School-Based Interventions for Reducing Youths’ Racial and Ethnic Prejudice

Abstract

Minoritized youth encounter racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination in a variety of settings, including schools. Prejudice refers to harboring negative attitudes and beliefs toward targeted social groups; discrimination reflects translating those attitudes into actions that marginalize targeted groups. Exposure to racial and ethnic discrimination has been associated with numerous detrimental outcomes for youth, including poorer mental health outcomes and lower levels of academic performance. This article describes the nature of racial and ethnic discrimination encountered by minoritized youth as well as its impact on these populations. It also reviews research on prejudice reduction interventions for youth, with a focus on those interventions designed for school settings. In light of existing research, several policy recommendations support high-quality, evidence-based programming in schools.

Keywords

prejudice school-based intervention minoritized youth policy

Racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination are rampant in schools and are associated with harmful outcomes for youth. This article reviews research on prejudice reduction interventions and offers policy recommendations for bringing high-quality, evidence-based programming to schools.

Key Points

Racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination are associated with harmful psychological and academic outcomes for youth.

Among various prejudice-reduction interventions, many have applications in schools.

Emerging research on prejudice reduction among youth provides some insight into potentially effective programming.

Policymakers must work closely with experts in psychology and education to promote high-quality research.

Policymakers must engage a variety of stakeholders (e.g., school leaders, psychologists, teachers, and families) to facilitate the successful implementation of evidence-based programs in schools.

Introduction

Historically and currently, many students attending U.S. public schools have experienced discrimination based on their race and ethnicity (e.g., Weeks & Sullivan, 2019), documentation status and language use (Olsen, 2008), gender identity (Cogburn, Chavous, & Griffin, 2011), sexual orientation (Russell, Everett, Rosario, & Birkett, 2014), dis/ability (Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011), and/or religious affiliation (e.g., Dupper, Forrest-Bank, & Lowry-Carusillo, 2015). Based on these and other identity characteristics, societal institutions (e.g., schools and governments) systematically minoritize students (i.e., subordinate and minimize them). Moreover, intersecting identities can place students at further risk through exposure to interlocking layers of discrimination (Cogburn et al., 2011). However, the increased presence of racial and/or ethnic minoritized students in U.S. public schools, combined with a hostile and divisive racial climate in the country (Rogers et al., 2017), spotlights the roles of race and ethnicity in school-based discrimination. School-based prejudice and discrimination link to many negative school and mental health outcomes for youth (e.g., Benner & Graham, 2013); therefore, educators must identify and interrupt racial and ethnic discrimination to promote the well-being of all students.

This article will elucidate how racism and prejudice contribute to minoritized students’ experiences of school-based discrimination. We review existing approaches to reducing racial and ethnic prejudice among youth as well as interventions for improving intergroup relations. Finally, we discuss how policy should advance this research and translate it to school settings.

Racial and Ethnic Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudice—the attitudes reflecting one’s overall evaluation of a particular social group and its members—most of the time, but not always, is negative (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010). Its three components include (a) affective (e.g., dislike of a target group), (b) cognitive (e.g., beliefs about a target group), and (c) behavioral (e.g., negative behavior toward target group). Race prejudice, in particular, protects the position of a dominant racial group (Dovidio et al., 2010). As such, racial and/or ethnic minoritized students may experience prejudice from peers, teachers, and others within school settings who are dominant group members.

Translating prejudice into action, racial and ethnic discrimination refers to unfair and differential treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity (Coker et al., 2009). Racism—defined as a system of advantage based on race—contributes to the discriminatory experiences minoritized students have in schools (Feagin & Barnett, 2005; Tatum, 2017). Because racism operates at both the individual and systemic levels, interventions can and should address both. Individual racism refers to a person’s racist assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors and occurs in the context of interpersonal interactions. Systemic racism in the United States involves the racialized exploitation and subordination of Americans of color by White Americans and encompasses discriminatory practices and racialized institutions engineered to produce the long-term domination of people of color (Feagin & Barnett, 2005; National Association of School Psychologists, 2012). Although individual and systemic racism are undoubtedly linked, this article focuses on individual, interpersonal interactions among school-aged youth. This focus recognizes individual prejudice and discrimination as key contributors to the structure of our racialized society and acknowledges that they are in part responsible for the reproduction of racial and ethnic domination of one group (majority) over another (minoritized; Bonilla-Silva, 2015). As a start, we offer a brief research review related to individual prejudice and racism in schools to provide context for understanding minoritized students’ school-based experiences.

Impact of Racism on School-Age Youth

Emerging research indicates that exposure to racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination at both the individual and systems levels is associated with a variety of negative social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes for targeted students. For example, at the individual level, experiences of racial discrimination have been linked to increased externalizing and internalizing risk for African American youth, with females reporting higher rates of internalizing risk and males reporting higher rates of externalizing risk (Brody et al., 2006; Tobler et al., 2013). Across genders, racial discrimination has been linked to higher levels of self-reported depressive symptoms in African Americans, regardless of their socioeconomic status. For instance, experiences of discrimination throughout childhood contributed to higher levels of depressive symptoms in early adulthood (Hudson, Puterman, Bibbins-Domingo, Matthews, & Adler, 2013). Similarly, African American adolescents’ experiences of racial discrimination predicted higher levels of depressive symptoms as well as higher levels of academic difficulties (Cooper, Brown, Metzger, Clinton, & Guthrie, 2013). In addition, racial discrimination at school undermines academic success as well (e.g., Benner & Graham, 2011; Griffin, Cooper, Metzger, Golden, & White, 2017; Wang & Huguley, 2012).

Furthermore, in Mexican American children, discrimination worsened mental health (internalizing and externalizing behaviors) and academic performance (academic self-efficacy and grades) over time (Berkel et al., 2010). Similarly, among Latinx youth, low self-esteem mediated the relation between perceived discrimination and adolescents’ depressive symptoms (Umaña-Taylor & Updegraff, 2007).

Experiences of racial discrimination may also put children at higher risk of substance abuse. For instance, in African American adolescents, while individual characteristics such as drug willingness (i.e., openness to using drugs) and anger levels mediated the perceived-discrimination-to-substance-use relationship, children who experienced higher levels of racial discrimination reported higher levels of substance abuse (Gibbons et al., 2010). In other words, more discrimination was associated with more anger, which in turn was associated with more substance use.

Taken together, a growing body of research indicates the negative effects of discrimination on several mental health and academic outcomes among racial and ethnic minoritized youth. Given these deleterious effects on youth outcomes, we now turn our attention to existing strategies for reducing individual-level prejudice among youth. We first begin by describing the theoretical underpinnings of prejudice reduction interventions.

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Prejudice Reduction

A number of theoretical approaches can frame intervention research on prejudice reduction. According to Paluck and Green (2009), “few topics have attracted a greater range of theoretical perspectives” than has prejudice reduction (p. 340). As a result, interventions represent a variety of methodologies, strategies, and goals linked to multiple theoretical perspectives (and, at times, mixtures of these perspectives; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Ülger, Dette-Hagenmeyer, Reichle, & Gaertner, 2018). These interventions array along sociocontextual and/or sociocognitive continuums, with programs emphasizing cognitive and social elements to different degrees (Aboud et al., 2012). Each has distinct implications for interventions.

Arguably, the most prominent of these theoretical frameworks is the intergroup-contact approach (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Ülger et al., 2018): It postulates that, under certain optimal conditions, contact between social groups can reduce prejudicial attitudes as well as increase positive interactions among groups (Allport, 1954). According to Allport (1954), optimal conditions for group contact include (a) common goals, (b) equal status, (c) intergroup cooperation (i.e., the absence of competition), and (d) authority sanction (i.e., support from societal customs and/or authorities). The intergroup contact hypothesis has been evaluated by rigorous meta-analytic research and is arguably one of the most well-supported theories in contemporary social psychological research (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Prejudice reduction interventions may also incorporate perceptual-cognitive approaches. Perceptual-cognitive approaches suggest that prejudice reduction depends on altering participants’ social categorization schemes (Ülger et al., 2018). For example, decategorization approaches emphasize individual identity over group identity (Paluck & Green, 2009; Ülger et al., 2018). In contrast, recategorization approaches encourage participants to perceive themselves and others as members of a collective, superordinate group. Beyond these methods, crossed categorization techniques remind members of opposing groups of their common belonging to one or more shared groups. Finally, integrative approaches resemble crossed categorization techniques in that they emphasize common group membership; however, unlike crossed categorization techniques, they make a concerted effort to preserve individual and/or subgroup identities (Paluck & Green, 2009).

Individualistic approaches typically incorporate socialization theory or social learning theory (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). These approaches assume that individuals learn about their world through social experiences and knowledge acquired from observing others. The assumption underlying these approaches is that educative programming designed to teach participants about concepts such as bias, multiculturalism, and democratic values may ultimately improve outgroup attitudes and reduce prejudice (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Paluck & Green, 2009; Ülger et al., 2018). Programs consistent with this approach may include anti-bias trainings, consciousness-raising exercises, and other activities that educate participants about social norms and expert perspectives (Paluck & Green, 2009).

Especially relevant to youth in schools are social-cognitive developmental approaches. These approaches assume that children’s attitudes toward outgroup members reflect their respective levels of sociocognitive development (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). As their sociocognitive abilities become more developed, children become more capable of perspective-taking and recognizing personal biases. As a result, they become increasingly capable of evaluating and challenging biased attitudes. Prejudice reduction interventions that emphasize social-cognitive developmental perspectives may promote skills related to empathy, conflict resolution, and moral decision-making (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014).

Although the aforementioned theoretical perspectives constitute the main contemporary approaches to prejudice reduction, various authors have characterized them somewhat differently. For example, interventions may rely on contact-based, media exposure, and multicultural approaches, citing contact and anti-bias theories as critical underpinnings of these interventions (Aboud et al., 2012). In addition, many interventions rely on combined theoretical approaches to promoting positive intergroup attitudes rather than on singular approaches in isolation. Although combined approaches can complicate evaluating the relative efficacy of interventions, they help describe the variety of cognitive, emotional, and social pathways to reducing prejudice.

Intervention Research

Research on prejudice-reduction interventions has been abundant and methodologically diverse. Within the last decade, several published meta-analytic and systematic reviews have summarized theoretical, empirical, and practical implications of research on prejudice reduction among children and adolescents (e.g., Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Paluck & Green, 2009; Ülger et al., 2018). This research has highlighted interventions for reducing prejudice toward a wide variety of outgroups, including racial/ethnic minorities, religious minorities, students with disabilities, and individuals of different ages (i.e., the elderly). In this section, we highlight findings from landmark reviews of prejudice reduction intervention studies. In particular, we focus on findings related to addressing racial and ethnic prejudice among youth, especially in school settings.

Evidence From Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews have allowed scholars to summarize key features and outcomes of effective racial/ethnic prejudice reduction interventions. For example, one review of 985 laboratory and field-based studies (published and unpublished) examined interventions for reducing racism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, and other forms of prejudice (e.g., prejudice toward religious minorities; Paluck & Green, 2009). Of these studies, only 107 were randomized field experiments (i.e., conducted outside of the laboratory), the majority of which were conducted in school settings (88%). Interventions in these studies incorporated a wide range of methods and theoretical approaches.

Thirty-six of the 107 field studies explored cooperative learning interventions, which are designed to foster positive interdependence among participants as they strive for individual and/or collective goals. A common example of cooperative learning in K-12 schools is the “Jigsaw classroom,” wherein individual students are given pieces of a lesson plan and asked to work collaboratively to solve the “puzzle” and to create a clear understanding of lesson content. Outcomes of this particular strategy include interpersonal attraction, perspective-taking, social support, and constructive management of conflict (Paluck & Green, 2009). Citing other meta-analytic work (Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008), this review noted that cooperative learning research was the “most outstanding example of theoretically driven, programmatic laboratory and field research” (Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 358). However, it also highlighted the need for more longitudinal research exploring prejudice reduction outcomes in and outside of classrooms (i.e., general attitudes toward larger racial and ethnic groups).

The remaining 71 of Paluck and Green’s (2009) original 107 field experiments investigated a variety of other intervention types, including intergroup contact, social categorization, and diversity training interventions. The majority of these studies were conducted in pre-school, elementary, middle, and high school settings (k = 38) and examined racial/ethnic prejudice reduction (e.g., toward African Americans, Mexicans, and Native Americans). Included in these studies were a range of entertainment interventions, which involved the use of books, radio, television, film, and other forms of media to construct narratives about individuals from diverse backgrounds. In particular, reading interventions use text to illustrate cultural values and encourage perspective-taking and empathy; across 17 school-based studies, nearly 65% (k = 11) reported positive results. Although these preliminary findings are promising, more rigorous, longitudinal, and theory-driven research needs to explore the efficacy of such approaches.

Another systematic review (Aboud et al., 2012) focused specifically on ethnic prejudice and discrimination reduction programs targeting children 8 years of age and younger (although some programs also targeted children up to 12 years old). The review’s 32 studies included 14 contact interventions (intentional opportunities for close contact among diverse youth), 9 media interventions (books, radio, film, and other media to encourage awareness and perspective-taking), and 9 instructional interventions (anti-bias programs designed to alter the way participants think and feel about outgroup members). Notably, the majority of interventions were conducted in schools. Overall, findings were mixed. Fewer than half of intervention effects were positive (40%), with some effects presenting as non-significant (50%) or even negative (10%; Aboud et al., 2012). Both contact and media/instruction interventions evidenced some success, with a slightly larger number of media interventions (47%) indicating positive results than contact interventions (36%; Aboud et al., 2012). Approximately 54% of programs implemented by school or community staff yielded positive outcomes (as compared with 65% of programs characterized by higher research control). Moreover, children’s attitudes were more strongly and positively affected than were their peer relationships (e.g., friendships and other social behaviors). Finally, intervention effects generally were more positive for majority ethnic children than for minoritized ethnic children (with respect to attitudes but not peer relations; Aboud et al., 2012).

Evidence From Meta-Analytic Reviews

Like systematic reviews, meta-analytic studies have provided considerable insight into characteristics of effective prejudice reduction interventions. One meta-analysis (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014) summarized outcomes of standardized psychological and educational intervention programs designed to prevent or reduce prejudice among children and adolescents. A total of 81 research reports targeted youth under 18 years of age. Of the 122 interventions reviewed, approximately 62% (k = 75) addressed ethnic prejudice and discrimination specifically, whereas the remaining 38% addressed prejudice toward outgroups based on disability status, age, and/or multiple characteristics. Interventions included various program approaches (e.g., direct contact), duration, participant demographics, and trainer involvement. Although the authors did not specify, a considerable number appeared to take place in the context of a school-based curriculum (k = 62). For ethnic prejudice reduction interventions, the overall effect size was small to moderate (although the weighted effect size based on a random effects model did not differ significantly from zero). Effect sizes for programs designed to reduce prejudice based on age and disability status were somewhat larger, meaning that interventions targeted at these groups generally were more successful.

Interventions that utilized direct contact and training in empathy/perspective-taking had the largest effect sizes (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). Moreover, interventions implemented in the context of a larger curriculum and by trainers who were actively involved in program administration (regardless whether they were school staff, program authors, or researchers) had the highest effect sizes. As in other reviews (Aboud et al., 2012), programs generally were more effective for members of majority groups than minoritized groups.

A more recent meta-analysis (Ülger et al., 2018) reviewed 50 interventions for improving attitudes toward a variety of outgroup members (e.g., including individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, religious backgrounds, ages, and disability statuses). Unlike previous reviews (e.g., Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Paluck & Green, 2009), this meta-analysis explored the effectiveness of prejudice-reduction interventions performed in schools specifically. Of the 50 interventions, 62% (k = 31) addressed attitudes toward ethnic outgroups specifically. Collectively, anti-bias interventions for improving attitudes toward ethnic outgroups had a moderate effect size. In other words, these school-based interventions generally were associated with improved interethnic attitudes. In contrast to earlier findings (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014), interventions aimed at improving interethnic attitudes generally were more effective than interventions aimed at improving attitudes toward other types of outgroups, such as students with disabilities.

Although interventions generally were effective across age groups, the highest effect sizes were observed for middle- and high-school-aged students (Ülger et al., 2018). Intergroup contact interventions and multifaceted interventions (consisting of different types of strategies) were highly effective in younger children but less effective in middle- and high-school-aged youth. In contrast, interventions based on decategorization or recategorization processes were particularly effective in middle- and high-school-aged youth (but not in younger children; Ülger et al., 2018).

As before (Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014), interventions significantly impacted outgroup attitudes for participants from majority groups but had no reliable effect on outgroup attitudes for members of minoritized groups. In addition, interventions with the highest effect sizes were (a) led by researchers rather than school staff, (b) multiple sessions in duration (rather than single-session programs), and (c) conducted with individuals rather than groups of students. In contrast, interventions led by teachers had non-significant effects, perhaps due to variability in implementation fidelity and other logistical factors. Moreover, interventions administered exclusively through media (rather than using media as a focal point of a larger intervention) generally were ineffective.

Summary of Intervention Research

Although researchers have explored various approaches to prejudice reduction, scholars and educators remain unclear about “best practices.” This uncertainty is largely due to the scarcity of rigorous empirical investigations in school-based interventions (Ülger et al., 2018). Given these considerations, the following summarizes emerging insights regarding prejudice reduction interventions for school-age youth:

Prejudice reduction interventions for youth generally have evidenced small to moderate effect sizes.

When effective, interethnic prejudice reduction interventions are associated with positive outcomes for majority youth but do not appear to have the same effects for minoritized youth. (However, given small sample sizes for minoritized youth, this observation requires further empirical investigation.)

When effective, such interventions may change attitudes; however, their impact on social behavior has yet to be established.

Intervention approaches firmly rooted in theory may have the most promising effects.

The translation of effective prejudice reduction intervention practices to school and field settings is complex and poorly understood. Rigorous evaluations of school-based programming are lacking; however, interventions in these settings may be our best hope for reaching large audiences and for promoting continuity in programming.

Policy Implications

Given the numerous limitations associated with existing prejudice reduction research, policy implications must proceed with caution. Nevertheless, racial/ethnic prejudice and discrimination are pervasive, insidious forces in schools that require urgent attention. Although the state of prejudice reduction research is undoubtedly tenuous, scholars, educators, and policymakers can take several measures to encourage the integration of high-quality, evidence-based interventions in school practices. The following policy recommendations aim to support this critical endeavor.

Federal and State Agencies Should Target Funding to Support Well-Designed Studies of School-Based Racial and Ethnic Prejudice Reduction Interventions

As noted above, research on prejudice reduction interventions has burgeoned rapidly over the past several decades. Nevertheless, continued attention to methodological rigor is essential for honing in on key features of successful interventions. As indicated previously (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Paluck & Green, 2009), the design and quality of intervention research varies considerably. Moving forward, allocated funds should support the following research priorities:

Studies that investigate theoretically driven interventions;

Randomized controlled trials conducted in school settings;

Studies that monitor implementation fidelity in an appropriately rigorous manner;

Studies that investigate developmentally appropriate interventions for youth of different ages;

Longitudinal research that investigates both proximal and distal outcomes (i.e., both attitudes and behaviors);

Studies that investigate implementation factors associated with school-based programming (e.g., implementation barriers and facilitators).

Collectively, research in each of these areas is necessary for developing effective prejudice reduction interventions in schools. Although the costs of such research will undoubtedly be significant, they pale in comparison with the astronomical costs of racial and ethnic discrimination in educational, medical, and other contexts. Exposure to racial discrimination in childhood and adulthood has been associated with higher rates of mental and physical health problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder, heart disease, and low birthweight (Sibrava et al., 2019; Williams, Lawrence, & Davis, 2019). Eliminating health disparities for racial and ethnic minoritized individuals in the United States would reduce direct medical care expenditures tremendously (and would have reduced them by an estimated $230 billion between 2003 and 2006 alone; LaVeist, Gaskin, & Richard, 2011). As is often true in addressing psychological and educational problems, the costs of prevention are more than justified by the unacceptable physical, emotional, and economic toll of failing to intervene early.

Promoting high-quality prejudice-reduction research will require the collective support of a variety of state, federal, and private agencies. Organizations that have a history of advancing research in equity and high-quality education (e.g., Institute of Education Sciences and the William T. Grant Foundation) may be potential funding sources. When possible, federal and state funding streams that promote social/emotional learning, civic engagement, and other innovative programming in schools should be considered as well.

Policymakers and Educational Leaders Should Work Closely With Content Area Experts to Understand Existing Intervention Research and Remain Abreast of Forthcoming Updates

As noted previously, policy and practice recommendations for prejudice reduction must be made cautiously. Even the most intuitive of interventions may yield null or negative results. Although researchers lack a reliable formula for best practices in prejudice reduction, several decades of research provide some insight into features of potentially effective programming. For example, this research calls into question the effectiveness of one-shot programming and instead suggests the value of multi-session interventions embedded in larger curricula (e.g., Ülger et al., 2018). Similarly, programs that are clearly rooted in theory may be most promising.

A comprehensive understanding of the literature in prejudice reduction may also help policymakers set realistic expectations for intervention outcomes. Small to moderate meta-analytic effect sizes suggest that educators can generally expect to see some improvement in student attitudes (as indicated by immediate self-report measures) following intervention; nevertheless, it may be overly ambitious to expect pronounced, long-term changes in student behavior.

Moreover, gaps in this research should not deter schools from making necessary adjustments to curricula for other purposes. For example, some interventions rely on books, television, radio, film, and other media to illustrate cultural differences (Paluck & Green, 2009). Although these materials may have questionable utility in the context of prejudice reduction interventions specifically, they can be valuable for building culturally inclusive curricula that reflect the unique histories, contributions, and values of diverse cultures. All students should experience curricula that affirm their cultural identities, regardless of whether those materials reliably reduce prejudice for majority or minoritized youth.

Other practices that have tentative implications for prejudice reduction but established utility for related purposes are cooperative learning interventions. Cooperative learning interventions increase skills in empathy and perspective-taking (Roseth et al., 2008). Skills in these areas are important not only for promoting positive intergroup relations but also for facilitating student success in a range of social, emotional, and behavioral contexts. While researchers continue to investigate the implications of cooperative learning for improving interethnic relations, school leaders can continue to use these interventions to benefit students in other ways.

Overall, policymakers and school leaders must work closely with scholars, practitioners, and other experts to understand the potential pitfalls and promises of research on prejudice reduction programming. This may involve partnering with experts in social science disciplines (e.g., psychology and education). It also may involve collaborating with a variety of stakeholders, including school leaders, teachers, special services personnel, families, and community leaders, to ascertain the feasibility and acceptability of various evidence-based interventions in schools.

Policymakers and Researchers Should Adopt a More Inclusive Mindset Regarding Prejudice Reduction and Anti-Bias Programming

Three of the four reviews described above indicated that, when effective, prejudice reduction interventions resulted in the greatest gains for majority rather than minoritized students. While students from majority groups may be the most logical targets for prejudice reduction programming, policymakers and educators must be mindful of the needs and experiences of all students in schools. All students must be made aware of the myriad ways in which privilege and oppression impact their daily lives and the lives of others. While prejudice reduction programming may be especially important for students from privileged racial/ethnic backgrounds, students from minoritized groups must also have the same opportunities to understand intergroup dynamics and to reflect on issues of power, equity, and oppression. They must also be given meaningful opportunities to build skills in cross-cultural interaction, which are essential for ensuring their full and equal participation in an increasingly globalized society. Overall, policymakers and educators must be mindful of the shared and unique educational needs of both majority and minoritized students and should advocate for the development of inclusive interventions that stand to benefit all students.

Federal, State, and Local Education Agencies Must Assist Schools in Creating Necessary Conditions for Successful Program Implementation

Several research reviews identified implementation factors as potential barriers to providing successful school-based programming. In many cases, schools lack essential resources (e.g., time, staff, and funding) that enable high-quality implementation of evidence-based programs. As research on prejudice reduction continues to evolve, policymakers should assist schools in creating optimal conditions for program implementation.

Capacity-building is an essential component of introducing new interventions in schools. In the context of K-12 education, capacity-building refers to the process by which systems (e.g., schools, and districts) secure and utilize knowledge, skills, materials, and other resources to cultivate their ability to effectively serve children, families, and communities. In schools, this process may include providing ongoing professional development for teachers, securing funds that allow for the purchase of relevant materials, hiring skilled personnel, and identifying critical linkages between existing and new programming. Specifically, ongoing professional development that emphasizes the rationale, theoretical underpinnings, and intervention mechanisms of prejudice reduction programming may be especially critical for preparing teachers to grapple with unexpected logistical and conceptual problems. Overall, such capacity-building is essential for promoting the sustainability of high-quality programming.

In addition to helping schools create hospitable environments for evidence-based programming, scholars and educators must also take measures to make the interventions themselves more accessible to schools. For example, due to their highly prescriptive nature, manualized interventions (i.e., interventions with highly prescribed protocols) may be especially transportable between laboratory and school settings. Moreover, interventions that include built-in mechanisms for monitoring student progress and checking implementation fidelity may be especially valuable. Such features may make it more feasible for teachers and staff to deliver these types of interventions with adequate integrity.

Summary and Conclusion

Racial and ethnic discrimination in schools is pervasive and harmful to children’s academic, psychological, and behavioral well-being. Given the scarcity of rigorous empirical investigations addressing school-based interventions, policy recommendations targeting the reduction of racial and ethnic prejudice must be applied with caution. Ultimately, scholars, educators, and policymakers must make a concerted effort to advance research that promotes the development, refinement, evaluation, and integration of high-quality, evidence-based anti-prejudice interventions in schools.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sally L. Grapin

References

Aboud

F. E.

Tredoux

Tropp

L. R.

Brown

C. S.

Niens

Noor

N. M.

(2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32, 307-336.

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Beelmann

Heinemann

K. S.

(2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 10-24.

Benner

A. D.

Graham

(2011). Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on educational outcomes. Child Development, 82, 508-519.

Benner

A. D.

Graham

(2013). The antecedents and consequences of racial/ethnic discrimination during adolescence: Does the source of discrimination matter? Developmental Psychology, 49, 1602-1613.

Berkel

Knight

G. P.

Zeiders

K. H.

Tein

J. Y.

Roosa

M. W.

Gonzales

N. A.

Saenz

(2010). Discrimination and adjustment for Mexican American adolescents: A prospective examination of the benefits of culturally related values. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 893-915.

Bonilla-Silva

(2015). More than prejudice: Restatement, reflections, and new directions in critical race theory. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1, 73-87.

Brody

G. H.

Chen

Y. F.

Murry

V. M.

Simons

R. L.

Gibbons

F. X.

. . . Cutrona

C. E.

(2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A five-year longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77, 1170-1189.

Cogburn

C. D.

Chavous

T. M.

Griffin

T. M.

(2011). School-based racial and gender discrimination among African American adolescents: Exploring gender variation in frequency and implications for adjustment. Race and Social Problems, 3, 25-37.

10.

Coker

T. R.

Elliott

M. N.

Kanouse

D. E.

Grunbaum

J. A.

Schwebel

D. C.

Gilliland

M. J.

. . . Schuster

M. A.

(2009). Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination among fifth-grade students and its association with mental health. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 878-884.

11.

Cooper

S. M.

Brown

Metzger

Clinton

Guthrie

(2013). Racial discrimination and African American adolescents’ adjustment: Gender variation in family and community social support, promotive and protective factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 15-29.

12.

Dovidio

J. F.

Hewstone

Glick

Esses

(2010). Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In Dovidio

J. F.

Glick

Esses

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 3-38). London, England: SAGE.

13.

Dupper

D. R.

Forrest-Bank

Lowry-Carusillo

(2015). Experiences of religious minorities in public school settings: Findings from focus groups involving Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, and Unitarian Universalist youths. Children & Schools, 37, 37-45.

14.

Feagin

J. R.

Barnett

B. M.

(2005). Success and failure: How systemic racism trumped the Brown V. Board of Education Decision. University of Illinois Law Review, 5, 1099-1130.

15.

Gibbons

F. X.

Etcheverry

P. E.

Stock

M. L.

Gerrard

Weng

C. Y.

Kiviniemi

O’Hara

R. E.

(2010). Exploring the link between racial discrimination and substance use: What mediates? What buffers? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 785-801.

16.

Griffin

C. B.

Cooper

S. M.

Metzger

I. W.

Golden

A. R.

White

C. N.

(2017). School racial climate and the academic achievement of African American high school students: The mediating role of school engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 673-688.

17.

Hudson

D. L.

Puterman

Bibbins-Domingo

Matthews

K. A.

Adler

N. E.

(2013). Race, life course socioeconomic position, racial discrimination, depressive symptoms and self-rated health. Social Science & Medicine, 97, 7-14.

18.

LaVeist

T. A.

Gaskin

Richard

(2011). Estimating the economic burden of racial health inequalities in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 41, 231-238.

19.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2012). Racism, prejudice, and discrimination (Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.

20.

Olsen

(2008). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: New Press.

21.

Paluck

E. L.

Green

D. P.

(2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367.

22.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.

23.

Rogers

Franke

Yun

J. E. E.

Ishimoto

Diera

Geller

R. C.

. . . Brenes

(2017). Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in America’s high schools. UCLA IDEA. Retrieved from https://www.fcis.org/uploaded/Data_Reports/Teaching_-_Learning_in_the_Age_of_Trump.pdf

24.

Rose

C. A.

Monda-Amaya

L. E.

Espelage

D. L.

(2011). Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 114-130.

25.

Roseth

C. J.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223-246.

26.

Russell

S. T.

Everett

B. G.

Rosario

Birkett

(2014). Indicators of victimization and sexual orientation among adolescents: Analyses from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 255-261.

27.

Sibrava

N. J.

Perez Benitez

A. C. I.

Weisberg

R. B.

Bjornsson

A. S.

Moitra

Keller

M. B.

(2019). Posttraumatic stress disorder in African American and Latinx adults: Clinical course and the role of racial and ethnic discrimination. American Psychologist, 74, 101-116.

28.

Tatum

B. D.

(2017). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books.

29.

Tobler

A. L.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

Staras

S. A.

O’Mara

R. J.

Livingston

M. D.

Komro

K. A.

(2013). Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination, problem behaviors, and mental health among minority urban youth. Ethnicity & Health, 18, 337-349.

30.

Ülger

Dette-Hagenmeyer

D. E.

Reichle

Gaertner

S. L.

(2018). Improving outgroup attitudes in schools: A meta-analytic review. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 88-103.

31.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2007). Latino adolescents’ mental health: Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 549-567.

32.

Wang

M. T.

Huguley

J. P.

(2012). Parental racial socialization as a moderator of the effects of racial discrimination on educational success among African American adolescents. Child Development, 83, 1716-1731.

33.

Weeks

M. R.

Sullivan

A. L.

(2019). Discrimination matters: Relations of perceived discrimination to student mental health. School Mental Health, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s12310-019-09309-1

34.

Williams

D. R.

Lawrence

J. A.

Davis

B. A.

(2019). Racism and health: Evidence and needed research. Annual Review of Public Health, 40, 105-125.

School-Based Interventions for Reducing Youths’ Racial and Ethnic Prejudice

Abstract

Keywords

Tweet

Key Points

Introduction

Racial and Ethnic Prejudice and Discrimination

Impact of Racism on School-Age Youth

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Prejudice Reduction

Intervention Research

Evidence From Systematic Reviews

Evidence From Meta-Analytic Reviews

Summary of Intervention Research

Policy Implications

Federal and State Agencies Should Target Funding to Support Well-Designed Studies of School-Based Racial and Ethnic Prejudice Reduction Interventions

Policymakers and Educational Leaders Should Work Closely With Content Area Experts to Understand Existing Intervention Research and Remain Abreast of Forthcoming Updates

Policymakers and Researchers Should Adopt a More Inclusive Mindset Regarding Prejudice Reduction and Anti-Bias Programming

Federal, State, and Local Education Agencies Must Assist Schools in Creating Necessary Conditions for Successful Program Implementation

Summary and Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References