Jane Elliott’s lesson and her unfinished crusade
If you haven’t seen it, it’s a must watch (here’s a link to the video).
Elliot’s recent presentations, which focus on “the anatomy of prejudice,” are valuable in contexts where participants need to overcome intolerance, but given the emphasis on multicultural education in most professional programs for teachers, most teachers with even a rudimentary understanding of multicultural education and cultural competence understand that blatantly intolerant attitudes have no place in education, and so, may not gain as much from studying Elliot’s work or going through her exercise.
Thus, while Elliot’s work is well-received and seems to be necessary in the contexts in which she still presents (working with ‘regular’ people outside of the education world), they may not be as relevant in teaching contexts, where educators must aim for a standard far higher than tolerance.
Do teachers need this lesson?
Nieto’s levels of multicultural education support identify “affirmation, solidarity, and critique” as the highest level of support. While Jane Elliot’s “A Class Divided” lesson is a powerful one in a monocultural environment (the lowest possible level on Nieto’s scale) striving merely for tolerance, it may not be quite as relevant or necessary in most learning contexts where teachers support culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners.
Most US teacher training programs, in my estimation, align more with the second to last level of support: respect. Typical educators in the United States may have no problem with tolerance and even acceptance, but may struggle to treat all CLD students with respect.
Unfortunately, this is not good enough, since if we imagine that people will end up realistically achieving cultural competence of multicultural education support on a level lower than the one they strive for. By aiming for respect, if the mark is missed, then teachers may end up merely at acceptance. Thus, it is particularly important for professional development programs to aim for the highest possible level: affirmation, solidarity, and critique (Nieto, 2008).
While teachers may have that ‘bare minimum’ of tolerance, acceptance, and even sometimes respect, there is still a clear hierarchy. As evidenced by Jane Elliott’s work, when students perceive themselves as being inferior, or even as being wrongly perceived as inferior by others, it can impact their mood, their self-esteem, and their work quality (and speed). Additionally, the framing of student behaviors as defiant or oppositional, which is in the eye of the beholder (the educator) can contribute to CLD students’ low performance.
Does Elliott’s program aim too low for the standards we hold teachers to?
Or, in light of recent events and the rhetoric in our nation today, is it more relevant than ever?
Featured image via multiculturaledublog.wordpress.com
Frontline. (2003, January 1). An unfinished crusade: An interview with Jane Elliott [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/an-unfinished-crusade-an-interview-with-jane-elliott/
Nieto, S. (2008). Affirmation, solidarity and critique: Moving beyond tolerance in education. In E. Lee, D. Menkart, & M. Okazawa-Rey (Eds.), Beyond heroes and holidays (pp. 18-29). Washington, DC: Teaching for Change. Retrieved from http://www.sonianieto.com/OLD/PDF/Moving%20beyond%20tolerance%20Mult%20Ed%201994.pdf