Commentary |
Teaching about race is good, actually; states need to quit banning it

by Ian Wright
OtherWords.org

In this back to school season, millions of American students are returning to classrooms where the wrong course, lesson, or textbook can lead to deep trouble. Why? Because for the last several years, conservative activists and lawmakers have been waging a crusade against “critical race theory,” or CRT.

Critical race theory is an academic concept acknowledging that racism isn’t simply the result of individual prejudice but is also embedded in our institutions through laws, regulations, and rules.

As school districts have emphasized, it’s a higher education concept rarely taught in K-12 schools. But cynical activists have used CRT as a catch-all term to target a broad range of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives — and seemingly any discussion about race and racism in the classroom.

Since January 2021, 44 states have “introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism,” according to Education Weekly. And as of this writing, UCLA has identified 807 anti-CRT “bills, resolutions, executive orders, opinion letters, statements, and other measures” since September 2020.

Critics claim — falsely — that CRT teaches that all white people are oppressors, while Black people are simply oppressed victims. Many opponents claim it teaches white students to “hate their own race,” or to feel guilty about events that happened before they were born.

In reality, CRT gives students of every race the tools to understand how our institutions treat people of different races unequally — and how we can make those systems fairer. That’s learning students of every race would be better off with.

But instead, this barrage of draconian legislation is having a chilling effect on speech in the classroom.

In 2022, Florida passed the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” which prohibits teaching that could lead to a student feeling “discomfort” because of their race, sex, or nationality. But the law’s vague language makes it difficult for educators to determine what they can or cannot teach, ultimately restricting classroom instruction. In my home state of Texas, SB3 similarly restricts these classroom discussions.

Running afoul of these laws can get teachers and school administrators in trouble. As a result of this hostile environment, the RAND Corporation found that two-thirds of K-12 school teachers have decided “to limit instruction about political and social issues in the classroom.”

Notably, this self-censorship extends beyond states with such policies: 55 percent of teachers without state or local restrictions on CRT have still decided to limit classroom discussions of race and history.

As a student, I find this distressing.

My high school history classes gave me a much richer understanding of race in our history, especially the discussions we had at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. And in college, I’ve gotten to learn about racial inequalities in everything from housing and real estate to health care, politics, education, and immigration policy.

As a person of color, I can’t imagine where I’d be without this understanding. Neither white students nor students of color will benefit from laws designed to censor their understanding of history, critical thinking, and open dialogue in the classroom.

The fight against CRT is a fight against the principles of education that encourage us to question, learn, and grow. Rather than shielding students from uncomfortable truths, which they can certainly handle, we should seek to equip them with the knowledge to navigate the world, think critically about our history and institutions, and push for a more inclusive country.


Ian Wright

Ian Wright is a Henry A. Wallace Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and a student at Rice University from Dallas, Texas. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.


Teens don’t know everything − and those who acknowledge that fact are more eager to learn


by Tenelle Porter
Rowan University




Photo: Kenny Eliason/Unsplash

If you, like me, grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, you may have come across the classic refrigerator magnet, “Teenagers, leave home now while you still know everything.”

Perhaps you know a teen, or maybe you were a teen, like this: pop-star energy, a little too confident in your opinions, a little too certain that no one could know what you know. Adolescence is the period of life when people transform from children into adults. To handle the transition successfully, people need to shed parental dependencies and become more autonomous and independent. So it makes sense that teens think – or at least act like – they know everything.

I’m a scholar of how people, at any stage of life, handle the fact that they do not actually know everything.

My research has examined what happens to young people who, amid the emotional, social and hormonal storms of adolescence, find themselves relatively willing to acknowledge that their knowledge and perspective are actually limited. This is an attribute scholars like me call “intellectual humility,” which describes a person’s recognition that there are gaps in what they know and that those gaps make their beliefs and opinions fallible.

My colleagues and I wondered whether anything was different about teens who recognize this fallibility – who are intellectually humble – and those who don’t. We really weren’t sure, because the answer is not obvious. On one hand, being aware of their own ignorance and fallibility might be an asset for teenagers by making them more teachable and open-minded, and perhaps even more likable. On the other hand, perhaps awareness of their ignorance could be so overwhelming that it makes them feel defeated and helpless, essentially shooting young people in the foot before they have even gotten off the starting line of their adult life.

We wondered whether, and to what extent, intellectual humility is beneficial for youth and to what extent it might actually be harmful.

Anticipating failure

In a series of studies that collectively enrolled over 1,000 participants, high school students rated themselves on the degree to which they agreed with statements like “I acknowledge when someone knows more than me about a subject” and “I question my own opinions, positions and viewpoints because they could be wrong” as indicators of intellectual humility.

We then asked students to imagine that they had failed a quiz in a new class and, critically, what they would do next. Students rated a series of possible responses to this setback, including more mastery-oriented responses, such as “study harder next time,” and more helpless responses, such as “avoid this subject in the future.”

The students who had rated higher in intellectual humility more strongly endorsed the mastery responses, showing that the intellectually humbler they were, the more they said they would try to learn the difficult material. The students’ degree of intellectual humility did not coincide with their helplessness ratings. In other words, the intellectually humbler students were not more defeated and helpless. Rather, they were more interested in improving.

Photo: Taylor Flowe/Unsplash

Actually encountering failure

We wanted to know more, especially whether students’ hypothetical behavior would be the same as their actual behavior. Our next two studies addressed this question.

One study had three phases. We started by measuring adolescents’ intellectual humility with a self-reporting questionnaire like the one we’d used before.

Then we returned to their classrooms months after the questionnaire, on a day when the teacher returned an actual, graded unit test. As students saw their test feedback and grades, we asked them to rate different options for what they might do to prepare for the next test.

The intellectually humbler students endorsed items like “try to figure out things that confuse me” and “ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material” more strongly than the less intellectually humble students, regardless of whether they performed well or poorly on the test.

For the last phase of this study, we waited until the end of the school year and asked the teacher – who did not know students’ intellectual humility scores – to rate each student’s eagerness to learn. According to the teacher’s ratings, the intellectually humbler students took on learning with more gusto.

In the other study, with another group of students, we again gave them the questionnaire on intellectual humility. Then we asked them to complete a challenging puzzle that tapped into their actual persistence and challenge-seeking behavior.

The intellectually humbler students preferred challenging puzzles more than easy ones that they already knew how to do, spent longer trying to solve the challenging puzzles and made more attempts at solving puzzles even after they had failed than their less humble peers.

The role of mindset

Collectively, those studies gave us additional confidence that intellectually humbler students were more teachable and willing to work harder than their more defensive, less humble peers – not only by their own accounts but also according to a teacher and as measured by an actual behavioral task.

But we didn’t know whether the intellectual humility caused that openness to learning. We wanted to know if encouraging students to be more intellectually humble would actually make students more focused on learning and mastery and less likely to throw up their hands and surrender in the face of a challenge.

So we randomly assigned participants to read one of two articles, one about the benefits of being intellectually humble, the other about the benefits of being highly certain. These articles looked like they had been written for a popular media outlet, but they were actually written by us.

As a cover story, we asked for participants’ feedback on the article: Was it intelligible? Could a young person understand it? What was the main idea?

Next, we asked participants to do a second, ostensibly unrelated activity. We asked them to imagine specific objects and rotate them in their minds’ eyes. These were tricky problems, taken from dental school admissions exams, aimed at determining a person’s spatial visualization skills.

After they finished the problems, we told participants they had done well on some questions and failed others. This feedback was made up so that it would be consistent for every participant. Prior researchers have used a similar procedure because it is difficult for people to determine whether they had answered these questions correctly or not, making both success and failure feedback equally plausible.

Then we asked if they would be interested in taking a tutorial on the material they failed. The results were dramatic: Upon hearing that they failed a series of questions, 85% of those who had read the article about the benefits of intellectual humility chose to invest in learning more about the failed subject. But just 64% of those who had read about the benefits of certainty chose to learn more.

In all of these studies, intellectually humbler adolescents showed in a variety of ways and via a variety of different measures that, when they got something wrong, they cared about getting it right the next time. Rather than throw up their hands and declare themselves to be helpless in the face of ignorance, intellectually humbler students set to work on learning more.

Other researchers’ findings that corroborate these results show that young people higher in intellectual humility are more motivated to learn and earn higher grades, in part because they are more open to corrective feedback.

We are continuing our research into how intellectual humility shapes teenagers’ lives and how parents, teachers and society can promote it. Some of our recent work has looked at how schools make it either easier or harder for young people to express intellectual humility. We also have questions about how much American parents, teachers and adolescents value intellectual humility. As with any research, we really don’t know what we’ll find, but we’re excited to learn.The Conversation

Tenelle Porter, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Rowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Urbana District 116 holding Family Forum online tonight

URBANA -- The Urbana School District will host a virtual Family Forum tonight via Zoom from 6-7:30pm.

Topic for tonight's discussions, after a welcome back statement and annual review, will focus on the district's goal and the upcoming Equity Audit in October.

The upcoming Equity Audit will help identify areas of strengths and weakness within the district concerning diversity, inclusion, and deficiencies in available educational opportunities for students. Focus groups comprised of families and district staff members will be meet October 17-21.

To join tonight's zoom meeting, the first of this academic calendar year, go to https://usd116org.zoom.us/j/92586421834 on Zoom. The meeting ID is 925 8642 1834.

For more information contact the school district at https://usd116.org/admin/.