Educational and Racial Equity

When the Board adopted policy 0030, Ensuring Educational and Racial Equity, there was a bit of a stir because, at one point, the word "Racial" had been removed from the policy title. I guess some folks were concerned that if there was no reference to race in the title of the policy, there would be no focus on race in the implementation of the policy. The content of the policy was not in question, just the title.



The policy language does not put special emphasis on race. It makes reference to the opportunity gap, which is an economic disparity, and it lists a number of different types of equity the policy should protect:

"The concept of educational equity goes beyond formal equality—where all students are treated the same—to fostering a barrier-free environment where all students, regardless of their race, class or other personal characteristics such as creed, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, economic status, gender, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, pregnancy status, marital status, physical appearance, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, have the opportunity to benefit equally."

I was a bit surprised by the exclusive focus on race in the initial report to the Board on the implementation of this policy. In particular, race was the only measure of diversity used when describing the District's workforce. The policy says:

"Workforce Equity—The district shall actively work to have the teacher and administrator workforce be balanced and reflect the diversity of the student body. The district shall recruit, employ, support and retain a workforce that includes racial, gender, and linguistic diversity, as well as culturally competent administrative, instructional and support personnel;"

Of the three measures of workforce diversity in the policy, racial, gender, and linguistic, only race appears in the report to the Board. While it might be tricky for the staff to enumerate the linguistic diversity of the staff, I think they could quickly and easily determine the gender diversity of the staff. And I think they should have done so. Not only because the policy requires it, but because I think it would have been illuminating.

When statistics show that Black students are disciplined four times as often as White students it is regarded as evidence of institutional racism and evidence of a lack of cultural competency in a predominantly White workforce. Yet, when male-identified students are disciplined TEN times as often as female-identified students, there is no equivalent recognition of this as evidence of institutionalized sexism or a lack of cultural competency in a predominantly female workforce. How is that? Are people quick to acknowledge a Black culture which is different from White culture but not as quick to acknowledge a male culture which is different from female culture? Teachers are encouraged to become culturally competent so that they do not unintentionally give or take offense and so they recognize behavior that may be outside their social norms but within the social norms of the student's culture. Surely male and female culture have differences along these lines. Surely that standard of cultural competence is needed - as evidenced by the number of boys disciplined by female teachers and administrators. Take a moment to consider how the social norms enforced in our schools more aligned with female culture than male culture, much as many argue they are more aligned with European-American culture than with African-American culture.