imagined. And his colleagues don’t think of him as a crank. They think of him as a leader.

10:46So, how do we have these conversations more easily and more often? Well, the University of Delft requires that its PhD students have to submit five statements that they’re prepared to defend. It doesn’t really matter what the statements are about, what matters is that the candidates are willing and able to stand up to authority. I think it’s a fantastic system, but I think leaving it to PhD candidates is far too few people, and way too late in life. I think we need to be teaching these skills to kids and adults at every stage of their development, if we want to have thinking organizations and a thinking society.

11:33The fact is that most of the biggest catastrophes that we’ve witnessed rarely come from information that is secret or hidden. It comes from information that is freely available and out there, but that we are willfully blind to, because we can’t handle, don’t want to handle, the conflict that it provokes. But when we dare to break that silence, or when we dare to see, and we create conflict, we enable ourselves and the people around us to do our very best thinking.

12:14Open information is fantastic, open networks are essential. But the truth won’t set us free until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent and the moral courage to use it. Openness isn’t the end.It’s the beginning.

12:36(Applause)

FacebookGoogle GmailLinkedInEmailShare