Parents and teachers tell children that education is the ticket out of poverty. For people of color, education also represents the road towards liberation, power, and success. However, the conflict arises from the dichotomy embedded in the promise of education itself. In other words, education in the United States is meant to liberate, but it also comes at a cost. In the works of Michael W. Apple, Wayne Au, and Lisa Dr. Delpit, the theme of systematic oppression is the soundtrack to a discourse about the intersectionality of racism, culture, and power in the classroom. In this critical analysis, I intend to reflect on the layers of the structure perpetuating systematic oppression in the educational system. First, I examine how neo-liberal agendas of conservative and progressive governments perpetuate systematic racism. Consequentially, I examine the role of teachers as the unwilling gatekeepers of education. Finally, I conclude by exploring and reflecting on potential strategies that might help me advocate for my future students.

The production of both, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and standardized testing are the results of the neo-liberal agenda of politicians in the country. In Michael W. Apple’s article, “Ideological Success, Educational Failure,” the author conveys his concern for the impact of standardized testing and NCLB policies on the education of children of color. The author argues that political agendas go against the “ethics of education and create a business model within education based on blame-and shame” (Apple, 2007, p. 113). In this way, schools that do not perform well in standardized tests are categorized as “bad” schools with “bad” teachers regardless of the challenges of the community within. My former high school might be a good example how standardized test affect students. Norman Thomas High School was overcrowded, with an average of forty-four students per class, and serving one of the largest English as a New Language (ENL) population in Manhattan. It was also considered an “impact” school due to its low performing scores. A typical day in school included metal detectors, armed guards, and constant policing.

Surprisingly, these neo-liberal agendas are not necessarily new concepts or ideas. As Apple (2007) explains it, these are “conservative productions of discourse that incorporates progressive language while advancing key elements of neo-liberal and neo-conservative agendas” (Apple, pg. 110). The author Wayne Au calls this phenomenon “Meritocracy 2.0” because the existence and popularity of standardized tests asserts the old idea that everyone in this nation has the same tools, access, and resources. In the article, “Meritocracy 2.0: High Stakes, Standardized Testing as Racial Project of Neoliberal Multicultivation,” the author traces the racialized history of standardized testing in the united states. The author delineates how low scores in standardized testing were assigned genealogical associations. For example, low scores were associated to students of color during its first iterations of these types of tests. Au (2016) agrees with Apple’s assessment, arguing that:

“the neoliberal project has always been signified, operationalized, instantiated through racialization of economic class, and standardized testing has played a direct role in the construction this race-class nexus within education” (Au, 2016, p. 42).

Those who support these types of the test might assume that everyone has bootstraps to pull from and ignores the need for equity in education. I agree with Apple’s and Au’s position on standardized testing. In high school, students whose families could afford to pay for tutoring scored better results when taking the Scholastic Assessment Tests (SAT). As a recent immigrant and ENL student, I remember the stress of having to take the test, knowing that I was expected to receive low scores and getting them. In school, we did not have the resources necessary to take specialized tutoring, and as a result, our teachers tried their best to teach us how to take the test.

Recently, the organization behind the SAT announced changes to the test. These changes were created to take into account students’ disadvantages and place their scores on a curve, dependent on their level of education, class, race, gender, and geography. The new score system is meant to help perspective colleges “rely less on stereotypes and assumptions […] and more on hard facts.” (NPR News, May 06, 2019). The news of the SAT changes trended online for a couple of days, and it had many people confused. I responded to the news with one question, aren’t these changes an acknowledgment that these kinds of tests are inherently flawed? These changes reaffirm  Apple’s and Au’s assessment of standardized testing and the role the neoliberal agenda plays in the education of children. These disproportionally affect students of color. These kinds of standardized tests also place teachers in an awkward position.

Educators have the task of educating, meeting the demands of the state, and they come liable for the educational performance of their students. Hence, educators are placed on the front lines and run the risk of becoming gatekeepers to a system of oppression. The latter is defined as an individual, often a person of color, standing in a position of power and perpetuating inequalities on behalf of their employers (usually a governmental agency). These individuals can often feel confused about how to fulfill their duties as employees and not perpetuate oppression through service to our peers. As a person of color, I worry about becoming a gatekeeper to students whose dream are still growing. During my high school years, I often struggled to find books on Latin American history. It was not part of the curriculum. Unlike the present day, there were few young adult novels featuring people of color. My high school education provided me with a Eurocentric view of the world. At the time, I did not understand that the content of the curriculum was based mainly on a Eurocentric or United Status points of view. Nevertheless, I enjoyed becoming more “American” because it meant I could potentially obtain respect from others. I never wanted to be an outsider. 

The interceptions between culture, racism, and power play out in the classroom and teachers have a front seat. Lisa D. Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children” addresses some of the concerns and struggles of white and non-white educators to communicate with each other. In this article, the author emphasizes the need for an open dialogue between non-white and white teachers on how to teach students of color. As she notes, “the dialogue has been silenced” when a non-white teacher stops the discussion to prevent conflict (Delpit, 1989, p. 282). The scholar also brings up two interesting points. One, the author argues that these types of disagreement between non-white and white teachers are rooted in a culture of power. Two, white teachers can teach with good intentions but are often unaware of the particularities involved in teaching students of color. These two assessments are interconnected and reflected on our nation’s difficulty discussing race.

Independence,  power to make execute decisions about my life, and the power to serve my community were my reasons for going to college.  As an immigrant, as a woman, and as former English as a New Language learner, I experienced plenty of barriers to achieving that goal. Thankfully, I had terrific ESL teachers, and their encouragement and sportsmanship helped me throughout my years in high school and beyond. The school’s ESL teachers were predominantly white, but they seemed to genuinely care about our learning and worried about our tests scores. I also enjoyed taking classes with teachers of color, but for the most part, my high school memories are centered on my struggles learning English. In my experience, the most influential teachers were those who took the time to teach beyond the curriculum, and who helped me become a more socially conscious and aware individual.

In conclusion, my analysis of the readings urge me to search for opportunities to make a difference. Educators have the responsibility of being their students’ best advocates. We should advocate for more books depicting diverse characters, reflective of the students’ background and interests. Students should also have access to books and materials that help them access the curriculum. If possible, teachers should also help students become more conscious and aware of the oppressive systems that impact their lives. Students have the right to know about the things that impact their education, and they also have the power to effect change. Lisa D. Delpit’s reading forced me to self-reflect about how I have and might experience a culture of power at work. I am aware that my biases and prejudices are blind spots. As an individual, I should also strive to become more self-aware. I believe becoming self-aware is something that will require constant self-examination and insight into how my experiences might affect my response during difficult discussions about race or gender. For example, my experiences discussing topics about the history of colonization and imperialism with white individuals are not always been positive. Thankfully, I have learned to be more patient, learned to agree to disagree, but I still remove myself from difficult discussions to avoid getting angry or offended.

References

Apple, M. W. (2007). Ideological success, educational failure? On the politics of No Child Left Behind. Journal of teacher education, 58(2), 108-116.

Allyn, Bobby (2019). SAT To Score Students’ ‘Disadvantages’ To Try To Even The Playing Field. NPR Choice. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/16/724048022/sat-to-score-students-disadvantages-to-try-to-even-the-playing-field

Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39-62.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard educational review, 58(3), 280-299.