Aight, So Boom, we know that Brown V Board was supposed to integrate schools, and we then know Brown V Board II was enacted because Brown V Board was failing. Brown V board attempted to address the failings of Brown V Board by mandating bussing programs that were notorious in cities such as Boston, LA, and Chicago. However, even with all of these integration policies, schools are more segregated than they were shortly after the passing of Brown V Board II in 1969 (Tatum, 2017). Being cognizant of this knowledge and having read the Horsford (2020, 2021) works, the real question that begs asking is, how do we create willful yet equitable separation or affinity schooling options? Evidence shows time and time again that most black students have better educational outcomes when taught in Black schools (Du Bois, 1935; Gaines, 2004; Horsford, 2011). 

How do we get whites liberals (and conservatives) to allow for segregated yet equitable schools? Many have a counter-question, would not this practice allow white families to segregate their white children into all-white schools in an attempt to hoard academic and economic resources? While the question is a valid question, I wonder if the practices proposed in the counter-question are not already being practiced by white families. Don’t many affluent white families either send their kids to expensive private schools or move into communities where many Blacks can’t afford to live, thus already segregating schools? Thus, there should not be such objection to segregated schools. It seems that the objection only comes into play when segregation isn’t controlled by white liberals. However, why do the white liberals not object to HBCUs? Why is it that we can accept that there are HBCUs and PWIs in academia, but we struggle with this concept in k-12 spaces? 

One possible solution is for Black and Brown urban communities where overcrowded schools are an issue, a community board can get together with local and state school officials to construct plans for an affinity school within their district that is primarily for X affinity group but does not exclude anyone from attending, as is the case with HBCUs. This way school overcrowding can be reduced, and communities can have the option to send their kids to schools that represent and support them in meaningful ways.  

I connect deeply with the story Sonya Horsford tells of her intellectual journey with the question of integration. I had a similar experience as a first year doctoral student and now find myself both deeply critical of most integration discourse as well as fundamentally uncertain as to what sort of structural role government of any scale (city/state/federal) ought to play in the administration/management/provision of education. When I read the phrase “education is the practice of freedom” in Horsford’s piece in Education Weekly I had to pause to take in the magnitude of my agreement with the assertion. 

True education is the practice of freedom but what happens in schools is something else all together. I am enrolled in Decolonizing Education this semester and we’ve recently been engaging with Sylvia Wynter’s scholarship (and work building upon it) pertaining to the narrow concept of being human emerging from the epistemological cradle of “Western thought”. We read a piece by Desai and Sanya (2016) that called for decolonial pedagogies that would make space for and legitimize multiple ways of being human so as to get out from under the thumb of racism/cisheteronormativity/sexism/etc. When Horsford asked it could even be possible to create a shared vision of education in the US, I immediately thought about the epistemological faultlines that exist in society. Developing such a shared vision requires deep exchanges and real communication. This is bigger than the political, this is foundational philosophy. 

    What the United States  has gotten away with calling a public education system is actually a labor funnelling system. It is a system designed to support an economic agenda that predated it and is dependent upon it. The labor funneling system takes shape around the values and priorities animating our economic system. The centrality of racial capitalism in the movements of our economy (and the government that nurtures it) means that it will always rear its head in schools.  Like Horsford, “I continue to wrestle with what constitutes the best type of learning environment for young people in a society that does not value their intellect, culture, or humanity” and I don’t trust our (white settler-colonial) government(s) to provide an answer. 

    To say that integration is a solution rests on so many assumptions. I appreciated Horsford’s critique of integration and had a long nod after reading her say that she “[questions] how we as a nation make assumptions about the racial composition of our schools, which have implications for how integration is defined and what problem it aims to solve…And whose school integration is it?” In speaking about contemporary white integration-evangelists, Horsford notes that they “continue to advance a vision of equity and diversity grounded in the belief that if the Brown decision declared separate schools inherently unequal, the way to address the problem of educational inequality is through racial integration.” This is particularly significant in light of the interest convergence analysis of the Brown decisions. Seeking moral legitimacy during the Cold War, the United States was under immense pressure to appear to respond to the grievous violence and injustice that had defined relations between Black and White people from the country’s inception. It would seem that integration has always been a bit of a vanity project for many.

    But what good is integration if White folks keep white-folking? Like DuBois said “We shall get a finer, better balance of spirit; an infinitely more capable and rounded personality by putting children in schools where they are wanted, and where they are happy and inspired, than in thrusting them into hells where they are ridiculed and hated.”

When Horsford asked “does the Black child need integrated schools?” I just wrote: No. The Black child does not need integrated schools. What good is integration in the presence of racial animosity and no institutional commitment to interrupt and redress racial harm or capacity to fully see, affirm, care for, and educate Black children? I’ve been following many of the @blackatXYZprivateschool accounts on instagram and it is a catalog of (largely emotional) violence enacted against Black children who were wedged into PWIs in the name of integration/diversity/inclusion. With every story I read, the more I realize how deep my rageful critique of organizations like Prep for Prep go. This is a much longer rant but the tl/dr of it is “If board members and donors were as invested in dismantling structural inequality as they were in putting Black and Brown kids in private school we might actually get somewhere.”

There were so many gems in the Horsford (2021) reading. I agreed wholeheartedly with the assertion that there are “Allies” fighting the good cause but are still dictating the terms and conditions of the fight and what’s best for the people they are fighting for. It’s legit, the most frustrating part of pursuing a higher education degree in urban education. In the higher education space, the purpose is to be transformative but, the indoctrination into situating and historicizing education is based on mediocrity and taught from a linear white lens. The idea of an emancipatory education feels, sounds, and when envisioned, looks good. However, as Horsford (2021) points out, who will lead the charge? The honoring of voices from black people expressing their wants and needs is imperative but somehow, just never gets incorporated. And, when it is, it’s usually by way of a diversity initiative. The title alone “diversity initiative” unintentionally strips the significance away from being a national response, policy response, and/or societal response to being an issue for those and to address those who are considered critical mass. WHY IS THAT?

At times, it feels like the people who are marginalized are also charged with the burden of change. Horsford’s writing on integration is also something I’ve pondered every time data comes out that lends support to the positive impact that having black educators has on students. It must be said that the case for integrating spaces by way of desegregation was not strictly due to a desire to infiltrate majority White spaces. Black people were not fighting for White acceptance, they were fighting for fairness in resources, access, and education equity. At this point, “It’s above me now” and I charge every member of society to carry the burden of making education equitable not just the people that the lack of equity impacts.

A quote that resonated deeply with me this week was, “Those closest to the problem are closest to the solution. If Black lives matter, so should Black thought, especially when it comes to any agenda for educational equity or social justice in schools. Black people have the answers. Who will listen?” It made me consider HOW more Black voices can be brought to the center and what that will take. It also made me think a lot about WHY we aren’t centering Black voices first and foremost when that seems so necessary and obvious. One idea that came up for me when considering the why, particularly in thinking about all of the white bodies controlling aspects of the agenda and narrative surrounding educational equity and social justice in schools, is that it gives them control over the outcomes and ultimately, enables them to keep their interests top of mind. It made me think back to some of our initial class readings that discussed the concept of “interest convergence” and how white social justice advocates, when working separately from black educators and communities, are living into that idea. If they can control the narrative, they can ensure that their interests are not compromised. It then made me think about my own role in this work as an ally and when I have truly embraced allyship (which, in its true form, would have me working alongside and for the black community, as opposed to occupying spaces where the black community was not at the center or leading the conversation) and when i have been in rooms that were primarily white, promoting a false sense of watered down advocacy. I have a lot of work to do and am eager to continue learning and unlearning how I can support and truly be an ally in this work.

In the first paragraphs of Douglass-Hosford’s Voices in Urban Ed Metro Center piece, she discusses whose integration, school integration is and how in the process reformers, policy elites, social justice advocates, and allies all “wield disproportionate control over the education of children of color and the options made available to their parents and in their communities”. Continuing to her dissection of the vision problem, I kept thinking back to a Tiktok I saw recently by a Black woman who was talking about how Black liberation would be a lot easier if allies were to just die. This point emphasizes the truth that Black people can and will liberate themselves; that Black liberation is not contingent on the need for allies or non-Black people, and to deny this truth demeans the self-determination and empowerment of Black people (and, thus, perpetuates Anti-Blackness). Douglass-Hosford talks about integration vs de-segregation, where integration leads to the demise of Black institutions and ultimately Black folks’ self-determined realities. In her EducationWeek article, she writes “Those closest to the problem are closest to the solution”, highlighting that Black liberational schooling in the United States will NOT be a reality without centering Black voices and enacting Black imaginations.

            As a non-Black person, I am constantly examining how I can enact actively, meaningfully, and purposeful solidarity with the movement of Black liberation. Even in the recognition how my communal oppression within white supremacy as a Bengali woman is still based in Anti-Blackness. This may not be directly related, but I have been considering the unfortunate reality that systemically POC solidarity does not exist (which sustains white supremacy)—and the most recent proof being the passing of the anti-Asian hate crime bill with BIPARTISAN support. (like what?!). And on top of that, the bill directly gives MORE power to the police in being the ones to enforce the bill (i.e., NYPD Anti-Asian Hate Crime Task force). Regardless, I am angry about this on all levels in how Asian Americans have a) agreed to a bill that is not only complicit but further sanctions the oppression of Black people through policing and b) clinging to whiteness as a means of “liberation” or repairing harm. Anyways, all of this floats in my brain as I read about how common it is in education, and blatantly in educational policy, for Black voices to exist in the margins of imagining and creating just, humane, critically caring schools FOR Black children and youth. I commit to listening, unlearning, learning, calling folks out in my spaces and communities, letting myself get called out, shutting up sometimes, and staying true to and centering Black folk’s intentions, goals, and desires. But are multiple truths true here? Can what DuBois (1935) determined also be true? Is the only way all Black children can receive a just, humane, critically caring education in this society to be that Black children need separate schools?

Looking forward to class tomorrow!

As soon as I glanced at the title of the article a small voice came to mind that said “Whose schools? Our schools!” a chant that has been present at the countless rallies/protests/demonstrations. A chant that has also changed over time for me. I am no longer that high school student fighting on the front lines. I have transition from being “directly impacted” to “ally”.

Douglass-Horsford (2021) offerings “What is good for the oppressor is typically not good for the oppressed”, a concept I agree with. Douglass-Horsford (2021) goes on to unpack ideas about power and dominant racial groups that are in control of white power structures. I have mentioned in class before that folks (everyone) can stand in white supremacy/ uphold white supremacy. I think about our current NYC Panel for Education Policy (PEP) and how it has shifted over the last 15 years to include more folks of color. Yet, still upholding the same norms.

I too wonder if it is possible to develop a shared vision of education in the United States.

The topic this week is “reimagining schools” and Sonya Douglass Horsford provided two powerful and thoughtful sets of ideas about the central issue of racial equity in education.  Horsford challenges the conventional (and failed) approach that views integration as the goal and that conflates desegregation with integration.  She also challenges the reliance on white scholars (even those who are allies) as the authoritative voices on how children of color should be educated.

I appreciated her candor in calling out the reality that far too many schools do not value the intellect, culture, or humanity of students of color—and in arguing instead for “schooling with dignity in environments that value and want them” (VUE, 2021, p. 21).

In her Education Week Opinion piece (3/17/21), Horsford observed that “we must first deepen our understanding of the great battle we are in.”  This quote resonated for me as I reflected on Mitch McConnell’s very public statements this week lambasting and grossly mischaracterizing Critical Race Theory—and observing that it has no place in public education.  Horsford notes that reimagining a new system “begins with actually asking people of color what they want and need and then listening to what they say.”  For starters, perhaps we should listen to Derrick Bell and not to Mitch McConnell.

Since I forgot to write my post before class, I will write about what I’ve been thinking about since class yesterday.  I’ve been thinking a lot about the radical nature of hope, imagination and creativity.  Specifically, I have been thinking about how emotions can be used as indicators both of what is working and, perhaps more importantly, about what needs to be worked on.  Spaces that crush the imagination and creativity feel hopeless and drain your energy.  Those spaces, not the people in them, need to be rehabilitated and reconfigured.  In that way, feelings indicate where our action is needed and maybe even what actions are required. 

What is interesting to me is that much of this knowledge is embodied.  As Audre Lorde writes in “On Activism,” that emotional knowledge is “the hidden sources of our power from where true

knowledge and, therefore, lasting action comes” (p. 36, 1984).  Therefore, similarly to the Blackfoot nation’s conception of needs in which self-actualization is a given, Audre Lorde expresses that our attainment of self-actualization is not something to be achieved and strived for, but something that must be tapped into, and for many of us, remembered. 

So while we can hyperfocus on Social justice youth development models (Cammorota, 2011), or healing as a catalyst for social and civic change (Ginwright, 2011), or critical and audacious hope (Duncan-Andrade, 2009), but we can’t meaningfully discuss any of these types of hope without hyper-focusing on relationship building. All of this relationship building is made meaningful and impactful when focused on humanity and dignity. Learning to SEE people for who they are and understand how they make meaning in their lives through taking part in and sharing or repressing their stories through various modes. This work for educators, particularly those who come from mismatched communities from the ones in which they serve, involves becoming involved in the lives and communities of students they are serving. This work entails decolonizing their racial and socioeconomic epistemologies that create “epistemic violence” (Dotson, 2014)  by, for example,  framing some forms of social capital as more desirable than others. 

Care starts with honoring people’s humanity, not seeing them as outside of our “spheres of obligations” (Wynters, 1994). Teachers need to create space where they see what cultural, political, social, and personal assets that ALL students bring to the classroom, and find space to highlight and center the various class assets. As referenced, students are a part of the class garden, and removing an element destroys the class ecosystem. The garden needs to show why each element is important to the ecosystem and how it supports a balance in the community. By being a social justice educator and including the lived experiences of students, educators create space to SEE students and identify their assets so those assets can be centered in classroom contexts that reveal community knowledge to be just as if not more important than academic knowledge. 

There is a refrain throughout Jeff Duncan-Andrade’s talk that looms heavily over my head as I consider our collective fate (as a nation//as a species). At many points he focused his audience on the precipice of an enormous if..

“If we are aiming to be a pluralistic and multi-racial society..” If.. If.. If.. He told us to avoid getting into ideology debates with amoral people. That it will always lead to a stalemate. So what do we do with a public education system hamstrung by the knotted purse strings of amoral people who are fully disinterested in cultivating a pluralistic and multi-racial democracy? Voting is the answer you say? I’ll be generous and say that answer might merit partial credit. Andrade himself said that we cannot “policy our way out of this.” This talk had me thinking back to the first days of my doctoral program when my cohort grappled with the philosophical/ideological roots of our public education system. What value is Andrade’s conjecture in the context of a public education system that has many different rationales baked into it? How can we engage with this enormous “if” when there seems to be such a national unwillingness to truly sit with the history of how state sponsored education has always been an instrument of stratification and genocide in this country?

That history necessitates the kind of critical consciousness Ginwright and Cammarota are calling for in their work in order to help children engage in educational institutions steeped in toxicity in ways that promote their healing and capacity for community and civic engagement. Cammarota (2011) tells us that social justice youth development “requires the healing of youth identities by involving them in social justice activities that counter oppressive conditions preventing healthy self-identification. Youth also attain empathy for those suffering beyond their immediate communities. The three-step approach of self, community, and global awareness operates to expand youth consciousness to higher levels of social criticality and human compassion. The intended outcomes are young people with consciousnesses that facilitate academic achievements and social activism.” But why is engagement in school the goal? Can we imagine possibilities for young people beyond the cultural artifact of “schooling” as we know it? I understand that he has to fit his scholarship into someone else’s imagination.. but.. what would it mean to stop using “academic achievement” as an indicator of an “intervention’s” value? I appreciate that Ginwright focuses more broadly on youth and community well being in his work and am reminded of Andrade’s reminder that “we measure what matters.”

Though I am a teacher and a student, academic achievement doesn’t matter to me. I don’t want to track grades. I want to track hope. I want to track joy. I want to track curiosity. I want to track freedom. I want to track commitment to interrupting oppression. What does the world look like when these are the things we track? What do young people’s days look like when these are the things that matter? What does our society look like when these are the things we attempt to quantify and assess?