Consequential Issues of Censoring Curriculum: Who Has the Right to Ban What’s Read?

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Sam. [00:00:39] Speaker B: Hello and welcome to JCEL Jabber. My name is Ian Mehta, I use hehim pronouns, and I'm an Associate professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Buffalo and I'm also one of the board members of the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership. For this episode we are recording live from the annual meeting for UCEA in sunny Los Angeles, California, and we're excited to be here to make this part of the conference experience. This is the third time that we've done a live recording at UCEA and we love having an audience that can help engage with the JCEL article featured in the podcast. JCEL publishes peer reviewed cases for educational leaders who are in preparation programs as well as for practitioners who want to connect theory to practice as part of professional development efforts. The journal is available online and the goal of JCEL is to help educational leaders create more equitable learning experiences for communities across the globe. Each case has a narrative, teaching notes, discussion questions, and learning activities for educational. [00:01:46] Speaker C: Leaders to consider and hello, my name is James Wright. I am an Assistant professor at San Diego State University in the Department of Educational Leadership. JCEL Jabber is a way to help educators consider how one of the cases from JCEL could be used to support learning for Leadership. JCEL Jabber is a quarterly podcast that helps highlight special collections of articles that are temporarily made available for free to increase access around issues of inequities that exist in school systems. It provides listeners a brief 30 minute podcast to engage more deeply in the case and hear nuanced analysis of the issue. It also connects the listener with the author who provides additional details about the case and provides a discussion about how scholarly practitioners might apply the case in practice. [00:02:41] Speaker B: So in this episode we review the case consequential issues of Censoring Curriculum who has the Right to Ban what's Read? This case was published in 2023 and critiques this sharp rise we have witnessed in US society of school district banning books. Book bans often attempt to suppress historically accurate conversations about race, gender, sexual orientation, or other topics that challenge white cisgender heterosexual identities as the norm. And at the center of this particular case is the very real world challenge of how schools can diversify curriculum and instructional materials to provide culturally responsive teaching for all students, not just those who are racially, culturally and economically privileged. [00:03:31] Speaker C: In this case, Dr. Deitra Johnson and her co authors present a common challenge for many suburban school districts that have experienced rapid racial and cultural diversification in their student body while experiencing very little racial and cultural diversification represented in the identities of their teachers or administrators. Part of the background to this case highlights the attempt of the district to provide more culturally responsive curriculum and instruction. One of the teacher leaders in the district, Ms. Sampson, was selected to help develop and implement more culturally responsive teaching. Ms. Sampson, who identifies as a white woman, helped to develop a culturally responsive teaching framework for the district based off of Geneva Gay's work. Gay's culturally responsive teaching framework notes the importance of providing instruction that 1 activates students prior knowledge, 2 makes learning contextual, 3 values the importance of teacher student relationships, 4 centers students cultural knowledge as an asset, and 5 discusses political and social issues in the world. It was during this work that US Society witnessed the public murder of George Floyd, causing protests and outrage across the country to directly address the consequences of racism within US Society. Not long after this point in our history, however, we also witnessed the beginning of bans on efforts to address the nefarious nature of racism within the US Specifically through bans on critical race theory and other efforts to discuss minoritized students in US schools. [00:05:20] Speaker B: So in this specific case by Dr. Johnson and her co authors, we see Ms. Sampson again a white woman engaged in what we might consider the development of her critical consciousness. She had been named Teacher of the Year in her school district and was someone who had grown up in the community and attended all of her K12 school years within the district. And because of this, she was perhaps one of the people who could act as a change agent and help ensure that all students, regardless of their socio cultural identities, could receive rigorous and culturally responsive education. The specific issue that the case unpacks is how Ms. Sampson used books from the school library to provide historical context to the experience of people who are racialized as black. Specifically, the use of the book the Hate U Give as a plot that mirrors the experience of teenagers witnessing a murder of a black teenager at the hands of a police officer. From these lessons, students in Ms. Sampson's class developed empathy and awareness of peers who had experienced police violence at the local level. Letters of support were drafted and with the school and district support, the letters were delivered to the family that expressed thoughts and feelings about racial inequality. Many of the families in the school district were thrilled with the culturally responsive engagement. However, Mr. Tracy, a white man who was a school board president, became enraged when he learned about the efforts of that were partially spearheaded by his son who was a student in Ms. Sampson's class. Dr. Cannon, a Black male superintendent, was forced to navigate the political upheaval with his white male school board president counterpart and he had to calculate how an impending state level bill would give parents legal grounds to challenge any curriculum in this very real world. Example of what has been and certainly will be challenged in schools is an educational leader who needs to figure out how to ensure culturally responsive teaching is enacted and navigate relationships with the school board. In an unpopular move, Dr. Cannon decided to suspend Ms. Sampson without pay, as well as remove the book from the library prior to due process, creating a rift between district and school leadership. [00:07:39] Speaker C: So we want to create an opportunity for the lead author to engage in a discussion about the article and the topic of not just culturally responsive teaching and school leadership, but really the current political climate we find ourselves in, where increasingly there is an attempt to suppress and prevent the discussion of historically accurate conversations about race and other marginalized identities. To do that, we have the lead author of the case, Dr. Dietra Johnson, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Houston. Deidre, welcome to the show. Could you briefly introduce yourself for the listeners? [00:08:24] Speaker D: Yes. Thank you so much. And thank you so much for giving an overview of our JCELLE article. And thank you so much for a wonderful introduction. As you mentioned, I am a faculty member at the University of Houston and the Department of Education, Leadership and Policy Studies. A lot of my work centers around three main areas of looking at educational disparities, educational leadership and diversity and equity and inclusion in our schools and of course, in our universities. So part of what I do is I look at how the intersectionality of those three areas sort of is encumbered in not only policies that we see at various levels, whether it's local, state, or federal policies, but also programs for procedures and practices that occur in our educational environments. Our institutions of learning have different ways of interpreting those different four P's. So therefore, that's where sometimes these inequities and disparities occur. And one of the things that seem to continue to bubble up is the interpretation of what some policies, particularly looking in House Bill 17, which is very prominent, and then the House bill that was considered in this particular, particular case, which is 3979, and trying to understand how the fidelity of those policies are implemented and the impact that it has. So what I was hoping is part of me and my co authors was to sort of bring to light some of the implications and the consequences of what happens when these practices per se don't do not align with the policies or the programs themselves, particularly that there was an actual policy in place to incorporate more culturally relevant curriculum, instruction and resources. But however, there was some. There was a disjoint communication or connection between a parent who was also on the. On the school board who didn't feel that his personal philosophy aligned with what was already in place with the school. So that's sort of where this comes from. [00:10:30] Speaker C: Thank you for that introduction in that context, very important context. So I'll start off with what should be a fairly easy question. Why did you and your co authors write a case that juxtaposed critical race theory and culturally responsive teaching? [00:10:47] Speaker D: This particular article is part of a special issue that was developed in looking at a critical reflection of anti racism in based on the cases. Part of what we did was to want to make sure that we align a scholar with a practitioner to bring in the two different dichotomies of understanding of what these issues look like in our schools. So thinking about something that was coming up on horizon with me being from Texas, we recently went through House Bill 17 where there was this ban on DEI. And so part of that ban on DEI was inclusive, not necessarily at the university, but we were having to take out certain words, certain language, in particular equity, diversity and inclusion. So we were having to. We were being policed in a sense. Or not we're being. But we are being policed in a sense and having to use appropriate language that's more, I guess, receptive to the general population. So this particular case came out of that ideology of understanding how even though something has been approved and it's for we think about it as being something that is beneficial for learners to understand different perspectives, there still is this pushback. And so understanding that there was a policy in place to want to have Ms. Sampson bring in these resources, she brought in several books. And this particular book was highlighting something. It was a violent experience that that occurred, but the students were receptive to that. In this case, the board member's son was the one who spearheaded getting donations together to contribute to the family. So he was being empathetic and so he was becoming critically conscious of what was happening. However. And you know, sometimes you think about you're in the same house with someone and you can have five kids and they all come out different. Right. And so even though the parent was. Has a different understanding, the child was becoming what we might call woke. Right. So we're thinking about. He is reflecting on his experience with what he read and what he may have potentially witnessed or could witness. And with the George, for the George situation. And that being from Houston, this was why it was a close. A close it was a close experience for me and having worked in education in K12 and dealing with curriculum as well. So. So that was part of why we thought about doing this particular case, you. [00:13:18] Speaker B: Know, So I could only hope that my kids might get an opportunity like that. [00:13:24] Speaker E: Right. [00:13:24] Speaker B: So that they learn how to deepen their empathy, so that they learn to broaden their horizon. Right. And to really try to understand some of the foundations of our society. Right. And to be able to have historically accurate conversations. My question to you is, what are some of the challenges that educational leaders are facing when they try to navigate policies and practices that attempt to censor in my mind, something so important as culturally responsive practices and even more broadly, just teaching about our history and white supremacy and the prevalence of that in our society? So what are some of those challenges that you can highlight? [00:14:12] Speaker D: A lot of the challenges is just the self perseverance. Right. I want to make sure that I maintain who I am, my culture, where I come from, that it's always right. And so anything else, anything different is wrong. Having worked in urban, rural and suburban school districts at various levels as a classroom teacher, campus administrator and district administrator, had the experience of actually having conversations with individuals about how things are working in society. Sometimes they become so siloed and cocoon in their communities that they don't necessarily know that there's things that exist outside of their spaces. And so it's difficult having those conversations. So we have to critically think about how can I have a conversation with someone who may or may not necessarily see me in a positive light? Me being an African American female working in spaces where I'm not my. Myself as a person is not that familiar. So how do I articulate it in a way that is not aggressive without being considered that I'm, you know, I'm sorry, I'll say this, being an angry black woman. How can I have a conversation with you to sort of get you to think in a different way about how things are and maybe shed some light on just ways in which you might want to consider your colleague or this child? So often we think about programs, teacher preparation programs, principal preparation programs, support tendency preparation programs. Sometimes it's being taken literally for what they are. And there's not any room for people to think above and outside of the box. So it's like you've been taught 1, 2, 3, but not understanding. There's a 1.1, 1.2. Right. So there's some. There's an interim space in between, and that's where we get into difficult situations. Where people don't see. So, you know, I could. I could speak to you about the perspective of teachers and how they come to understand that this is the right way, this is the only way. I've been doing this for 30 years. The same thing for school administrators, but also being a parent and how sometimes parents are not informed. And so they just go with who they assume would be the authority, which would be the teachers and the principals, the school board. And so how do you sort of bring some of that understanding to the table? So I think it's important to be very transparent. You know, I say that I am absolutely authentic in the work that I do, and I think that's important. So if you see me, you're going to see me, and I'm going to be trying to speak to you in a way that's going to make you feel comfortable, but some of our conversation is not going to be comfortable. That's just going to be the reality. So I just think being able to speak to people in the way that you want to have something communicated to you that is not threatening. And sometimes just saying certain things is threatening. Even saying race is threatening to some people, because then it becomes this issue of black and white. And that's not what. What I'm even trying to talk about. So I just thinking about it from that perspective. [00:17:26] Speaker B: Thank you. [00:17:28] Speaker C: One of the things that this case brings up for me is the widespread push for diversity and inclusion of black, brown, other folks of color into spaces of leadership. And. And in doing so, leaving the status quo and all of the Eurocentric norms and values and structures and expectations in place. And so. And this case mirrors the last case with Jasmine Alvarado and Annie Shimaru in a lot of ways. So I'll explain that. Another. [00:18:13] Speaker D: Another point. [00:18:14] Speaker C: Oh, okay. So it's so similar. Right? And so. So what can school leaders do as instructional leaders to ensure that teachers are supported and informed, to navigate pushback from parents or community members when attempting to address inequities in society? [00:18:34] Speaker D: One of the things that you mentioned was thinking about this pushback from leadership. Going to share a quick story for a moment, please. My bad. I had worked in a school district. Had was working at central office. I'd actually worked at a service center. So I basically had the degrees, I had the experience. But I was told you could never be a principal in this district because you don't look like what the district is expecting. So how do you have a conversation with the HR director that's telling you that to say I am Worthy. I am qualified to be able to do this job, but because I'm black, it wasn't clearly stated that way. But I know I knew what that meant. And so I had to realize that I'm doing great work and I want to be appreciated for my work, but I'm still getting this pushback. So it becomes, how do you get past the glass ceiling? So I, you know, in some essence, I cracked the ceiling, but I wasn't able to push through. But how do I get school leaders to understand it, regardless of the way that I look? How do we bring quality leadership into your campus and effective instructional practices and pedagogical procedures to your kids and so that your teachers are mindful and respectful of what they need to do? So getting past some of the hierarchies and the bureaucracies of the administrative process is where there's this bottleneck. So how do you get past that? If I'm coming in, your teachers love me. But you're saying, don't listen to her. That's a challenge. And I personally experienced that. Well, no, yeah, she's saying this, but this is how we're going to do, because this is the way we've always done. I mean, literally, I've gone into a district that had no standard SOPs, no standard operating procedures for anything, wrote the curriculum, gave them curriculum. Because you had campuses doing benchmark assessments. There were apples and oranges, so how can we be on the same playing field? But it has to be communicated, and it took some time. Making changes and moving past resistance takes time. It's not something that's going to happen overnight. Unfortunately, some districts don't allow things to take time. They're constantly shifting cheese and shifting monkeys and moving monkeys off your backs, but they're not necessarily doing some of the work. It takes time, and it is uncomfortable, and it can be extremely painful, particularly for those like myself, who really are committed to making sure that teachers, that school leaders, that students and parents and the community as a whole are getting exactly what they need so that they can be protected in the work that they're doing. [00:21:25] Speaker C: Thank you. [00:21:26] Speaker D: I'm not sure if that answered your question. I did a squirrel moment. I'm sorry. [00:21:32] Speaker B: So I'll ask one. One more question. So, you know, I think in the last couple years, we've. We've witnessed states like Texas and Florida really try to prevent conversations about race, also about sexual orientation. Really, honestly, anything that. That sort of challenges the norm. Right. What should they be aware of as they attempt to provide a more inclusive and equity oriented school system in places that attempt to be restrictive. What are your suggestions? [00:22:05] Speaker D: I think one of the most important and relevant things that I've had the opportunity to work is allowing the voices to come through. I think that if we allow student voices to be heard, if we're allowing teachers voices to be heard, sometimes we're making executive decisions above and beyond, and we're not thinking about the consequences or the implications of who's really impacted by those decisions. So if we are opening up to understand what are our students who are identifying as transgendered or any aspects of lgbtqi, plus how we are addressing and supporting them in the. When we're thinking about being racially conscious about students who have different hairstyles and how that might be perceived and perceived and received, then we're thinking about teachers. How can we go into spaces that are not necessarily what we would consider norm for us? But even if a teacher or an educator identifies as queer, how are they received? Can they do their work? So there's so many different aspects of how can we understand what someone is going through if we don't hear their voices? So I think understanding and hearing their voices, allowing them the space and advocating for them, I think advocacy is extremely important in making sure that people have the time and the space to indicate what their needs are and how they can be supported. Sometimes we just putting people in boxes and we're not allowing them to do what's relevant for them. And we have phenomenal people that are doing great work, but if we're restraining them in any aspect, I think that that's what becomes problematic. [00:23:50] Speaker C: Yeah. So at this moment, we'll turn to our standing room only audience for questions. [00:24:00] Speaker B: And if anyone has a question, just you can come up to the mic and ask it. [00:24:06] Speaker E: So about the case, you mentioned that the superintendent suspended the teacher and removed the book. Did they provide reasons for doing so? Because I think you also mentioned that the school or the district had sort of a philosophy of including or employing culturally responsive curriculum. The book was already in the library, so it's technically an approved, you know, material. [00:24:49] Speaker B: Right. [00:24:52] Speaker E: So why was the teacher suspended? [00:24:57] Speaker D: Well, the. The situation that occurred was the superintendent was coming into the district and develop a strategic plan that was incorporating more culturally relevant practices in the classroom and the resources as well. This particular situation was a school board member who was the president, who had heard about what had happened, the lesson that had gone in the classroom. Once again, his son sort of spearheaded some volunteerism and some advocacy for a family that was experiencing some Some of the fallout from someone experiencing a violent death. So he was showing, the student was showing empathy, but the father was disconnected from that. But because of his power and or could be considered white privilege, he made it point to that this teacher be removed. So the problem of the case was that the superintendent removed the teacher, placed her on administrative lead and as well as the campus administrator and remove the book without any due process. Even though the book itself had been approved by the district and it was part of the curriculum for the district. So there was this, I guess this superintendent trying to appease the school board meeting. So once again, if we know how school. This is a whole nother case. But if we understand how school boards operate, you know, he was thinking about the security of his job if he didn't do this. And so the teacher and the principal were sacrificed. So not only were they sacrificed for this particular school board member president, but then we think about the students who were sacrificed as well. So they missed out on a learning, they received the learning opportunity. So the book was removed afterwards. But if you could think about the implications of knowing that this happened. How do we allow the student's voice to become part of the conversation and say I really learned something from this. So if you think about it from a campus administrator, district administrator, once again, the consequences. It wasn't just you satisfied one person, but the satisfying the satisfaction of one person had a negative impact on the thousand students in the district and possibly 100 teachers on the campus. And we're not even talking about the community as a whole. [00:27:24] Speaker E: So all as a result of a. What is. What could be interpreted as a probably very dysfunctional relationship between a superintendent and the board. How that, you know, makes us think about or reminds us about how powerful that dynamic. [00:27:44] Speaker C: Exactly. [00:27:44] Speaker E: And how influential that dynamic is. [00:27:47] Speaker D: Most, most definitely. Yeah, most definitely. [00:27:49] Speaker E: Interesting. [00:27:49] Speaker D: And just a person, just they, you know, he was the president. But for him to say remove this book and it happened like not the next. We were talking about something that was immediate. [00:28:00] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:28:00] Speaker D: And so that's a lot of power. And so it goes back to power and who wields the power. Because we often think superintendent wills power. But we know if you've been in K12 long enough, we know how that works. [00:28:14] Speaker E: There was a very similar case, Mahmoud versus McKnight that happened in 2023, I think similar issue. A number of LGTBQ inclusive books were challenged and the board in a 24 hour period flip flopped twice on whether or not to allow parents to challenge the use of that of Those materials. So yeah, like I, I think this stuff has happened everywhere and I think. [00:28:43] Speaker D: The comment that you're making that the parents had the opportunity to challenge and in this situation there wasn't a challenge, it was a final decision and it was done. Thank you for your question. I appreciate that. [00:28:53] Speaker B: Thank you. So I think, I think this is an example of a case that's so powerful because it really does highlight what we're, what we're looking for. We are looking for cases that help people connect theory to practice. Right. So sometimes I think you have privileged people are like, you know, white privilege isn't real, heteronormativity isn't a thing. Right. But you just highlighted an example of that. [00:29:18] Speaker C: Right. [00:29:18] Speaker B: And, and as a school principal. Right, right. And, and I think sort of the perception publicly that, you know, if there's enough pushback that, that we're going to self center ourselves even if we have policies and practices in place that are supposed to protect cultural responsiveness. [00:29:36] Speaker C: Right. [00:29:37] Speaker B: So I think that's why your case is so powerful. And I think that in the next couple of years there's going to need to be organized efforts definitely at the local level to make sure that you elect equity oriented school board members because that's where the power resides and that's what's going to protect those practices. [00:29:57] Speaker D: I agree. [00:29:59] Speaker A: So thank you. And first of all, appreciate this article. What a wonderful article. And I do agree that in the coming years this is going to be unfortunately more prevalent, right. In school systems there's going to be this conflict, right? Back and forth, back and forth. And unfortunately in the middle are going to be teachers, students, communities, more vulnerable communities who are going to be impacted. So I agree that mobilizing and being very thoughtful strategic about addressing this is going to be pretty powerful. My question is, as I'm thinking through this, right, our administrators, again, I'm a former principal and also now I'm an associate professor. But our administrators who are going through our program are going to be going out into this particular context and field like that. This is going to be the reality. Where is the leverage of higher ed institutions in this particular space? Where do we have agency here and where do we need to be a little bit more strategic? Because there's obviously there's universities and in areas where this kind of conversation can take hold, it can move forward. But there's also areas where these conversations actually stop. [00:31:11] Speaker C: Right. [00:31:12] Speaker A: And it has further barriers. And so I guess that's my question. How do we strategically like navigate or help our future leaders Be able to make decisions based on students at a center strategic approach and build their capacity. I'm just curious to hear some thoughts around that. [00:31:33] Speaker D: That's an excellent question. One thing that I do is I make sure that this is the kind of work that I do in my classroom. I make sure that I'm teaching and with an equity mind, culturally relevant focus to make sure that even though my students, because we do have populations that come from rural and urban and suburban districts so they are getting this. Are they receptive to it at first? No, they are, but that's just part. That's one of me doing that. So this communication about how I'm doing this work I share with my colleagues. So I can say that my university has this social justice and equitable understanding about how we present this. How do we get it out there besides this? And it's through using JCEL and allowing the opportunity for these cases to come out and having the teaching activities so that it could be implemented from a practical perspective. Yes, it does have the research back into it, but it also has the practical implications. Presenting at conferences is another way to say here's how we can do this work. Not oftentimes do we have the shared space with practitioners and making sure that they understand that this is something that they could easily do and quickly do. And it doesn't require a lot of effort, but it requires a certain type of understanding. But it does require work and it does take time. It's not something that's going to happen overnight. So I think we should make sure that we understand that it's not an overnight one dog pony, one dog trick, whatever the word is. But it's not something that's just going to happen immediately. It does take time. And it's also needs to become contagious. How do we make this kind of work contagious? That if I'm saying it to you and you, you hear it and you understand it and you want to try it and you take it and then you take it to your university and it just become a contagion in the sense that it just spreads like wildfire. And then we start seeing this improvement and we see this movement. But it does take time. But it also takes this willingness to be vulnerable. I think that's a new word to understand. It's not everyone's vulnerable because they're trying to keep their job. [00:33:41] Speaker C: Right. I want to, I want to build on that because she's right in the sense that I think all of us, we all teach in and probably you Too principal preparation programs where all of our students are practitioners, in many cases principals and school administrators and teachers, in some cases with a wealth of experience. And so in my classes, a lot of the research that I present is very critical. It's very historical and it's foundational and so it's hard to move. And when they're presented with this, with this information, when they're presented with this information, they are, when they're presented with this information, they're often frustrated that they didn't know 20, 30 years of teaching or being principals. They're not happy about it. And so they go through these stages, but ultimately they, you know, it's a fire has been lit. So there's that element to the university perspective. But the universities could do more like in the sense where there are often, at least from my experience, there are often standalone courses. There aren't program wide courses that are hammering this on. So in other words, they will get 10 courses in the program. They might get one, you might get two if they're lucky. Right. And in some cases they don't get any. So let's just add that too. Right. [00:35:26] Speaker E: I think on, on top of that too, there's, and this is where some of my work lies is the legal literacy aspect. Because what we found is that the more legally literate that, that we, you know, that our principals, our administrators are the better able they are to navigate the very ambiguous laws like the policies and the laws around a lot of these situations. There's a lot of gray area. And what we, what we find is the less legally literate our leaders are, the more nervous they are about making decisions, standing up for what they believe in. But the more legally literate they are, they are more able to do what they feel is right for their student body and their teachers with confidence and without the fear that typically holds them back. [00:36:32] Speaker D: That is punitive. [00:36:33] Speaker E: Exactly. [00:36:34] Speaker D: I agree. And so just to speak. Dr. Rice, comment. I've had the opportunity to teach multiple courses at the university. I've taught school law. So I incorporate exactly what I'm talking about in every course. I teach research, I teach qual, I teach leadership. For anything that I put, I teach school and community engagement, anything that I put my hands on. And I'm speaking for myself, I can't speak for other faculty members, but anything that I put my hands on, I'm incorporating everything that I'm speaking to for my core because I think it's important that they hear it multiple times, that they just don't hear it in this course of critical issues in urban schools that they hear it in research methods. How can your research be biased based on your positionality and where you came from and who you are and what your trajectory as to where you want to be? So I'm constantly challenging people to think about where they're sitting, where you came from. One of the things I often tell my students is you're middle class right now. You've not always been middle class. You may have been higher income, you may have been more lower class, but you're middle class right now. But for some reason you, you shift, you have on blinders now that you don't see that those kids that you're teaching to may or may not be at the same socioeconomic level that you are, but you're trying to judge them based on where you are. So how do you, how do you separate yourself from that and not have any biases, whether they're implicit or explicit, which a lot of times it comes out very explicit. And so how do you change that paradigm in a way that you're focused on, how can I get this child to learn without saying this color child, this disability, this whatever, and say, this child, what can I do for this child? Regardless of where they're positioned? And until we could do that, I think that we're going to constantly get this push back. And like you said, sometimes teachers are teaching 30 years as a first year teacher. Y' all have heard that before, right? Been teaching the same way you've been doing for 30 years as a first year teacher. And you're not going to shift your paradigm. So it's the responsibility of our school leaders and our districts to start shifting cheats if you're making changes and you know where your resistance are. And oftentimes we keep those people on because we like that experience. But how do you make sure that they are moving? Because culturally relevant pedagogy and practices is not new. We've been doing it, right? We've been doing it, but for some reason there's still a resistance. And nothing is happening to the people who are resisting it. Nothing. So there aren't any consequences for them. There should be some kind of consequence for you. Instead of giving you the best classes. [00:39:27] Speaker B: That's right. [00:39:29] Speaker D: We're going to give you the best class. So you don't even have to teach. You just show up. We give the struggling teachers who are not struggling, we're giving those teachers that are high quality that are working with struggling students, and we're moving them, but we're not doing. We're not. There isn't a consequence for those, those teachers who are just going in and they come in at 6:30, 7:30 and they leave at 3:15, they don't have anything to grade. Somebody else is putting their bulletin boards. They've trained the kids to put the bulletin boards. I could go up all day. Where is this another squirrel moment? You know, I'm not a preacher by anyways but I could go on all day. You know, they're bulletin boards are put up for them by the kids from the last year. They have been trained because there's not any true learning going on. But those kids are already at a level. Yeah. [00:40:19] Speaker A: Can I add something on to that? Because what you're naming is that really the complexity of the working school systems. [00:40:26] Speaker B: Right. [00:40:26] Speaker A: Like school systems and leadership in school systems is highly complex. I would venture to say that CEOs of companies. Yes, of course that's complex. But it's not as complex as what the work that we do in school systems. And one of the things that I'm always curious about is that we in some programs or in some scenarios, we aim to teach the technical aspects of leadership. [00:40:51] Speaker B: Right. [00:40:51] Speaker A: This is how you do a schedule. This is how you navigate. This is how you do a board report. This is how you communicate to the community. But sometimes we miss the opportunity of teaching the adaptive element. Just like you name what biases do we come into this profession. What's getting in my way of my own development? You know, I think about this particular case scenario and I don't know that leader at all. But I'm wondering if the leader had an opportunity to balance his decision of different, multiple different people that he trusts with before he makes it to see if anybody challenged his assumptions and his biases and what he was about to do. [00:41:27] Speaker E: Right. [00:41:27] Speaker A: Or did he make a decision or did they actually say make a decision in a silo which caused this ripple effect? Right. So point being is that I think the more complex or context and organizations in a school become the more the need of that adaptive. That those adult development practices that we've been practicing on has to be more prevalent in our organization in the way we approach things. [00:41:54] Speaker D: But once again, our educational schools are systems and so can systems be disrupted? Of course. But it does take the right mechanism to make those changes. Great question. [00:42:06] Speaker B: Just really quick I had, I had to laugh because one time I was getting feedback about our preparation program and it was, you know, why don't you teach about like doing bus dismissal and like I learned how to do bus dismissal the third day that I did it. [00:42:23] Speaker D: Right. [00:42:23] Speaker B: I mean the first one sucked. The second one was better. The third one was fine. Right, right. I mean there's like these technical things that you do need to know. But I, I would rather us think about teaching the intrapersonal skills and the interpersonal skills. Right. That are needed to navigate really complex systems. And our society is incredibly complex. Right. And so that takes training and then that takes mentorship and after the training. [00:42:48] Speaker E: Right. [00:42:49] Speaker B: And so it's all connected and it's just this sort of long term development that we really need to shift towards. Right. To help enact a more equitable schoolhouse that then leads to a better society. [00:42:59] Speaker E: Very good. [00:43:00] Speaker D: I think those are some wonderful comments. Thank you for your question. [00:43:04] Speaker B: Thank you. [00:43:05] Speaker A: Great conversation here. [00:43:07] Speaker C: So we'll wrap up. And just a couple of things that I want to sort of highlight as an overview. I think one of the most pertinent points that you made, Dr. Johnson, was that culturally responsive school leadership is not new. And you didn't see, no one heard. But I applaud it. Silent applause and I think one of the examples, the best example that I highlight a lot and I think it should be noted is that during the period of The Pre Brown vs Board of Education era is that was culturally responsive school. Everything, Everything was culturally responsive. The leadership, the pedagogy, the relationship between community engagement, community schooling. That was, it was all of that. It was all of these various relationships between community educators and students that was holistic and they didn't have a name for it. They didn't need to call it anything. It was, it was post Brown that we had to figure out what to call it. We. So now we call it culturally responsive. Fill in the, fill in the blank. But, but, but it's a good point to make. I mean, and that's, that's a 100 year piece of history that we have to look at and analyze and understand. We want to. This is not theoretical, this is not conceptual. We have 100 years worth of evidence and we can look at and see exactly what worked and what it produced. [00:44:43] Speaker D: Exactly. [00:44:44] Speaker C: So the, the leadership aspect of, in terms of the decision that the superintendent made, I think was a good example of the difference in leadership post Brown and pre Brown, since we're on that in the sense that he made a very singular, selfish decision that wasn't for the good of the community. Right. And so these are some of the, these are some of the pieces that I take away from this, from this case. This case was phenomenal. You did an excellent job not just writing it but explaining it and expounding on it. You left us us with a tremendous amount of jewels and thank you. [00:45:28] Speaker D: Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity. It's been wonderful. [00:45:32] Speaker B: I just want a quick note. Loved it also and and can you just give a quick shout out for your co authors? [00:45:37] Speaker D: Yes, I'd like to give a shout out to my co authors Watsi Wong. I love Sonia Roberts and Mary Ebinger so they were great supportive. I appreciate the opportunity to even do the special issue which that was a great opportunity. So we have many other articles that were presented as well but this was a great opportunity and I appreciate it. [00:45:59] Speaker B: Amazing. If you would like to access this article, please visit JCEL often. We have special collection pages. Every 90 days we try to post five to six articles that are new that will be available to everyone. So if you'd like to see the whole body of work, please visit your local library or talk to Sage about a subscription. If you have any questions you can email me directly. I'm at I A N M E T T E. [00:46:30] Speaker C: And I am James Wright and we look forward to joining you next time on jsl. Jabra. [00:46:45] Speaker A: Who. [00:47:10] Speaker D: SA.