By James Gray, Dean of Mathematics, Pima Community College & Strong Start to Finish Advisory Board Member
May 17, 2024 marked the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, a ruling that determined that the Plessy vs. Ferguson “separate but equal” standard was unconstitutional. This ruling did not dissuade segregationists from actively preventing the integration of schools, including then Virginia Gov. Thomas Stanley (see the Stanley Plan) and Virginia Sen. Harry Byrd (see the Massive Resistance). Such initiatives were overwhelmingly successful as only 1% of Black children attended an integrated public school five years after the Brown v. Board ruling.
Seventeen of those students are referred to as the Norfolk 17, a group of Black students who enrolled in white schools in Norfolk, Virginia in 1959. 151 Black students wanted to enroll; however, an admissions exam was created with curriculum up to three years above age level. All 151 students failed, and they were deemed unprepared. It wasn’t until a court intervened that 17 of those students were enrolled.
Parallels with the Past
At a former institution of mine, we primarily served two school districts. One school was predominately white and the other predominately Black and Latinx. These school districts taught their mathematics using very different approaches. The white school district focused more on procedural understanding, and their textbooks looked a lot like ours. The other school district valued conceptual understanding, communicating mathematics, and developing solutions in community. Their textbooks looked nothing like ours. Many of us disdained the way mathematics was taught in those texts, while also complaining about the lack of preparedness of those students.
What we didn’t know at the time was the racial implications of that disdain. We were devaluing the mathematical knowledge of our Black and Latinx students, who were more likely to hear some form of the phrase, “you should know this already.” Our placement exam also devalued their knowledge, and thus disproportionately placed Black and Latinx students below their capabilities. While the racial disparities in 1950s Virginia were created with intention, the parallel disparities we were making were unintentional. Yet, this lack of intention should not comfort us. Nor should it absolve us of responsibility. These capable students had to bear the burden of decisions they had no say in. It was our responsibility to modify our practices to build upon their strengths rather than devaluing them.
All Teaching is Local
One thing the data did show was that Black and Latinx students were more successful with the few teachers we employed who had experience teaching in their school district. They knew something the rest of us clearly did not. Early experiments for me included giving writing assignments that valued communicating mathematics and conceptual understanding. Students who were consistently getting Cs on procedural-focused assessments started producing A-level work, and vice versa. It was stunning how one assignment — that did not take much time to develop — could completely upend my perceptions of who the strongest students were. More and more, I learned the different ways students understood mathematics. This helped me assure students that they did, in fact, “know it already” and “here is how we will build upon your strengths.”
My practices were clearly privileging some, while creating a barrier for others. These practices did create racial disparities. I was not okay with that, regardless of whether it was intended or not. What I hoped is that the investment of time would pay off for Black and Latinx students who had not been thriving in my classes. It did. What I did not expect was the sense of empowerment that replaces the fear that I did not have the capacity to grow in this area. Now, I can’t imagine teaching any other way. It seems far too difficult and time-consuming not to teach this way.
