Abstract
Race and Gender in the Classroom: Teachers, Privilege, and Enduring Social Inequalities by Laurie Cooper Stoll examines the teachers’ views and classroom practices of “color- and gender-blind classrooms in an era of ‘post-racial’ and ‘post-gendered’ politics” (p. 2). She conducted classroom observations and interviews with teachers and administrators over an academic year in three different types of schools: Morgan Elementary (predominately white), Mason Elementary (predominately black), and Helis Elementary (predominately white and Hispanic). She argues that individuals generally interpret information about gender through the frames of abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural sexism, and the minimization of sexism. Her book explores the contradiction, “that teachers rely on various frames of color-blind racism and gender-blind sexism as they struggle to understand and explain race- and gender-related issues in the classroom and beyond” (p. 5). Teachers work in institutions that do not allow them the ability to acknowledge race or gender nor do they incentivize acknowledging racism or sexism. She suggests that these teachers employ the social equality maxim which “is the belief that all students have the potential to be successful regardless of social location” (p. 6). Institutions, overall, allow teachers to discuss racial inequality in schooling superficially while simultaneously claiming that gender inequality is no longer a major problem.
One example of how racial inequality is discussed by teachers is through color-blind racism which leads to the social equity maxim, “the belief that all students have the potential to be successful regardless of social location” (p. 6). The majority of the teachers discussed that “race was still a problem, but it was declining in significance when compared to socioeconomic status” (p. 24). Often teachers would focus upon social class as the problem. According to the teachers, unequal outcomes are a result of parents and students making bad choices rather than structural racial inequality. One common response of a teacher concerning racial inequality included statements about “color-blind racism, to minimization of racism…and then finally acknowledge[ing] that covert forms of discrimination still exist, but not in Lakeview” (p. 24). This example suggests that teachers see racial inequality as not challenging as the social equality maxim and that all students can succeed if they make “better choices.”
A second example of how racial inequality is discussed by teachers is through an embrace of multiculturalism. The teachers and administrators promoted multiculturalism through the celebration of racial and ethnic holidays, pictures of notable people of color on school walls, literature about people of color, and “token days.” Cooper Stoll argues that the adoption of multiculturalism is used to address racism and race. However, this adoption is only superficial and does not violate the social equality maxim. Specifically, one teacher points out that he feels supported in incorporating multicultural curricula in the classroom by having a Korean fan dance in his school and selecting books that happen to have characters from Mexico or who are African American. The multicultural curricula had to be “culturally relevant” and legitimized by other teachers and administrators. The one African-centric elementary school in the district was dismissed by other teachers and administrators as being overly focused on the African and African American experiences. One teacher suggested that the curricula should also have a Polish day as the school district was in a formerly predominant Polish community. Cooper Stoll writes that teachers believe “Differences obviously exist among students, but differences are always a good thing” (p. 26). In other words, multiculturalism reinforces superficial platitudes such as hard work and perseverance rather than acknowledging structural differences associated with race or gender. Cooper Stoll acknowledges that this is not a new finding and instead supports an existing body of literature critiquing the ways multiculturalism operates in schools and is operationalized by the teachers.
While teachers acknowledge racism and race, superficially, teachers believed in gender-blind classrooms. Cooper Stoll finds that gender practices in the classroom have not changed since Barrie Thorne’s (1993) book, Gender Play. For instance, Cooper Stoll observes a fifth-grade classroom that has been transformed into Colonial Williamsburg for a social studies activity, including the Governor’s palace, the slave quarters, the shoemaker’s shop, the tavern, the church, and the College of William and Mary and the dame school. All girls in this classroom had to attend the dame school where a sewing activity occurred, while the boys attended college and had a writing activity. The girls in the classroom suggested that this was an unfair practice, but the teacher maintained that this was historically accurate. A discussion of the slave quarters occurred during the debriefing of the social studies activity. Cooper Stoll points out that for the teachers to discuss race and racism the teachers could use multiculturalism in their classrooms and thus discuss slavery and the slave quarters in the social studies activity. For gender, “[T]here is no equivalent of ‘multiculturalism’ for addressing historical and contemporary sexism…” (p. 47). There was no Women’s History Month events celebrated in any of the schools. Girls still received less attention from teachers than boys. Teachers believed that girls overall were stronger students than boys and would often use naturalization framing when discussing the students. For example, teachers would make book selections that contained more male characters because boys were viewed as weaker readers. Teachers asserted that in public classrooms, a “boy crisis” was occurring and that the women’s and feminist movements had produced an atmosphere where girls had privilege over boys. Cooper Stoll’s book points out that as far as the teachers are concerned, the students live in a gender-blind classroom, where the goals for gender equity have been accomplished.
Cooper Stoll examines changes in school policies. Because of changes in policy, students face what she calls a “new” tracking system in the form of differentiation, response to intervention, and inclusion in the classroom. Schools used formal assessments and teachers’ personal assessments of students to make determinations about which students should receive more classroom support. Black and Latino boys were overrepresented in receiving additional classroom support. Cooper Stoll suggests that this is a “new” tracking system. I think, however, it is just a different kind of tracking. Instead of having different classrooms of “high achieving to low achieving,” school districts place all students in the same classroom with one teacher and have the teacher break the classroom up into high- and low-achieving groups. Cooper Stoll could have highlighted this more.
Cooper Stoll also examines the institution of education. In her study, teachers feel that they have been deprofessionalized. Teachers felt that the administrators conducted surveillance on the teachers by focusing too much on lesson plans and test results. Teachers were often asked to turn in lesson plans in advance and then were chastised by administration if they were not following the lesson plans. Teachers found that this was an unrealistic expectation when trying to differentiate the high- and low-achieving students in the classroom. The teachers often focused upon the lower achieving students and often did not have time to discuss with teacher aides how to best serve students. Cooper Stoll suggests that teachers need more resources and less surveillance. However, in an era of austerity, most school districts are hiring fewer teachers and increasing classroom sizes.
There are some limitations of this study. First, within the school district Cooper Stoll studied, an African-centric school existed. However, she was unable to interview or observe the teachers in the African-centric classrooms. Second, Cooper Stoll discusses No Child Left Behind. I would have liked to see a discussion of how her study might change now that most school districts have Common Core.
Ultimately, Race and Gender in the Classroom’s biggest contribution to the literature is the exploration of gender-blind sexism and social equality maxim among teachers. Race and Gender in the Classroom is highly accessible, readable, and relies on rich quotes from teachers. Overall, this book would be a must-have book for courses in sociology of race and ethnicity, sociology of gender, and sociology of education.