In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of the current Black Lives Matters movement is the distinction “anti-racist.” For too long white people, like me, have been able to vehemently assure ourselves, and others, that we are not racist, while doing nothing meaningful to dismantle the systematic racism that lifts us up while keeping black people down.
As Ibram X. Kendi so articulately explains in How to be an Antiracist there is no such thing as passive anti-racism. Racism does not stop at the vocal, hate mongerer who supports policy that perpetuates the exploitation of black and brown people. Racism is ALSO the refusal of white people to tear down the systems that we benefit from so that we might promote equality for all.
The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.”
Ibram X. Kendi, How to be an Antiracist
White people are generally quite enthusiastic to enumerate all the ways they are not racist, but when it comes to recognizing their privilege and actively giving up some of that privilege, they are generally much less likely to support antiracist policies.
The arena in which this is most evident is education.
A lot of parents right now are talking about how they are going to talk to their kids more about racism, and make sure their kids read books by people of color. They pledge that antiracist ideas will be shared and discussed regularly. But I wonder if those same parents are ready to embrace antiracist ideals at the most important of places, their children’s schools.
So far they have not been. Quite the opposite in fact. Brown vs. Board of Education determined that school segregation was unconstitutional in 1954, and yet schools are more segregated now than they have been in decades. White parents have been flexing their privilege to ensure that their kids get the best education possible, while allowing children of color to languish in underfunded public schools that white parents would never let their children attend. Finding ways to effectively segregate public schools, even though research shows that integration is the most effective way to close the achievement gap and promote equality, is one of the ways white parents – even the ones who believe they are not racist – are perpetuating systematic racism.
{This is especially prevalent in San Francisco, where the upper middle class families that don’t forgo the public school system entirely, cluster at a few well-regarded schools where they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide technology the school otherwise couldn’t afford, and even hire teachers to run enrichment programs. Meanwhile the vast majority of schools in the city are Title 1, and struggle to raise enough money for teacher appreciation efforts.}
If you are a parent and you believe you are antiracist, I encourage you to answer these questions for yourself:
- Do you send your kid(s) to a private or public school?
- Do most of your kid(s)’classmates look like them?
- Do most of their classmates come from the same socioeconomic background?
- Do you send your kid(s) to school with a significant population of black and brown children?
- Do you send your kid(s) to school with a significant population of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch?
- Do you send your kid(s) to a school that is better funded, has more experienced and qualified teachers, and offers more electives and enrichment programs than the schools the vast majority of students of color attend?
How do your answers inform your understanding of yourself as an antiracist?
If you are realizing that your children are getting a higher quality education than most children of color, ask yourself if you’d be willing to send your kids to a school with a significant number of black and brown students, or a significant percentage of students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. Would you be willing to do either of those things if it were clear your child were getting an inferior education than is offered elsewhere?
This is where most white people absolutely refuse to cede their privilege. We always have really good reasons for why we make the choices we do, and how it doesn’t mean we are racist, but now that we understand that perpetuating systematic racism is a form of racism, we need to be more honest with ourselves about the choices we make for our own children, and the way those choices affect children of color.
If you have made a series of decisions (that you were only able to make because of your privilege) that ensure your child has access to a superior education, but you want to do more to ensure that ALL children have access to the same quality of education, I encourage you to answer these questions honestly for yourself:
- Would you support programs that incentivize teachers with more experience to teach at schools with under served populations?
- Would you support programs that incentive teacher retention at schools with under served populations?
- Would you support sharing PTA funds raised at your school with nearby school(s) that serve primarily students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds?
- Would you support pooling all PTA funds in your district to be distributed evenly between all the schools and/or shared with schools in a neighboring district?
- Would you be willing to abolish PTAs and EdFoundations so that wealthier parents are not able to subsidize their child’s public education while the students in lower income neighborhoods are left to make do with what is actually provided by the state and federal governments?
- Would you support policy that takes into account PTA and EdFoundation funding when distributing state and federal funds?
- Would you be willing to share a post that asks questions like this one with your family and friends?
- Would you be willing to have difficult conversations about how the systems that benefit you and your child(ren), simultaneously disadvantage students of color?
- Would you be willing for your child to have less so that other children who need more, could have more?
How do your answers to these questions inform your understanding of yourself as antiracist?
If you would answer no to many of these questions, I’m sure you have a good reason. We all do. But we have to recognize that our good reasons have been crafted and refined by decades of systematic racism that allow us, and our children, to benefit from structures of inequality. If we really are antiracist, and we really want to break down those systems, we have to start asking ourselves what we’re willing to give up so that all children have equal opportunities (even if that means it looks like socioeconomically disadvantaged kids are getting MORE, because initially they will need more to counteract the damage wrought by generations of oppression, white supremacy, and systematic racism).
All white people have a lot of work to do to start dismantling the systems that have bolstered our success by denying opportunities to others. White parents probably have the most work to do, and I worry we aren’t ready to do it. In the current culture of scarcity, when so many upper middle class parents already perceive the opportunities their children have to be dwindling, I doubt white, upper-middle class parents are willing to cede even small amounts of their privilege if they perceive it to mean their child(ren) might have fewer opportunities to succeed.
I think we’ll start to see if white parents really are embracing their new antiracist ideals in the fall, when districts have to make hard choices about how to bring students and teachers back safely while the coronavirus still rages. Some districts are already talking about prioritizing classroom time for students who were unable to effectively access distance learning because they lack adequate technology or internet service, and/or are in desperate need of other services the school provides. This might mean that students who can adequately access distance learning (and are not facing food scarcity, or homeless, or domestic abuse) will not be in the classroom as much, if at all.
Will middle and upper middle class parents support these decisions, understanding that lower income students really should be prioritized for classroom teaching so they can access services, make up lost learning, and not fall even farther behind? Or will they try to flex their privilege under the guise of “equality for all?”
Governor Newsom is already distributing more emergency funds to districts with higher percentages of lower income students, and privileged parents are already fighting to get those funds distributed evenly to all districts, regardless of the real needs of different student populations.
If you’re white, upper middle class, (and you haven’t previously been deeply engaged in the BLM movement), and you’re not doing something that makes you uncomfortable right now, you’re probably not supporting anti-racism in any kind of meaningful way. Reading books is not enough. Talking to your children is not enough. If what you’re doing doesn’t feel hard, or unfair, or scary, you’re not even approaching your privilege, let alone attempting to dismantling it. I know I’m not doing enough,* and I’m trying to think of ways I can do more.
Asking these questions is a first step. I hope you’ll take it with me.
*I am not trying to portray myself as some woke white woman who is making all the sacrifices when it comes to my kids’ education. Yes, I send them to a school where they are the in minority in being white (5%) and not qualifying for free and reduced lunch (15% – though our combined household income probably puts us at <3% at our school). I am also a teacher and I am probably more confident determining the quality of education my kids are receiving than most parents. Furthermore, I don’t plan to send my daughter to that school for 6th grade, because I don’t think she’ll receive an adequate education there. When I transfer my daughter to a different school where I think she’ll get a better education, I’ll be flexing my privilege ( I’m now considering schools I would not have, because of the BLM movement).
I also teach in a district that serves primarily upper-middle class families, and while I could paint a pretty picture about how I ended up there and why I stayed, the reality is that I don’t want to teach at a struggling school because (a) I make more money where I’m at and (b) it’s a lot harder to teach at schools with primarily under-served students. So while I’m trying hard to flex my privilege for all students, I could absolutely being doing more, both as a parents and teacher. I haven’t made all the right choices and I still benefit from my privilege in ways I recognize, and in ways I’m ignorant of, every day.
I don’t agree with everything stated here, but most of it. Bottom line: No child should have to go to a failing school. I would absolutely support opening schools for the neediest kids in the fall, even if it meant my own kid needed to continue with the homeschooling. I find it appalling that black parents who fraudulently list a friends address so their kid can go to a not-failing school go to jail for five years while white parents who literally bribe school officials and lied about an entire transcript and test results get a slap on the wrist.
How about we defund the police and redivert the money to education?
Thank you for commenting. I suspected this lost would inspire… a lot of silence. I know this is a hard topic and most people won’t agree with me at all, but I hope we can at least start talking about it. It’s so, so important.
Honestly, I have SO MANY thoughts about what you wrote (too many for a comment). I’m so glad that you posted it — it gives me things to think about and work on.
Interesting post. I think the PTA/Ed foundation issue must be California-specific. I’ve never heard of public schools in my state getting any significant amount of money from any source except the school district and the state.
But I wonder if sending your kids to a district with underserved kids (because of race or socioeconomic status) is equally problematic because then your privileged white or white adjacent kids are draining scarce resources from kids who need them.
Oh, I would be happy to hear that other states don’t depend so heavily on parent donations (via the PTA or an Ed Foundation) to fund programs past the basic common core. That would be amazing news! I honestly can’t speak to all of California, but I know that at my district the Ed Foundation raises over two million dollars (the recommended donation, PER CHILD, is $3K) for our eight K-8 schools (high schools are not part of our district) and they help pay for many elective teacher positions, including my own. The PTA at each school raises many tens of thousands of dollars (the recommended donation PER CHILD is $1500) and that goes toward teacher stipends, technology and other resources that benefit both teachers and students.
In SFUSD, where my kids go to school, there is no Ed Foundation that benefits all schools equally. Most schools have a PTA, and some of the PTAs at schools where upper middle class parents cluster raise $300K a year. The PTA at my daughter’s school, which I was VP and president of for the last four years, raised $10K in our best year. A lot of under-performing schools have no PTA at all.
I don’t quite follow the “taking resources away” from those who need it suggestion. My kids’ school is under enrolled, and since they get funding per student, being under enrolled means they get less funding from the state and federal government than more sought after schools. My kids being there means they get more funding. They also get an involved parent who can (and has been) be a squeaky wheel at the district level when there were tumultuous administration and teacher turnover issues. My kids don’t require any special education resources, so I don’t believe they are taking away from the students who need more support. But maybe I don’t understand your meaning.
In our local public school, there are over 30 children per teacher with no plans to add teachers, so in that sense I get what Mary is asking. Do your kids ask questions in class? That in and of itself is taking resources away from other children in the class. I also know that at our local school, they have made it very clear they do NOT want a bunch of white parents coming in and taking over or advocating for them, which is what has happened in other Philadelphia schools. I don’t know whether the school gets additional money if my child personally attends, but we pay property taxes and the school tax (which is a philly thing) either way. I do get what your saying, regarding sending your kids to the local school being beneficial, at least for the test scores and exposure to kids who will likely go to college. I just don’t know that those other issues have been considered, at least in what I’ve read.
I have often wanted to donate money to our local public school and have found that almost impossible to do, however.
If my kids ask questions is that really taking away resources? Or is it providing good modeling for students who are not as comfortable in an academic setting and are not yet sure how to effectively make themselves heard. We have learned the hard way that tracking students (by ability level) is not an effective way to raise up students who are preforming below grade level. It seems to me that keeping at-grade-level students out of under performing schools is effectively tracking entire schools. But maybe I’m seeing that wrong.
And I understand that families of color do not want white families showing up and “taking over” a school or advocating for them. I have read about districts starting a popular program (like a language immersion) program at an under-enrolled school to draw in affluent families to change the culture of a school – and the already established families and staff taking issue with that. That is obviously not an ideal scenario, and not what I’m advocating for. But there has to be some middle ground in which integration is positive and not negative.
I’ve heard all these arguments before, and people get really really mad when challenged, and I have no desire to get yelled at on the internet, which is why my previous comment was so brief. I think… I will leave it at that, and we will have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a resource. I will instead reiterate my previous point: that no child should have to go to a failing school. It has to be possible to do that without harming other children or you absolutely are never going to get anywhere politically. Some of your proposals looked like great solutions that wouldn’t also harm other kids.
I think I am really misunderstanding the point here. Is the idea that white kids should not go to school with primarily black and brown student populations because in doing so they are siphoning resources away from those kids who need it most? So the argument is that white kids should stay with white kids where they are taking resources (teacher time and attention) away from other white kids? But isn’t that what we’re already doing and it isn’t working?
I feel like I would understand this argument if black and brown students were getting priority at a specialized public school that receives special funding above and beyond regular public school funding, and that offered specialized services to help close the achievement gap that historically affected black and brown students in this country. In that scenario, upper middle class kids should absolutely not be receiving those resources that were brought together to benefit students who really need them. Barring that scenario, I don’t understand how integrating under-performing schools is detrimental to the students who already attend them. But again, maybe I am misunderstanding the argument.
And I don’t feel I am yelling. I am trying hard to engage civilly and to understand what is being stated. I think these arguments can serve to prop up white and white-adjacent parents’ belief that they are doing what is in the best interest of ALL students when they participate in the unforced segregation of schools. I believe we need to be very careful when we say that sending white kids to an under-performing school is taking resources away from the kids who need it, especially if we’re not providing any evidence that that is the case. I will look into it more and see if I can find anything that supports either argument.
Maybe it’s just my district, but I believe that each school gets a certain amount of funding, but that amount doesn’t change based on the number of kids. So if I move my kids from the private school or majority white/asian public school to one of the Title 1 schools in the district all that will happen is that the Title 1 school will have to deal with more kids but get no more funding.
And putting money issues aside: right now the Title I school has (let’s say) 18 kids per class. I move my kids there and my friends do the same. Now there are 22 kids per class and each one is getting less individual instruction.
And due to ingrained racial bias, my white/white-adjacent kids) will likely get more time/attention, taking it away from Black/brown kids.
In California schools are funded in two different ways – by business and property taxes or ADA (average daily attendance). I believe in the districts where business and property taxes fund the schools, it does not matter as much (or at all?) the amount of kids enrolled in the school, or maybe even the district. But in districts with ADA funding (which somehow SF is, despite its outrageous rent and home prices, and the very successful businesses that have buildings here), the amount of kids definitely affects funding. Even the amount of ABSENCES affects funding (which is why it’s so hurtful for affluent families to take 2-3 weeks of vacation time during the school year – the school / district LOSES money when kids aren’t in school).
I better understand where you are coming from with the taking away resources. But studies show that lower income students do BETTER in schools where there are more students from affluent backgrounds. That is true diversity. The school my kids go to is not, by definition, diverse. It serves primarily Hispanic/Latinx students, with a small percentage of black students (about 15%) and a smaller percentage of white students (5%). The biggest gains come from schools with true diversity, where there is closer to an equal percentage of students from different racial and socioeconomic groups.
This is well done and asks good questions.
Not everyone lives in geography where there is a choice of the racial/socioeconomic mixture in schools that can exist in the SF Bay Area.
But everyone needs to be thinking about these questions and asking about how school funding happens and why so very much inequality of opportunity exists within both their state and their community.
I know families who attend public schools where it is routine for the PTA entity to expect $1000/child as donation to the school each school year. (And, there is lots of peer pressure about who has or has not contributed….. before there fund raising begins.)
This is not equal educational opportunity.
Given SF has had for decades a lottery system for public schools it is always fascinating to me how different the racial and economic composition of the schools remains. (AND, those who say VOUCHERS are the answer need to look at the fact having a voucher or passing an entrance exam (Lowell Public High School SF) does not mean 100% of children who wish to get to attend that school ….. because school size limitations. I have NEVER understood why Lowell could not be on 3 or more campuses if need be.)
Even in districts with ‘neighborhood schools’ some children are now turned away to a non-neighborhood school because the class grade level is full.
In any event the questions asked above need to be looked at and thought about and people need to honestly examine their reactions.
I hope the world is changing. It needs to. Minds are terrible things to waste and bigotry and prejudice and inequality wastes talents. That applies to ALL humans; and maybe someday across species too……
I hope this post gets the response level it deserves……. Super well written and thought through. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THE TIME AND ATTENTION CREATING THIS POST TOOK!
I understand that not everyone can choose a school with kids that don’t look like their own. That is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed if we’re going to combat systematic racism! But there are enough people who can make the choice, and chose not to, to talk about it.
And SF… don’t get me started. The more I learn about this district the more appalled I become. I still do not understand how a high school like Lowell is even allowed… I really cannot. How SF can be one of the wealthier cities in the wealthiest state in the wealthiest nation and have a failing public school system is a disgrace. California needs to stop telling itself, and everyone else, how amazing it is and step up. Truly. I’m so over California, and especially San Francisco, exceptionalism. It’s such a farce. I actually just read an op-ed in the NYT about that very idea (specifically in relation to how protests were handled in CA) and it was so refreshing to hear someone say it out loud.
THANK YOU again and again and again!!!!!!!!
I have really wondered for decades about this stuff. To be clear, over 60 decades.
It needs to be said loud and clear. You are doing this. THANK YOU for being the refreshing voice!
Sigh. I said I didn’t want to be yelled at, not that you were yelling. It was preemptive. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.
Your first paragraph — no. That’s not what I said. I said that an extra child in a class of 30 is reducing the amount of resources available to each child. There are already basically none available with that kind of ratio. The schools need more funding — period. They need fewer kids per teacher — period. They need more excellent teachers — period. They need adequate supplies for their classrooms — period. How many children is too many for a single teacher to handle? 30 children (or more) per teacher is far too many.
The white child who raises their hand representing a “good example” rhetoric represents the “white savior” problem I alluded to earlier.
I think I read a summary of the study you’re talking about showing that poor kids did better when there were more students from affluent backgrounds. And I believe the results! But what happens 10-20 years later when the neighborhood has completely gentrified and poor people can’t afford to live there anymore, and the next generation of poor kids is a) displaced, and b) sending their kids to bad, underfunded schools again. As a gentrifier in my neighborhood, I am acutely aware of the fear that this is what actually happens when the neighborhood schools get better. The evidence out there isn’t great.
Honestly the only real solution I see is to equally distribute resources across districts regardless of the tax base. The public schools in Philadelphia are STARVED for money, while the schools on the Main line… well you can imagine.
Full disclosure: I sent my kid to a Quaker school. The reason was that at the time she started kindergarten, our local public school had approximately 15% of kids reading and doing math at grade level, and even the most lefty liberals I knew wouldn’t have sent their own kids there (they all did school choice, but I realized early on that I wouldn’t have the bandwidth when I was in residency to smooth talk my daughter into a better elementary school). Her class had 11 kids in this year, more than half of them were black or mixed race. I’ve heard it all about why I’m a bad person to send my kid to private school, trust me, it weighs on me. When we move, she’ll go to a public school that is probably academically better, and far less diverse. I have mixed feelings about all of this.
Thank you for clarifying. I understand much better now.
I’m finding some really I interesting articles on all of this. Short answer is there is no short answer. I plan to post all the links with a short discussion tomorrow. I appreciate the conversation. That is what I wrote the post, so we could talk about these things. It’s so important. It’s clear there are no easy answers but we definitely won’t find a solution if we’re not willing to even broach the subject. That’s what I’m trying to do here.
I have always been impressed at your choice to send your kids to the school you do.
I feel like you’re making an active choice that alot of people can do but balk at.
Much easier to read a few anti-racist books at bedtime than do what you’re doing and * gasp * risk the education and opportunities of your precious progeny.
Thank you for your kind words of support. 😉
I agree that all school districts should get equal funding that doesn’t depend on property taxes. There’s a US supreme court case out of Texas from the 70s they basically said there’s no fundamental right to an equal education. But that doesn’t mean the California constitution can’t be changed to require it. We made the decision to send our kids to the school district where we bought our house, which is the school just I went to. The school district is definitely less why am poor then when I went decades ago. We know so many families that purposely moved one town over because it is a supposedly better school district —much more white of course – – because they have better test scores even though we know that some of the discrepancy and test scores is due to socioeconomic background not how good the school is. I frankly makes me sick that people we know that have the same progressive liberal beliefs still either move or send their kids to private school.
I have to admit I was somewhat ignorant about the extent of racism in school funding and white privilege etc. but now that I know more I’m really glad we stuck with our decision. I remake recommend for your readers to read the book White Kids.
We have a slight twist on the PTA issue – – our PTA voted to switch to a PTO which means we don’t share any of the resources we raise with the state. Which I think is problematic since our particular school is one of the more affluent in our school district (it’s the school were assigned to —although they allow interdistrict transfers) and it just seems selfish—we are not contributing to PTA lobbying for better funding, etc.
Anyway, I’m not stupid – – if I felt my kids weren’t getting a good education I would move them somehow – – but so far I don’t feel that way. And I was on the school site council for three years. I truly feel that when parents either purposely move or send their kids to private school they are engaging in white flight which just ends up hurting kids of color even more. I think it’s important for my kids to go to school with kids who are not white.
I think that is the thing – kids can get a good education at an “under performing” school. I would also move my kids if I didn’t think they were learning the fundamentals. Do my kids get all the bells and whistles that kids at the schools in SF where white parents cluster? No, definitely not. But they are learning what they need to learn, and other important things about interacting with people who are different from them that NO curriculum can teach. My kids have had GREAT teachers at their school, and they have been very happy there. I wish other parents could realize that just because a school has “bad” test scores, doesn’t mean that valuable learning isn’t happening there.
I wouldn’t worry too much about contributing to PTA lobbying. The more I learn about that organization, the less I want to (personally) support it. I’ve witnessed some shady dealings at PTAs in SF and when I’ve tried to voice my concerns (as the president of a PTA in the district) I received… nothing. No response, no acknowledgement. When I tried to bring up the fact that the PTA perpetuates systems of inequality between schools in the district on email threads that went out to all presidents, my words were actually deleted. I know the PTA, as a whole, as good intentions, but I worry about what it is actually doing to exacerbate the inequality of schools (at least in California). It’s a complicated issues, and I’m not quite sure where I stand on it yet.
I don’t think the PTA does much lobbying, and if they did, I’m not sure it would be actually promoting justice. The PTA chapter here in Washington, DC is completely defunct. Some schools have PTAs but they’re more likely to structure as PTOs to get away from the PTA dues and various requirements. I tried to email the Washington DC chapter of the national PTA and never got any responses. Once they sent someone out to our school and I was aghast at what a crazy cat lady she seemed to be. Their dues seem low ($5-10 per person) but if you’re a school that makes all parents automatically PTA members and doesn’t charge the parents any dues for it, that’s several hundred dollars you’re giving away for literally nothing in return. So the whole thing is pointless. There is a fund here through which wealthier schools donate to parent groups at low-income schools, and law firms partner with schools to get the parent organizations set up as nonprofits. But it’s entirely separately from the national PTA organization, because they’re so useless.
All that said, having been involved in the parent organization at a lower-income school, I’m not sure just giving us money would have been very helpful. We simply didn’t have the institutional capacity to handle it, keep the money safe, and plan and implement larger projects. And even a big donation by PTA standards (like, say, $50,000) would barely scratch the surface of the structural inequities in the schools’ funding formula. I think legislative change and advocacy through the budget process is the better plan of attack.
Thank you for this! I live in SF and my daughter will attend TK next year at our 1st choice school, which is primarily Hispanic and 85% free and reduced lunch kids. It has been an eye opener how people entering the system talk about schools here. After watching the author of White Fragility speak about her book, I now have a name for what’s happening in these conversations- white people talking about race without talking about race. “If I get into a “good” school I’ll send my kids to public.” “I want my kid to go to a school with people like us, you know who are educated and who value education.” Many people saying things like this are people I consider friends. It’s racist and classist and has always filled me with rage. Now that I have a name for what is happening, these code words we use to talk about race and class, hope that I have the courage to call it out next time I hear someone say something like this.
That’s so awesome you got your first choice school! I know how stressful the lottery can be. And yes, it is VERY eye opening to hear how SF parents, who consider themselves progressive liberals, find it totally okay to talk about school placement in such thinly veiled terms. I have not read White Fragility yet, but it is on my list. I hope you stick with SFUSD – our kids have had such great teachers at their school and a positive experience. I’m so glad we stuck with it, even as friends transferred to “better” schools. I hope you find a school that works for you too.