Facilitating Racial Dialogues as University Researchers With Out-of-School Time Educators

Facilitation of Racial Dialogue

Fostering meaningful racial dialogue has become an essential pursuit in educational settings, as both primary/secondary schools and teacher preparation programs deal with persistent racial inequities (Ramasubramanian et al., 2017; Tropp & Rucinski, 2022). Despite growing awareness of racism’s impact in schools, many educators and pre-service teachers struggle with how to effectively facilitate race-related conversations (Carpenter & Diem, 2013; Howard & del Rosario, 2000). Traditional approaches, often rooted in broad multicultural frameworks, sidestep direct engagement with racism (Howard & del Rosarios, 2000; Tropp & Rucinski, 2022), failing to address the lived realities of students in a visibly race-conscious society (Kohli, 2012). Teacher education programs, in particular, frequently default to preparing future educators for historically White, middle-class classrooms, neglecting the complexity and significance of racially diverse learning environments (Howard & del Rosario, 2000). Therefore, teacher preparation increasing awareness of racial diversity must encourage open, respectful, and honest discussions about race that directly confront racism (Jones & Melo, 2021).

Research on facilitating racial dialogue underscores the complexity and importance of effective strategies for promoting race-related discussion, particularly in educational settings. Carpenter and Diem (2013) conducted a study examining how professors in educational leadership preparation programs plan for and facilitate conversations about race-related issues. Their findings show that professors are intentional in their efforts to address these topics, frequently making a deliberate commitment to confront racial issues despite facing various institutional barriers that often hinder meaningful educational experiences. Based on their research, Carpenter and Diem identify five strategies for successful racial dialogue: possessing a clear racial identity, engaging in purposeful planning, utilizing strategic resources, skillfully facilitating conversations, and actively engaging colleagues in the process. These strategies underscore the importance of educators bringing self-awareness and intentionality to their facilitation, utilizing structured approaches to navigate institutional and interpersonal challenges.

Recent research with primary/secondary school teachers by Tropp and Rucinski (2022) finds that both implicit biases and anxieties about appearing racist influence educators’ readiness and confidence in engaging students in conversations about race. Their findings suggest that addressing both unconscious biases and fears of being perceived as racist is necessary for improving teachers’ abilities to support race-related classroom discussions. Collectively, these studies underscore that facilitating racial dialogue requires professional intentionality, institutional support, and ongoing self-reflection to overcome both personal and systemic barriers.

Professional Development on Race and Racism in OST

Keeping pace with the enrollment numbers of learners contributes to the challenge of ensuring that teachers managing OST programs receive support and PD (Farrell et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2024). Most teachers who work in OST programs have either limited or no background in education; therefore, they lack pedagogical and behavior management skills (Farrell et al., 2019) and, in most cases, how to engage students from culturally diverse backgrounds (Blanchard et al., 2022). According to Farrell et al. (2019), the inability to prepare teachers to work in OST programs is referred to as the “train and hope” approach, in which assessing the impact of PD is not done due to time constraints (p. 387). Consistent with the literature, after-school instructors face challenges in receiving the PD necessary to successfully navigate their multiple roles and support students’ academic and social-emotional development (Hwang, 2021).

Finding studies on the facilitation of race and racism dialogue PD within OST programs was challenging, mainly because there is limited documentation on how facilitators are specifically prepared for these critical dialogues. Although OST programs historically serve as inclusive learning spaces for marginalized groups, especially in specialized areas such as STEM, which prioritize identity markers such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status, there is scant information on the training provided to facilitators to engage meaningfully in conversations about racism (Dabney et al., 2012). Research indicates that effective racial equity training requires facilitators who can manage discomfort and model trust through diverse identities and experiences (Matschiner, 2023; Tucker-Smith, 2021); however, it is unclear if and how such preparation is integrated into OST settings. Despite OST programs’ original intent to address racial inequities by providing access where traditional schooling fails, the specific ways in which facilitators are encouraged or equipped to discuss racism remain largely unknown, highlighting a gap in both research and practice in this area.

University and Community Partnership

University-community partnerships have become essential frameworks for advancing shared goals aimed at addressing complex social challenges. These partnerships represent ongoing, dynamic interactions that balance reflection and action, fostering critical consciousness within communities and promoting mutual learning (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2015). When effectively structured, such collaborations yield outcomes that are directly relevant and beneficial to the communities involved, while also providing valuable academic insights (Reardon, 2006; Strier, 2014).

In a pilot study, Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2015) proposed a model for establishing and sustaining university-community partnerships, outlining three key phases: (1) initiating community engagement (e.g., conducting community tours); (2) building trust (e.g., respecting community norms); and (3) planning for sustainability and impact (e.g., identifying mutual benefits). Post-pilot study reflections by Suarez-Balcazar (2015) offered refinements, including volunteering with community organizations to better understand and build trust with the target population, thereby enhancing collaborative project planning. Another significant revision emphasized the importance of respecting cultural diversity, where university researchers approach partnerships with a commitment to learning about the community’s unique characteristics while critically reflecting on their biases.

Scholars have outlined essential strategies for cultivating effective university-community partnerships (Baum, 2000; Reardon, 2006; Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2015). Establishing such collaborations requires a deliberate alignment process between university and community stakeholders, beginning with foundational discussions about the partnership’s purpose and the resources available to achieve shared objectives. Baum (2000) critically examines common misconceptions about these partnerships, highlighting the problematic belief, often propagated by funders, that universities alone can resolve complex community issues. Such unrealistic expectations can drive the development of flawed welfare programs that ultimately fail to yield meaningful improvements for the community. For a partnership to be viable, it is crucial to define the community clearly and ensure that all relevant stakeholders agree on the terms of collaboration (Baum, 2000).

Various factors contribute to the failure of university-community partnerships, including unequal power distributions, which can lead to tension, inadequate planning, and implementation challenges (Strier, 2014). These issues often engender resentment and mistrust, with evidence indicating that long-term collaborations may disproportionately benefit university actors rather than the wider community (Strier, 2014). Alternatively, partnerships characterized by effective communication, openness, and honesty are more likely to produce mutually beneficial outcomes (Suarez-Balcazar et al., 2015).

Context of Study

The context of this study was a year-long PD initiative with OST program staff from two community-based organizations in the Northeastern United States. A total of five monthly in-person PDs (November 2024 – March 2025) were held at community venues, with 38 OST educators participating. The 38 OST educators represent diverse races (i.e., African American, White, Biracial), genders, and ages. These PDs were part of a larger government-funded grant project focused on advancing gendered racial equity and artificial intelligence education in OST settings. In the larger project, we engaged in a research-practice partnership (Coburn et al., 2015) with the two community organizations, co-creating educational programs to support Black girls’ critical engagement with artificial intelligence. For example, alongside community partners, we defined PD values and subsequently created, implemented, and evaluated programs. Both community organizations were sub-awardees on the grant, directly receiving funds for their contributions to the work. All activities were approved by an Institutional Review Board, and participants were compensated for their attendance at the PD. The present work focuses on a PD cohort to understand race and racial equity. Activities outside of this scope are not discussed in the present analysis.

Each monthly PD spanned two days: the first day consisted of a two-hour session, followed by a full-day session on the second day. The professional development design integrated arts-based approaches, small- and large-group discussions, personal reflection through journaling, and multimedia resources to support engagement and critical dialogue.

Data Collection

Data collection included group dialogues and individual reflexive journaling, both of which supported individual and collective sensemaking around the planning, facilitation, and assessment of racial dialogues. We collected field notes after each PD planning and debriefing session. These reflective dialogues were guided by, but not limited to, the following five prompts at each session: (1) What are the intended learning outcomes related to race and racism? (2) What principles ground our approach to planning and facilitation? (3) How are we engaging OST program staff in both the planning and facilitation processes? (4) How are we defining race and racism, and how do those definitions influence our facilitation approach? and (5) What tensions and opportunities emerged during facilitation? These prompts were informed by existing literature on facilitating racial dialogue and by our prior facilitation experience. Each session lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. The field notes included our reflections and key discussion points for each prompt individually. Additionally, the second author synthesized and recorded major themes from discussions about facilitation guides in a shared, centralized document. We revisited these notes during a final group discussion.

Approximately one month after the final PD and engaging in individual reflexive journaling on the experience, we convened again for a group dialogue to reflect on the overall experience of planning and facilitating the PD. This group dialogue included questions such as, “How would you characterize the challenges encountered and the insights throughout the process?” to explore the ways the process shaped our individual and collective practices. This dialogue allowed us to deepen our reflection by revisiting and unpacking shared experiences. This session lasted 120 minutes and was audio-recorded.

Researchers Positionality

We reflect on our positionality and how it influenced both our decision to facilitate race- and racism-focused PD workshops with OST program educators and our engagement with this research approach. We draw on Patel’s (2015) invitation for educational researchers to consider questions of positionality critically: Why this? Why now? Why us? In other words, as researchers and facilitators, we must attend to the “durable histories and trajectories that incompletely structure” what we know and how we come to know it (p. 5).

Ericka: My facilitation philosophy is grounded in Black feminist and queer onto-epistemologies that foreground critique of interlocking systems of oppression and cultivate collective critical hope toward anti-oppressive futures. As a working-class, cisgender Black queer woman professor, often perceived as young, my positionality shapes both how I facilitate and how my facilitation is received. In community spaces where my identities are rarely represented among university researchers, my presence is inherently political. When addressing race and racism, I navigate concerns about being perceived through the “angry Black woman” stereotype, which can prompt White defensiveness and hinder space-making for Black women. Embracing the principle that “the personal is political” (​Hanisch, 1970), I center community-building, joy, and critical hope to foster both individual and collective consciousness.

Tara: As an African American woman and assistant professor shaped by my experiences in primary/secondary public education, I have witnessed and endured racism that deeply influenced my educational trajectory. Throughout my schooling, teachers frequently overlooked or failed to address racist comments from peers and did not challenge curricular inaccuracies or omissions related to race and ethnicity. These experiences have fueled my commitment to transforming the deep roots of racism within STEM education and have become the foundation of my work to equip teachers with anti-racist pedagogical practices. When facilitating PD for STEM educators, I remain conscious of the profound impact that non-culturally relevant instruction can have, often restricting opportunities for talented African American students and limiting their ability to pursue STEM fields. To counter these inequities, I intentionally use culturally relevant pedagogy, specifically a “pedagogy of opposition,” as the guiding framework for my PD efforts (Ladson‐Billings, 1995, p. 160).

Meagan: As a doctoral candidate and current secondary school assistant principal, my facilitation philosophy is in a constant cycle of revision as I work to shed the socialization I received in my training as a public educator. I started my career with the belief that education fulfilled Dewey’s vision of being a great equalizer. However, almost a decade in, I feel myself constantly disheartened by the systemic racism running rampant throughout our public schools, and throughout my journey as a budding scholar, I started to critically examine our education system. In that, I’ve come to realize that our school system is doing exactly what it is designed to do by perpetuating cycles of racial injustice. Thus, I approach the facilitation of anti-racist work with a mixture of anger at the past and present, yet hope for the future, and the idea that, through collaboration, we can work towards social justice. Nonetheless, as a White woman, I am aware of the privilege I hold that impacts my facilitation of anti-racist work and how it is received.

Elaine: As a Latina who was often praised and treated as an anomaly throughout my primary/secondary school education when excelling academically, I internalized a sense of shame around my ethnicity. My positionality deeply informs how I think about facilitating PD, as I carry with me the knowledge of what it means to navigate spaces where others deem you less than or not representative of the group with which you identify. My values are rooted in equity, dignity, and representation. I want to challenge educators to recognize patterns and practices of oppression, traditional ways of operating that harm students of nondominant cultures, and to create pathways where students do not feel like the exception but instead see themselves as belonging and representative.

Data Analysis

The data analysis was iterative, enabling a reflexive process that evoked meaning-making (Srivastava & Hopwood, 2009). The first and second authors engaged in both individual and collaborative analysis throughout this process. To support the iterative approach, we maintained a codebook to record and organize the evolution of codes and themes throughout the ongoing analysis. According to Srivastava and Hopwood (2009), “reflexive iteration is at the heart of visiting and revisiting the data and connecting them with emerging insights, progressively leading to refined focus and understanding” (p. 77). We conducted three rounds of data analysis. We started with a deductive approach, critical sensemaking to create a priori codes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). A priori codes included, but were not limited to, identity construction, retrospection, and uneven power dynamics. Then, we conducted an inductive analysis of emergent codes using open, axial, and selective coding (Saldaña, 2021). Through open coding, we identified codes in each data source, using multiple and overlapping codes (Saldaña, 2021). Such code included, but was not limited to, refusal, legitimacy, relationships, prior facilitation experiences, collective planning, flexibility, responsiveness to the OST educators, aha moments, and knowledge of race and racism. In the process, we detailed code characterization and our thinking around code changes with each incremental data source. Axial coding enabled us to refine each code into more distinct categories across data sources and our sensemaking process (Saldaña, 2021). In other words, the data was read and digested, and previously assigned codes were defined, redefined, merged with others, or abandoned altogether. We identified the following themes: negotiating professional titles, relationship-building with the community, facilitator knowledge and experience, responsiveness to OST educators’ knowledge and experience, planning together, and understanding power dynamics. Finally, we engaged in selective coding, returning to our a priori codes to further refine categories and develop overarching findings. This analysis process helped us condense and make sense of our experiences in relation to the literature.

Limitations

While this study offers valuable insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, our findings are based on a single project involving a specific group of OST educators and a particular facilitation team, which may limit the generalizability of the experiences and dynamics described. Second, our study relies on facilitator reflections that, although rich and informative, are inherently subjective. Third, the dual role of researchers as facilitators may have influenced both the facilitation process and the interpretation of data.

University Affiliations and Job Titles

As we planned, facilitated, and reflected on this work, we were acutely aware of how our university affiliations and job titles carried weight in this specific OST PD context. They signaled authority, knowledge, and experience in conversations about racism in education, but also shaped how OST educators chose to engage with us. Living in this tension between externally ascribed authority and our desire to build trust, we paused often to consider how our positionalities influenced both the dialogue and the relationships we hoped to nurture. These reflections are context-specific insights into navigating institutional affiliation within community-embedded racial dialogue. We each navigated this tension differently. For Ericka, the decision was to step away from institutional labels and toward relationships. She recalls:

During the first professional development session, I deliberately chose not to disclose my workplace, job title, or area of scholarship. I shared with the educators that I am more than my institutional affiliation or credentials, emphasizing that these do not define who I am or how I aim to engage with them in community. I wanted them to know me, as I took the time to get to know them.

In this context, legitimacy arose from building trust, connection, and rapport rather than institutional credentials. tara’s approach was different. She shared:

Looking back, I realize that the way I introduced myself, first as an assistant professor and then, as a veteran primary/secondary school science and STEM educator, I revealed the tension I was holding inside. I wanted to establish credibility and earn the trust of the 38 participants in front of me. Beneath my words, I was battling the fear that they might dismiss me as just another outsider, speaking from theory rather than lived experience. Claiming the university title was a way to signal my dedication to addressing systemic barriers that constrain opportunities for non-dominant groups in primary and secondary education. Sharing my research interests and publications was an attempt to demonstrate my commitment to advancing equity in teaching and learning through coalition building.

For her, naming her university affiliation and job title was a way of honoring transparency about how and why she came to this work. She wanted educators to know that research was part of the project, but not in a way that overshadowed their lived expertise. By sharing her role and the project’s origins, tara invited educators to see how their insights could ripple beyond the sessions, informing scholarship, shaping practice, and leaving a mark on the broader education conversation. Together, these different choices, Ericka’s quiet refusal of titles and tara’s transparent naming of them, became part of our collective reflection, illustrating context-specific strategies for negotiating authority, trust, and care. They reminded us that being in community requires not a single stance but an ongoing negotiation of authority, trust, and care.

Meagan and elaine entered these conversations from yet another angle. Their roles at the university positioned them differently from both Ericka and Tara, yet their presence was no less essential. This, too, was a negotiation of positionality. Meagan and elaine understood that while their university roles conferred a measure of authority, their responsibility in these moments was not to claim expertise but to help surface the expertise already in the room. elaine reflected,

As a facilitator, I still see myself as a classroom teacher first. I didn’t see myself as the expert in the room; perhaps that was because the facilitators had diverse skill sets, experience levels, and approaches to the work. It felt as if we were all contributing to the content. I also believe expertise is a collective creation, not an individual holding. I wanted to help create a group environment where participants felt comfortable sharing what they knew, asking for clarification or information, and learning from each other.

In this OST PD context, legitimacy is derived from creating conditions for dialogue rather than asserting individual expertise. Collectively, our approaches revealed multiple ways of being in community with OST educators, highlighting how university affiliation and titles are bound up in context-specific power, hierarchy, and privilege. Taken together, these approaches did not stand in opposition to one another. Instead, they revealed the many ways of being in community with OST educators. Ericka’s refusal to foreground her job title, tara’s transparent naming of hers, and Meagan and elaine’s facilitation grounded in their university roles all highlighted how affiliations and titles are not neutral; they are bound up in power, hierarchy, and privilege within education.

Facilitation-First, Then Collectively Plan

Initially, we facilitated racial dialogue with minimal collective planning. We invited an outside group, Outcast Theatre Collective, to lead Theatre of the Oppressed activities with the OST educators (Boal & Jackson, 2002). These activities were intended to spark dialogue around race and racism. Developed by Augusto Boal, a Brazilian chemical engineer turned theatre practitioner, Theatre of the Oppressed redefined theatre as a medium for social and political transformation (Boal & McBride, 2014). The Outcast Theatre Collective’s critical, arts-based method engages participants in embodied reflections on the mechanisms and impacts of oppression. tara served as the primary facilitator for this session, drawing on her established relationships with the community partners and her prior experience working with the Outcast team. Her familiarity with both educators and external facilitators created a sense of continuity, even as much of the facilitation was conducted by individuals outside our core team. tara recalled,

I entered the process confident in what Theatre of the Oppressed could do; I’d seen firsthand how it could shift perspectives and open the PD environment. But bringing together multiple groups (i.e., Outcast and university facilitators), each with its own approach to facilitating conversations about race and racism, was a whole new experience. Often, their approaches didn’t easily harmonize. At times, I found myself juggling, sometimes stretching, trying to create a smooth flow so that the work didn’t feel fragmented or disjointed. Many times, I felt caught in the middle, managing the push-and-pull between strong personalities and distinct facilitation styles. It was uncomfortable at times, and I could feel the tension, knowing I was the thread linking it all together.

Reflecting on this session, tara noted the complexity, and at times, the messiness, of facilitating conversations about race and racism as someone positioned both as an outsider and as an insider with community ties. While her relationships were crucial in encouraging OST educators to sign up for the PD, they did not necessarily translate into opportunities for the facilitator team and the educators to begin building community together. Instead, much of the space was shaped by the Outcast team, whose presence dominated the weekend. Because they were not consistent facilitators across the larger project, the connections formed during this initial session were not always sustained.

While our direct involvement in designing the activities was limited, this PD was significant for setting the tone of the larger project. For our team, the first PD raised essential questions about ownership, continuity, and what it means to build community in ways that extend beyond a single event and allow for meaningful racial dialogue. In this context, the session illuminated the challenges of aligning multiple facilitation teams and raised questions about ownership, continuity, and relational trust. Meagan recalled,

When we went into that first PD, I could not explain what we were doing or identify our goals. It felt like we entered with the intention of incorporating the PIs’ individual research interests, but conflicts arose over whose vision should take the lead. Facilitators had competing interests and opinions, and there was no agreed-upon goal nor unified purpose for what we did. I think we all left feeling a sense of failure, and we really had to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to recover, which involved putting our egos aside and approaching our planning from a people-first perspective. We began by asking what we could do to create the best experience for our community members, and it then became much easier to determine our vision and goals.

Meagan’s reflection highlighted an important lesson for our team: when facilitating as a group, it is essential to develop a shared understanding of the session plan, intended outcomes, and assessment approaches. Unlike a solo facilitator, who may hold all of the knowledge internally and adjust in the moment, a group of facilitators requires collective planning to ensure coherence. Even when not all facilitators are front-facing during a dialogue, the process still demands alignment, clarity, and agreement on roles.

This reflection underscores that in collaborative facilitation, planning is both relational and ethical. In racial dialogue, collective alignment ensures consistency, trust, and accountability, even when facilitators are not all front-facing in sessions. Meagan reminded us that the work of facilitating racial dialogue is not only about what happens in the room but also about the preparation that allows facilitators to respond to tension, conflict, or vulnerability with consistency and care. For our team, this meant that planning together was not simply logistical; it was relational and ethical, a way of ensuring that we could hold space for OST educators with trust and accountability.

Facilitators’ Strengths During Planning

The third finding was that we intentionally leveraged our individual facilitation strengths around racial dialogue during collective planning sessions. Reflecting on and assessing our first PD experience, we realized that if our dialogues with OST educators were to move beyond surface-level engagement, we needed a more structured, intentional approach. Each of us brought distinct strengths to facilitation: one excelled at building rapport and fostering a sense of psychological safety, another at asking incisive questions that pushed participants to examine assumptions, and another at synthesizing complex ideas into clear takeaways. Recognizing these complementary skills allowed us to move from facilitating independently to planning as an integrated team. Ericka added:

I contributed to our understanding of the historical and social conceptualization of racism in the United States and to the operationalization of racial consciousness development within professional learning spaces. I often centered our planning conversations on the need to situate discussions of race within a broader context, including how systems of oppression were constructed over time, how they continue to shape institutions, and why explicitly naming these dynamics is essential for meaningful change. This perspective helped ensure that our sessions moved beyond abstract talk of “diversity” or “inclusion” and engaged participants in critically examining how power and privilege operate in their own contexts. While I can plan the overarching PD, I do not excel at logistics (e.g., time and space allocation).

Ericka contributed expertise in understanding the historical and social construction of racism and in operationalizing racial consciousness development, which anchored our work in more than surface-level conversations about “diversity.” She consistently urged us to situate discussions of race within broader systems of oppression, examining how these systems were built, how they continue to shape institutions, and why explicitly naming power and privilege is necessary for meaningful change.

At the same time, we recognized that creating spaces for deep racial dialogue requires more than conceptual clarity; it also depends on strong logistical planning, thoughtful time management, and careful structuring that allow participants to feel both challenged and supported. By combining Ericka’s expertise with the organizational strengths of other team members, we ensured that our professional learning sessions were both intellectually rigorous and practically grounded. Together, we were able to design environments that encouraged critical reflection, vulnerability, and dialogue that can lead to real institutional transformation. tara shared:

In designing the sessions, my goal extended beyond presenting theory; I wanted participants to actively translate theory into practice. Building on the foundation Ericka established to deepen participants’ understanding of racism, we co-created a curriculum that is both relevant and transformative. We sought to maximize participants’ opportunities to define and strategize ways to confront racism in their professional contexts. This required ongoing coordination with Ericka to determine how much time to devote to each activity. Time, however, was only one dimension; we also needed to ensure that the structuring of small-group discussions created the conditions for open dialogue on sensitive issues such as White supremacy. By working with community partners to secure a venue with multiple private spaces, we allowed participants to speak freely, linger over emerging ideas, and consider perspectives different from their own.

Together, we committed to grounding our dialogues in racial critical consciousness, ensuring that every learning objective explicitly engaged questions of power, privilege, and systemic inequities. We designed a deliberate progression of conversations that began with foundational dialogue, defining concepts such as race, racism, and White supremacy, and gradually deepened into examining how these systems operate in education and shape our lived experiences. At the same time, we prioritized building community among OST educators and facilitators by incorporating small-group discussions, interactive activities, and opportunities for vulnerability and trust.

To translate these commitments into practice, we developed a comprehensive facilitator guide that outlines session outcomes, activities, reflection questions, and the overall schedule. This guide became both a roadmap and a shared reference point, helping us intentionally coordinate our strengths while staying aligned in purpose. By shifting from ad hoc facilitation to a collaborative, strengths-based approach, our dialogues gained greater depth, invited more authentic participation, and supported educators in grappling with the complexities of race and racism in their contexts. Because we planned together in ways that honored each person’s strengths and perspectives, we could stay flexible, adapting our planning, facilitation, and even our assessment of the work as it unfolded.

Maintaining Flexibility Allowed Critical Dialogue to Emerge

Our final finding was that maintaining flexibility allowed critical dialogue to emerge, whether in responding to OST educators’ needs, managing unexpected disruptions, or adjusting to space constraints. Although we developed a detailed facilitator guide to provide structure, it was never treated as static or prescriptive; instead, it served as a flexible tool to inform our approach. We approached it as a living framework that could shift in response to what emerged in the room. For example, Ericka reflected on the time we adjusted the entire second day of PD to remain in small groups and discuss racially related terms:

On the first day of the second PD, I noticed that OST educators were beginning to feel comfortable in their small groups, as evidenced by their active participation in discussions. They were grappling with multiple perspectives on concepts such as race, racialization, racism, White supremacy, and anti-Blackness. As facilitators, we encouraged them to explore these terms through their personal experiences and understanding. While the educators were able to generate broad definitions and present them to the larger group, we recognized the need to go deeper. We decided to slow down and give them space to sit with these ideas, reflect on them, and discuss them more thoroughly the following day. In their small groups, the educators continued these conversations, building a sense of openness and community as they wrestled with complex and often challenging concepts. This slower, more intentional approach allowed for richer dialogue and fostered trust, making the learning both personal and collective.

This flexibility allowed us to lean into the natural flow of racial dialogue, recognizing that authentic conversations about racism do not always follow a linear path. In practice, this meant adjusting timing, rearranging activities, or deepening discussions within small groups when participants needed more space to process or engage. Meagan recalled that in-group dynamics required time to work through the racial tensions present among the group of educators:

My group always had an interesting dynamic because it was majority White. When we first started our group discussions, no one would speak. I sensed the Black educators stayed silent as a means of resistance, while the White educators feared saying the wrong thing. I challenged the educators to put aside their White guilt and participate. Still, I felt that my own privileged identity made me the wrong person to force the Black educators to engage in the conversation. Ironically, that just further centered Whiteness in our discussion. I started realizing I may not be able to control their relationships with each other, but I could control my relationship with each one of them. I worked to build trust and relationships with Black educators outside of our group setting, which gave me a better sense of what I needed to do differently in my facilitation to confront the Whiteness that controlled the space. By keeping my facilitation style flexible, the group dynamics began to shift, and we started naming those tense moments and working through them together. When I heard about the conversations the other groups were having, I often felt like we were failing, but I think we ultimately just needed more time to deal with the Whiteness in the space.

Through this process, we learned that the most meaningful insights often arose in moments when we exercised flexibility, allowing the dialogue to guide our facilitation rather than the other way around, to create richer engagement and deeper understanding. elaine shared,

During one of our small group sessions discussing terms related to racism, an educator shared that she had an epiphany of sorts—most of her adult life, she considered herself an expert in racism. She shared with the group that as a Black woman, she felt confident speaking to others about racism, and now, through the exercise in our group, discovered she had much to learn. Some of the terms, like racialization, she hadn’t heard before. Realizations like these reminded me how much flexibility as a facilitator shaped the outcomes, allowing me to create spaces where participants could lean into the discomfort and still feel supported. Rather than having a lecture or a how-to guide, practicing flexibility in this small-group environment allowed for deeper reflection and a sense of familiarity, enabling participants to be more vulnerable. Growth and understanding became more important than being an expert.

This reinforced the importance of staying attentive, responsive, and flexible as facilitators, trusting that participants’ experiences and reflections would shape the learning in powerful and necessary ways. In our facilitation moving forward, tara witnessed how the group embraced flexibility in working through difficult conversations, a shift that deepened our sense of cohesion and collective capacity. She shared,

While Ericka provided the overall curriculum framework for the small-group discussions, each of us drew on our own facilitation strengths to shape how the conversations unfolded in practice. Initially, I felt pressure to mirror Ericka’s facilitation style when leading discussions on race and racism, which led to an awkward, less authentic approach on the first day. After reflecting on this experience, I made a conscious decision on the second day to lean into my own strengths, particularly in relationship building, as a foundation for cultivating an open and trusting space where participants could engage meaningfully in dialogue about race and racism. Through our debrief sessions, I came to understand that flexibility was the technique we all employed. Though our facilitation approaches varied, each of us used flexibility to intentionally structure the space in ways that distributed power among participants and supported the co-construction of knowledge.

Flexibility in our facilitation proved central to redistributing power, co-constructing knowledge, fostering community cohesion, and deepening participants’ engagement in critical dialogue on racism. The foregrounding of our strengths and the embrace of flexibility made space for both personal and collective transformation.