8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
1/45
eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing
services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
Institute for the Study of Societal Issues
UC Berkeley
Title:Theorizing Race within the Politics of Culture: The Reconstitution of "Blackness" in StudentDiscourses
Author:
Sung, Kenzo, University of California, Berkeley
Publication Date:
08-28-2008
Series:
ISSI Fellows Wor king Papers
Permalink:http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sw8v9bf
Keywords:
bilingual education, race, racial formation, immigrant students, education policy, tracking, schoolstructures, California, High Point, racial binary
Abstract:
This paper critiques the claim that shifting demographics since the 1960’s have transcended the American racial binary of blackness and whiteness. The study focuses on urban middle schoolstudents’ perceptions of a shift in tracking from a bilingual language model to a monolingual literacymodel. Based on interviews with students, this analysis examines the value students assigned tolinguistic, racial and academic ‘diversity’ as they tried to rationalize changing school structures.
The study found that students reconstituted the racial stigma of ‘blackness’ as academicallyinferior. Drawing from the theory of racial formation to frame the effects of educational policy onstudent ‘racial logics,’ the paper suggests that shifting racializations do not fundamentally changethe racial binary. Actively contested political/racial projects by both local actors and institutions of the state, rather than simple demographic shifts, explain the evolution of racial ideology.
Copyright Information:
All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for anynecessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn moreat http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyrig ht.html#reuse
http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reusehttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sw8v9bfhttp://escholarship.org/uc/issi_fwphttp://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reusehttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sw8v9bfhttp://escholarship.org/uc/issi_fwphttp://escholarship.org/uc/search?creator=Sung%2C%20Kenzohttp://escholarship.org/uc/ucbhttp://escholarship.org/uc/issi_fwphttp://escholarship.org/uc/issi_fwphttp://escholarship.org/http://escholarship.org/http://escholarship.org/http://escholarship.org/
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
2/45
ISSC WORKING PAPER SERIES 2006-2007.30
Theorizing Race within the Politics of Culture: The
Reconstitution of "Blackness" in Student Discourse
by Kenzo Sung
Graduate School of EducationUniversity of California, Berkeley
8/27/08
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
3/45
Kenzo Sung
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley
This paper critiques the claim that shifting demographics since the 1960’s have transcended theAmerican racial binary of blackness and whiteness. The study focuses on urban middle schoolstudents’ perceptions of a shift in tracking from a bilingual language model to a monolingual
literacy model. Based on interviews with students, this analysis examines the value students
assigned to linguistic, racial and academic ‘diversity’ as they tried to rationalize changing schoolstructures. The study found that students reconstituted the racial stigma of ‘blackness’ as
academically inferior. Drawing from the theory of racial formation to frame the effects of
educational policy on student ‘racial logics,’ the paper suggests that shifting racializations do notfundamentally change the racial binary. Actively contested political/racial projects by both local
actors and institutions of the state, rather than simple demographic shifts, explain the evolution
of racial ideology.
The Institute for the Study of Social Change (ISSC) is an Organized Research Unit of the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley. The views expressed in working papers are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily represent those of the ISSC or the Regents of the University of California.
i
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
4/45
Introduction
Since the ‘birth’ of the United States, the social construction of race and its violent effects
have defined American history (Fredrickson 2002, Davis 1981, Takaki 1993, Omi and Winant
[1986] 1994). In particular, the racial binary of blackness and whiteness has been the
fundamental social division and a rationale for institutionalized and legally sanctioned violence
in American society. But there have been brief moments in history, such as the Reconstruction
era in the South after the Civil War, when progress for African Americans took place. Likewise,
during World War II the increased need for both soldiers and workers in the coastal urban
centers provided new opportunities for African Americans to escape the racial caste system of
the Jim Crow South. However, this window was short lived. The post War economic boom
created a newly suburbanized ‘white middle class’ (Bonilla-Silva 2001), thereby geographically
repositioning the focus on the ‘Negro problem’ of urban ghettoes as a pressing issue for
progressive policy makers of the time.
Meanwhile, other racial groups have traditionally argued for their national rights within
the black-white binary –struggling against oppression by fighting to be conceived as white.
Examples include the Ozawa (1922) and Thind (1923) Supreme Court cases in which Asian
ethnic groups sought to be recognized as racially white (Takaki 1993). Similarly, the Mendez
(1946) case, a precursor to the Brown (1954) desegregation decision, was fought by Latinos who
were considered legally ‘white’ but still lived in segregated communities alongside other
racialized people (Aguirre 2005).
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
5/45
2
Beginning in the 1960’s the black/white binary appeared to be weakening. The
concurrent struggles of various oppressed groups were invigorated by the Civil Rights
Movement (Deloria [1973] 2002, Davis 1981) while the Immigration Act of 1965 reversed what
is now considered the most exclusionary period in American history (Ngai 2004). The change in
immigration laws facilitated the rapid influx of people from Latin America and Asia,
transforming the demographics of American society. The effect of the shifting composition on
the racial binary is not clear. Many academic and popular media intellectuals from different
political perspectives claim that since the 1960’s shifting demographics in the United States have
led to a new racial formation that transcends the racial binary and consists of a multiplicity of
‘racial geographies’ (Kim 1999, Huntington 2004, Barlow 2003, Hayes-Bautista 2004, Katz and
Stern 2006).
In order to examine the continued significance of the racial binary, this paper analyzes
student perceptions of the shifting compositions of their diverse classrooms. Drawing upon Omi
and Winant’s thesis of ‘racial formation’ (Omi & Winant [1986] 1994) to frame the analysis, this
paper shows how shifting school structures reconstitute the fundamental categories of blackness
and whiteness through the tropes of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ students. I argue that the
shifting racial formation 1) does not fundamentally change the racial binary, and 2) is not a
product of demographic changes, though this may be a contributing variable, but rather is based
on political/racial projects that are actively constructed and contested by the institutions of the
state and through negotiations by local actors within such institutions. Demographic changes
may thus contribute to this shifting racial formation but do not determine it.
In recent years much of traditional educational research has been critiqued for not being
able to theorize how socio-historical structures and state policies influence the classrooms that
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
6/45
3
are being researched (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995, Anyon 1997, Chomsky 2002, Noguera
2003). This paper draws from a two year qualitative study of students’ perceptions of their
changing classrooms within a broader analysis of ‘race-neutral’ policies, such as how language
and literacy tracking policies affect the racial composition of students in classes. Shifts from
tracking by language support to tracking by perceived literacy ability created opportunities for
students to reinterpret understandings of ‘racial integration’ and ‘blackness’ that seemed positive
and anti-racist in orientation. However, such reinterpretation was ultimately unsustainable due to
structures within the broader school and national discourse, leading the students to reconstitute
the racial binary.
Context for the Study
During the 1980-90’s, the most common method of tracking students in California’s
urban elementary and middle schools was by differing language needs and support (Garcia 1999,
Tse 2001). This pattern in the lower grades of tracking by primary language spoken is largely
due to the recent wave of immigrants from Asia and Latin America since the 1970’s. While this
pattern of channeling students by language is not discussed by the majority of the tracking
literature, it often serves the same function of sorting students racially within schools (Oakes
1985, Mahiri 1998, Lucas 1999). This paper will analyze the change at one middle school from
tracking by perceived language needs to tracking by perceived reading ability.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
7/45
4
Shifting Demographics of Bancroft Middle School
Bancroft Middle School, built in 1907 in a residential East Elmwood neighborhood in
Northern California, began as an all ‘white’ school.1 Throughout the 1920-30’s Elmwood was
largely composed of European immigrants and their descendents, with small pockets of ‘colored
people’ in segregated neighborhoods.2 This changed during World War II when the shortage of
white workers provided opportunities for many African Americans to move from the rural South
to urban cities across the West Coast (Self 2005). The number of African Americans working
and living in Elmwood, a major port city in California, grew disproportionately to the existing
white population.
The end of the war led to a subsequent economic boom and racialized appropriations of
state help, such as the GI bill for housing and education assistance (Lipsitz 1998). The changing
political economy in the 1950’s led to a new hardening of the color-line as whites were provided
state support to flee en masse from the racially ‘darkening’ cities to the newly created suburbs
(Bonilla-Silva 2001). This ‘white flight’ from central cities was compounded by the media’s
portrayal of the 1980’s crack epidemic and rise of street gangs that ravaged both the lives in
inner-city neighborhoods and fears of white America. Despite the legal battles for desegregation
and equal civil rights, de-facto segregation and ghettoization of blacks in many cities, including
Elmwood, continued to create economic disparities based on race (Bonilla-Silva 2001, Duster et
al 2003, Wacquant 1997). Like many schools in central cities across the West Coast, by 1972
Bancroft shifted from being an all white middle school to one that was 98% African American.
However, the internal migrations of whites and blacks into and out of the urban
metropoles in the United States throughout the century follow alongside another migration
1 All names, including names of individual people (both students and adults) as well as names of the school,
neighborhood and city have been changed to assure confidentiality.2 The term ‘colored people’ refers to racialized communities and was common during this historical period.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
8/45
5
globally to the United States. Since the 1965 change in federal immigration policy and a
restructuring of the global political economy, there has been a sharp influx of new immigrants to
the United States from Latin America and Asia (Reimers 1992, Sassen 1998, Grosfoguel 2003).
A majority of these new immigrants, like many of the immigrants to the United States in the
past, have settled into the urban cities across America (Davis 1990, Portes and Stepick 1993,
Kwong 1997). In the 1990’s, Bancroft’s student body remained nearly 100% non-white and
largely ‘underclass’ in relation to the state (as opposed to ‘working class,’ see Wilson [1978]
1980, Massey and Denton 1993), but African Americans made up only one quarter of the total
student population. One quarter of the students at the school were now Latino and over half were
Asian Americans; almost all were first or second generation immigrants with little cultural,
linguistic or economic capital (Boudieu [1979] 1997, Zhou and Portes 1993, Lareau and
Weininger 2003). Indicative of the types of recent immigrants repopulating California inner-
cities, the Elmwood neighborhood is home to a large Southeast Asian population who came to
the United States as refugees in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (Ong 2003). Over half of the
Asian American students are ethnic Mien, a mountain tribe from Laos, with the remaining
students being Cambodian, Vietnamese and Chinese.
Shifting Educational Policies
As school populations shifted so did educational policies. In the last few decades of the
20th
century, the needs of immigrant children were mainly framed as an issue of language
support, reflecting the relatively high number of students who did not speak English as their first
language. However, the focus on language concealed the more complex issues for immigrant
children who are classified and sorted racially as non-white ‘Latinos’ or ‘Asians’ upon arrival to
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
9/45
6
the United States (Zhou and Portes 1993, Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 2002). With the
passage of Title VII in 1968 and the landmark Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court case (1974), these
students were now supposed to be placed in various programs generally recognized within an
umbrella label of ‘bilingual education’ (Tse 2001). Most recent bilingual education research has
focused on the intra-classroom aspects regarding linguistic and cultural affects of the presence or
absence of such programs on immigrant students. However, one of the most pronounced, and
least discussed, unintended effects of implementing bilingual education programs was the
segregation of immigrant students from their white, or more likely black, peers across
classrooms in increasingly diverse schools nation-wide.
Debate on the purpose and value of bilingual education programs for immigrant students
mounted throughout the 1980-90’s with the various ‘English only’ initiatives and climaxed
statewide in the passage of California Proposition 227 in 1997. Its passage required the
dismantling of existing bilingual education programs throughout the state starting in 1998
(Gutierrez et al. 2000).3 Alongside this state level change, in 2001 the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) tied federal funding to a series of high stakes accountability measures of student
3 In the 1990’s in California, traditionally seen as the ‘bellwether state’ for national policy trends, a series of state
propositions began drawing national attention to what role, if any, government should have in addressing/alleviating
social disparities. In 1994 Proposition 187 passed in California (though promptly overturned by a federal court)which severely limited the type of public assistance undocumented immigrants could receive, with explicit inclusion
of public schools and immigrant children as one of the cornerstones in the debate opponent State Senator Art Torres
referred to as, “the last gasp of white America in California” (1/14/95 in public address at UC Riverside regarding
Proposition 187). However, the ‘last gasp’ was a false read as more propositions aimed at curtailing rights of
already marginalized citizens, many racialized immigrant groups, continued to reach the ballot and pass in
California and nationwide. In 1996 Proposition 209 dismantled affirmative action programs for all government-
funded institutions, including all public schools and universities. A third strike came in 1998 when Proposition 227
passed, effectively requiring the dismantling of all programs traditionally labeled ‘bilingual education’ in public
schools in favor of those that only used English as the official language of instruction.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
10/45
7
performance in math and English literacy.4 These two changes in policy led to a fundamental
shift at Bancroft Middle School from a bilingual education model, based on a theory of differing
language needs, to a monolingual English literacy model, based on a theory of differing literacy
ability in English. The tracking, or division of students between classes, shifted accordingly.
The renewed focus on English literacy and testing, based on the NCLB federal mandates,
moved California to standardize its reading programs. Open Court Reading is a widely
recognized reading program at the elementary school level. A similar program for secondary
schools is called High Point Reading. Dubbed by teachers at Bancroft and elsewhere as a
‘scripted curriculum’ or ‘teacher proof’ curriculum,
5
High Point focused on standardizing the
input variables to teaching, including three main factors: 1) the curriculum, 2) the instruction,
and 3) the composition of the students in the class. Most studies of comprehensive curricular
programs such as Open Court Reading and High Point focus on the first two elements – the
curriculum and the instruction (NRP 2002, RAND 2002, Dutro and Moran 2003) with little focus
4 As a brief overview in relation to my framing, the origins of NCLB came in large part due to a broader neoliberal
shift in public policy towards increasing accountability of outputs, in this case student performance, while creatingmechanisms by which inputs can be decentralized and often privatized with the goal of creating a ‘market’ by which
people can ‘choose.’ This is evidenced in the years prior to 2001 both in general government policy (reduction and
privatization debates on health care, social security, welfare, and other various government services/goods) and in
education (dual strategy of decentralizing regulation of inputs through charter schools and simultaneous push for
accountability in outputs, which were measured in student performance on standardized tests). Again, such policies
first began taking shape in California during the 1990’s when then Governor Gray Davis pushed for the Public
Schools Accountability Act (PSAA), which was the precursor to President Bush’s national No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) revision during the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The
difference between NCLB and prior Title 1 program requirements for schools and districts to receive federal
assistance was the high stakes accountability mandates of performance on standardized tests in math and literacy
and under-funded expectations of schools, including potential reconstitution and privatization of under-performing
schools.5
The moniker of a ‘scripted curriculum’ is based on the expectation that teachers will follow the comprehensiveteacher guides that scripted the way that teachers introduced a lesson, discussed texts, and even responded to student
questions. This educational reform, based on the assumption that standardizing teacher instruction will create a
more effective teaching environment, is a cyclic reform effort – like many reforms that cycle as we continue to try to
‘tinker’ with education for a variety of purposes (Tyack and Cuban 1995). The past iteration of this concept is the
1970-80’s basal readers and supplementary teacher texts. An older interesting example would be the 1920’s
pushbutton automatons which removed the teacher out of the equation entirely as students were supposed to receive
fully standardized instruction based on pressing buttons and getting responses (Sealander 2003). As a cycle, the
pushbutton automatons are reminiscent of our contemporary focus on use of technology in education, such as
computers, as a way to minimize the variable of the teacher from the learning equation.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
11/45
8
on student tracking (Oakes 1985, Lucas 1999). At Bancroft Middle School the variable of class
composition, the programming of students’ classes, seemed to be the most recognizable school-
wide effect of the implementation of High Point.
During the period of the study from 2003-2005, both teachers and students pointed out in
interviews that there were changes in student placement. But they described these changes in
terms of racial redistributions rather than the linguistic or academic terms with which the
Proposition 227 rhetoric was debated. For the local actors at Bancroft Middle, the shift from a
bilingual education model to a monolingual literacy model had the effect of desegregating
African American students from their Latino and Asian American peers. The tracking system
went from one based on difference in primary language to one based on reading performance in
English. Whether English was the student’s primary language [‘English Only’ (EO) students,
who were overwhelmingly African American] or spoke English as a second language [‘English
as a Second Language’ (ESL) students, who were exclusively Latino and Asian American at
Bancroft Middle] they were all assessed the same way and assigned to classes based on reading
test scores. This study examined the evolving student perceptions of this changing composition.
As I will explore in more detail, they developed from the celebration of racial integration/liberal
multiculturalism to a reconstitution of the prior racialization of ‘blackness’ as stigmatizing
despite the desegregation of the classrooms.
Thesis of Racial Formation
Too often education of immigrant students is confined to the sole frame of language and
language policy. The only educational labels used to classify immigrant students stem from their
lack of ability to speak English proficiently. Within this one-dimensional perspective immigrant
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
12/45
9
students are identified through a deficit model as being an ‘English Language Learner.’
Likewise, educational research on immigrant students emphasizes individual agency to ‘choose’
identities based on language and language learning in terms of ‘participation’ metaphors
(Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000), commodification and change value (Rutherford 1990), and focus
on choice of ‘investment’ in education as tied to social factors (Pierce 1995). Building on
theories on social identities (Tajfel 1974), this paper argues that broader social and political
factors, including race, are critical to immigrant student socialization (Bourdieu 1991, Zentella
1997).
Since much of the recent educational research on immigrant students in schools
emphasizes language, culture and choice, my goal is to tie such frames to a broader structural
analysis of schools and race. Arguments regarding the role of schools in reproducing social
disparities and oppression have been made by social reproduction theorists of various scholarly
camps including Critical Race Theorists (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995, Solorzano and Yosso
2002), structural neo-Marxists (Bowles and Gintis 1976), Cultural Studies scholars (Willis
1977), and Critical Pedagogy scholars (Freire 1998, Giroux 2001, Apple 1996, McLaren 2005).
For this paper I draw upon Omi and Winant’s theory of ‘racial formation,’ which has been
considered a seminal work among scholars of race and social reproduction theory in the social
sciences (Omi and Winant [1986] 1994). Racial formation theory focuses on social context and
process while not marginalizing the structure of these dynamics and allows analysis of how race
is perpetuated in a broad set of social contexts, including those at Bancroft Middle School. I will
outline racial formation theory by rearticulating Omi and Winant’s definitions for 1) race, 2)
racial formation, and 3) racial project. Racial formation theory can inform educational research
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
13/45
10
on race by treating school structures as active agents in racialization rather than passive settings
within which local actors negotiate race.
Racial Formation Theory
Omi and Winant state that views of race as either fully objective/essential (real, fixed) or
subjective/illusory (ideological construct) reconstitute a false binary. They instead argue that race
is socially constructed in relation to power but becomes reified as it is institutionalized and
experienced in society. “Race is a concept which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and
interests by referring to different types of human bodies…Thus we should think of race as an
element of social structure rather than as an irregularity within it; we should see race as a
dimension of human representation rather than an illusion” (Omi and Winant [1986] 1994, 55).
The argument that race is both socially constructed as a primary element in society and has real
consequences has critical methodological implications for researching race. Race cannot be
simply used as an ‘independent’ variable for analysis or choice of subjects, nor can race be
simply left in the realm of identities that are symbolically ‘chosen.’ Instead, racial formation
theory necessitates a methodological shift towards the study of race as a study of the process of
racialization, or what Omi and Winant term the process of ‘racial formation.’
Racial formation is defined by Omi and Winant as a web of “racial projects [that]
mediate between the discursive or representational means in which race is identified and
signified on one hand, and the institutional and organizational forms in which it is routinized and
standardized on the other” (Omi and Winant [1986] 1994, 60). Racial formations are continually
changing and contested due to competing interests of the ‘racial state’ and political struggles of
various people over how race will be defined. The core of racial formation theory is the ‘racial
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
14/45
11
project.’ According to racial formation theory, a racial project is simultaneously “an
interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial dynamics (meaning), and an effort to
reorganize and redistribute resources along particular racial lines (organization)” (Omi and
Winant [1986] 1994, 56). For Omi and Winant, racial projects do the ‘ideological work’ of
making the links between conceptualizing race as both social structure and interpretation of
meaning. The terminology of a ‘project’ emphasizes racial formation as an active, politically
contested process at the level of both ideology and material reality.
An example of such racial formation as an active, historically contingent process is how
the categories of blackness and whiteness draw from historical antecedents that have become
‘commonsensical.’ Yet both racial categories ultimately signify relations to power that are
flexible in their shifting attention from different racialized groups based on changing racial
projects.6 According to this definition, blackness becomes a racial signifier for an ultimate
‘otherness’ to power, which is identified as ‘whiteness.’ The structure of race can then be
understood as a system designed to manufacture consent through coalition building by elites
(‘whites’) to monopolize and maintain hegemonic power.
6 An example of this shifting nature of racial formation in California can be found in Thomas Almaguer’s Racial
Fault Lines which chronicles the particular racial formation of California between around the middle of the last
century. In his book, he cites that the 1848 US Treaty of Hidalgo-Guadalupe with Mexico granted any Mexicans
who wished to stay in California after its annexation to the US legal ‘white’ status. At the same time, the Chinese
laborers being brought into California to work on the railroads were almost immediately racialized as
Negroes/Blacks. This racialized ‘blackening’ of Chinese became a point of popular discussion, including discussion
of new ‘slaves’ in the Chinese coolie trade to the Americas, bringing of Chinese to the post-bellum South to do the
work of the prior black slaves, and the legal segregation, ghettoization, and lack of legal protection including beingineligible for citizenship.
I argue that though both groups continue to be racialized, the different historical trajectories over the last 150 years
have flipped the racializations of both groups. The loss of power of the Mexican elite ranchero class in California
and the shift in site of struggle of Mexicans in California from land to labor issues, as well as the heavy increase of
Chinese immigrants though ‘professional’ immigration preferences have served to racialize Chinese/Asian
Americans as ‘honorary whites’ and Mexicans/Latinos as ‘border (black) brothers.’ In both instances, the
racialization is a reflection of the shifting relation to power for the two groups. But I argue that in no way during this
transfiguration has the racial binary been fundamentally altered. It has instead simply been reconstituted through the
creation of new racial logics to ‘naturalize/essentialize’ the incorporation of different groups.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
15/45
12
Omi and Winant use Gramsci’s concept of ‘hegemony’ in their explanation of this
process of manufacturing consent among different groups of people to the ultimate benefit of the
dominant group. “In order to consolidate their hegemony, ruling groups must elaborate and
maintain a popular system of ideas and practices – through education, the media, religion, folk
wisdom, etc. – which [Gramsci] called ‘common sense.’ It is through its production and
adherence to this ideology of ‘common sense’ that a society gives its consent to the way in which
it is ruled.” (Omi and Winant [1986] 1994, 67) State schools are theorized by Gramsci as being a
key institution in maintaining consent to a particular ‘logic’ or discourse of the state through a
process of reifying the logic as ‘common sense’ so it is seen as natural and not noticed or
questioned (Gramsci 2000).7
Thus, racial formation is defined through a web of ‘racial projects,’ which are actively
contested by the state and different sectors of civil society. These struggles ultimately shape how
race is understood in the United States through a process of signification (race is ‘socially
marked’ or identified) and institutionalization (structural organizing of resources/power which
reifies racial identifications as ‘common sense’ in its social demarcation). This thesis critiques
the ideology of ‘demographics as destiny,’ which assumes a much more uncontested process of
shifting demographics inevitably leading to fundamentally different racial formations. This
reframing challenges the belief that changing demographics will ‘naturally’ transcend the racial
binary (Huntington 2004) or even race itself in the discourse of ‘colorblindness’ (Brown et al
2003). I argue that changing demographics have led to a reconstitution that maps newly
racialized groups into the existing racial formation.
7 This argument has a parallel to Critical Race Theory’s concept of ‘interest convergence’ that also claims that the historic anti-
racist movements in the United States, such as the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, were successful because of the
relatively higher gains to be made by whites, the dominant racial group, from the social changes in spite of the perception ofincreasing racial equality (Bell 1980, Taylor 2000).
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
16/45
13
Racial Formation and its Potential Contribution to Educational Literature
Racial formation provides two critical contributions to mainstream educational research.
First, racial formation theory reframes race as fundamentally anchored in political processes that
go beyond static variables, micro-cultures and individual relationships. Such a frame calls for
educational research that both incorporates and goes beyond the individual negotiations of local
actors. For example, simply studying home culture cannot explain how immigrant youth are
socialized in relation to public institutional structures such as schools, government social service
agencies and popular media (Olsen 1997, Valenzuela 1999, Bettie 2003). Instead, we have to
also study how government policies and state institutions like schools create structures, such as
student tracking systems, which children are then forced to negotiate. This study explores how
students are tracked in schools in ways that reify the racial ‘common-sense’ understandings of
race, language and citizenship, ultimately stigmatizing African American students by
constructing blackness as undeserving of special support.
Second, the thesis of racial formation contends that schools are simultaneously 1)
institutions that actively racialize, versus providing a setting in which race is contested, and 2)
political projects/apparatus of the racial state to create and maintain consent for such ‘common
sense’ understandings of race (Omi and Winant [1986] 1994).8 Beyond the local actors housed in
8
Though not part of the scope of this paper, there is a range of literature that studies the institutions of schooling inrelation to the role of the state. Within this literature is the broader understanding of the state’s monopoly on the use
of violence and the role of schools in creating what Gramsci calls a ‘hegemonic’ authority between the power elites
and the state that is controlled through both coercion and consent (Gramsci 2000). Althusser outlines further the
role of schools as the ‘ideological apparatus of the state’ in his critique of the type of structural oppression and
exploitation that schools perpetuate (Althusser 1971). In the 1970’s, educational researchers Bowles and Gintis
(1976) continue in this lineage by arguing a structurally deterministic ‘correspondence principle,’ in which the main
goal of schools is to manufacture consent among the working class to their exploited class position in the capitalist
system . Cultural studies theorist Paul Willis further complexifies the argument in his book Learning to Labor
(1977), stating that as students try to negotiate school structures, ultimately even the consciousness and active
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
17/45
14
schools, the actual institution of school is now granted agency in the process of racial formation.
Schools manufacture, whether advertently or inadvertently, a particular ‘racial logic’ through
institutional structures, such as choice of curriculum, tracking of students, discipline policies, and
governance structures. For example, student perceptions of their class placements at Bancroft
Middle School are set within a particular ‘racial logic’ that both celebrates racial desegregation
through a discourse of multiculturalism/diversity and reconstructs ‘blackness as bad’ in the
newly integrated class setting.
This study of bilingual education programs through the lens of racial projects and
racialization, rather than a focus on language or culture, analyzes how a discourse based on
language/cultural diversity continues to be embedded in constructions of race and citizenship.
Drawing from the same discourse as the Ebonics debate that gained national attention in the
1990’s, a recurring undercurrent in urban cities like Elmwood is why these recent immigrants
who are ‘foreigners’ get extra services in terms of bilingual education programs while blacks do
not receive such support (Perry 1998). Underpinning the arguments in the debate was the
construction of a trope of African Americans as racialized into ‘undeserving’ of additional
educational support as opposed to the linguistic and cultural differences of recent immigrants
whose different language and culture ‘deserved’ the attention and funding. I argue that this trope,
reflected in the findings of this study, also is in conversation with a broader racialized discourse
that argues the declining significance of race in the construction of a new black underclass that
mainstream America feels is undeserving of public resources (Wilson 1987, Katz 1989).
resistance to the tracking/sorting function of schools produce an identity among marginalized students that continues
to reproduce symbolic marginalization and labor exploitation once outside of school.
Within this genealogy of literature, schools are utilized as one of the two main apparatus of the state (the other being
the police and legal system to create coercive control when consent cannot be manufactured), with the state being
seen as having an almost total monopoly over both the creation and perpetuation of violence.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
18/45
15
Methodology
This paper analyses selected findings from a qualitative case study of a seventh grade
High Point classroom in Bancroft Middle School. Primary data collection methods for this paper
are the student interviews and classroom observation from 2003-2005, the two years after the
implementation of High Point. Other data for the study included 1) observation of other High
Point and non-High Point mainstream English classes at Bancroft, 2) student demographic and
academic performance data, and 3) historical and demographic data of the school and
neighborhood. In addition, various adults working with students at Bancroft were interviewed
including the High Point classroom teachers, math/science teachers, and site administrators.
Semi-structured student interviews were conducted over a two year period with four
students in the first year and six students in the second year. While not generalizable based on
the small number of interviews, the racial, academic and gendered variety of the ten case study
students provides a range of student views. Each student was interviewed once formally, with
informal follow-up interview questions being asked after class during the subsequent months of
classroom observation. Student interview questions covered three themes: 1) what changes they
have noticed, if any, in the past year regarding any aspect of their schooling experience, 2) what
explanations they have for the changes they noticed, and 3) the ways these changes have affected
them, if any. A student interview guide was developed based on initial interviews with the
teachers and site administrators who responded that students were very aware of the changes in
their classes since High Point was implemented.
During analysis of the student interviews, two main topics emerged: 1) how the students
negotiate ideas of language and race as part of their identities, and 2) how the constructions of
identity at school are reinforced or contested by peer and/or home culture. These topics relate
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
19/45
16
back to the theoretical framing of the study, which focuses on the role of race and language in
the incorporation into school structures as well as negotiated identities for students within such
structures.
In addition, classroom observations were conducted two to three times a week in a
seventh grade High Point class. This observation period lasted three months in the spring of each
year for two school years. Additional observations on a biweekly basis followed the student
cohort from their High Point class to their math/science classes and occasionally continued with
various student groups to after-school activities.
I was perceived by all of my interviewees as an ‘insider’ of the school and the community
in this study because I was a teacher at Bancroft for four years prior to my beginning this
research. Before teaching at Bancroft I was also a program coordinator for two years with the
Millmont Youth Center, which works with immigrant Asian American and Latino youth and
parents in the same East Elmwood neighborhood, and spent time as a youth in the Millmont area
of Elmwood among childhood friends who lived in the neighborhood and went to the
neighborhood schools such as Bancroft.
Bancroft Middle School
Bancroft Middle School is a large, diverse inner-city school with low test scores in both
reading and math. Since 2001 the school has consistently been rated a one or two in student
performance on a scale of 10 (10 being the highest) in state evaluations. Like a majority of other
middle schools in the city of Elmwood, the seventh grade class at Bancroft reads at a fourth/fifth
grade level.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
20/45
17
The current student population at Bancroft Middle School is 900+ students even though
the school was built in 1907 to house a maximum of 650 students. 69% of the students are
officially enrolled for free or reduced price lunches, a standard indicator in educational research
of low socio-economic status. According to school administrators the number of students eligible
for free/reduced lunch is actually much higher (estimated at around 80-90%), but disseminating
information regarding eligibility is difficult as parents often cannot read in English or their
primary language.9
The composition of the student body has shifted from a majority of African American
students to a minority of African Americans in a period of 20 years. This is in large part due to a
massive influx of working class immigrants and refugees to the East Elmwood neighborhood
from Southeast Asia and Mexico. The student body of Bancroft Middle School is 52% Asian
American (mainly Southeast Asian refugees)10
; 27% Latino (overwhelmingly Mexican
American); and 20% African American. 72% of the students at Bancroft are labeled as ELL
students who have a variety of home languages including Spanish, Mien, Vietnamese,
Cantonese, and Khmer.
Racial tensions among the students at Bancroft Middle School always seem to be
smoldering. Daily to weekly incidents occur ranging from verbal harassment to racialized gang-
attributed violence. Incidents usually pattern along perceived ‘racial lines’ of Asian American,
Latino and African American student groups – while intra-racial tensions among various
ethnicities of Asian American students and inter-generational conflict between first and second
generation Latinos happen more infrequently.
9 In the case of Mien students, who constitute the largest single ethnic/racial group in the school, the Mien language
is an oral language only and many have no ability to read or write at all.10 The four largest Asian ethnic groups at Bancroft Middle School are Mien, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodian.
Over half of the total Asian American student body is Mien, a tribe from the Laos region who mainly came over as
refugees from the Vietnam War.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
21/45
18
Year 0: Bilingual Education Tracking Pre-High Point
In the decade prior to the school wide implementation of High Point, the most visible
tracking structure at Bancroft Middle School was between the mainstream track (English
Only/EO) and the second language learners’ track (English Language Development/ELD –
known previously as English as a Second Language/ESL). Approximately three quarters of the
students at Bancroft studied English as a second language and an overwhelming majority of the
students in the mainstream/English Only tracks were African American. 85-90% of the students
in mainstream classes were African American, compared to around 20% of the total school
population. As such, the most apparent characteristic of the tracking structure for the students
was the racial segregation of African Americans in mainstream classes and Latino/Asian
American students in the ELD classes.
During this period, teachers at Bancroft Middle School voiced concerns about the
school’s master schedule. Only the most academically successful ELD students who were able
to read at or above grade level (and significantly above the mean of the school regardless of
language designation) were placed in mainstream English classes. The mainstream classes were
overwhelmingly dominated by African American students, most of whom were about three grade
levels behind in reading. The remaining students in these classes were high achieving immigrant
students who were able to be reclassified. Many teachers felt this pattern reinforced student
stereotypes of blacks being academically inferior, as the vast majority of the African American
students were not as successful as the top leveled ELD students in the ‘English Only’ classes. In
reality, there was a range of ELD students at varying achievement levels in the school, just not in
the mainstream classrooms. For the mainstream English classes, teachers described a particular
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
22/45
19
racialization among the students of ‘black as bad’ developing as a ‘racial logic’ regarding
educational attainment in class. For all racial groups in the school, measured academic ability is
low. However for Asian American and Latino students, low level students were almost
exclusively in ELL tracks, while only the highest achieving ELL students were able to be
redesignated as ‘fluent English proficient’ (FEP).11
When these reclassified students were moved
to mainstream classes they were at 7th
grade reading level in a class where the average reading
level was 4-5th
grade.
The teachers noted that for a majority of these re-designated students the ‘racial logic’
relating language, race and citizenship seemed to provide an explanation why the rest of the
students in the mainstream class were failing. This ‘racial logic’ is based on the assumption that
the black students are the ‘real Americans’ and the ‘real English speakers’ who ‘only speak
English.’ Since they are American and English speaking, the explanation of their lack of
academic success is based on race: the reason why they are failing is because they are black.
Likewise, the black students seemed to construct the same narrative, based on the fact that the
only students who they interacted with in their classes who were not black seemed to
consistently do better than their black counterparts. Since the African American students
believed that the newly transferred students did not even ‘really speak English,’ an alternative
narrative became constructed based on the other social marker that is so explicitly signified in
the school: race.
Thus, the structures themselves created a disparity that became racialized among the
students. In student interviews and observations, there seemed to be an implication of
11 In order to be redesignated, ELL students meet a series of criteria (though there is no standard rubric) including a
combination of testing at or above grade level in standardized tests, consistently achieving strong class grades, and
being recommended by their teachers. It is no small feat to be redesignated at Bancroft, and only the most
successful students in the ELL tracks move into the mainstream English track.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
23/45
20
‘deserving’ in terms of who ‘deserved’ to not do well and who ‘deserved’ help and support based
on primary language. As such, ELL students who could not succeed in English had a ‘legitimate’
excuse, that they speak another language, while Blacks were ‘undeserving,’ since the assumption
was that they already speak English. The second ‘deserving’ argument draws from notions of
citizenship/national body politic rather than language in terms of who is perceived as a
‘foreigner’ and who is ‘American’ in the discourse of the students.
Many teachers feel that this system created a perception for all the students in the
mainstream classes that the African American students were just not as smart as the (top leveled
ELD) non-black students in their classes. In reality the process of reclassifying ELD students to
mainstream classes is based on strict requirements regarding ability to read in English at grade-
level. The tracking of student based on ELD or mainstream classification also separated students
for all classes except Physical Education, since Math and Science classes for ELL students were
taught by ELD certified teachers. The lack of interaction between students during the school day
created tensions between the African American and non-African American students in the
school. This school-structured separation was then compounded further by self-segregation in the
ELD tracks as students (and their families) sometimes chose, due to stereotypes of the EO
classes, to remain in the ELD classes even after the students had officially been ‘re-designated.’
Thus, explicit tracking by language had the unintended consequence of racially segregating and
racializing classes and students.
Year 1: Initial School-wide Implementation of High Point
In 2003, Bancroft Middle School administration, in conjunction with the district
recommendations, decided that all students scoring below ‘Proficient’ in reading on the
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
24/45
21
California Standards Test or below 37% in the California Achievement Test (CAT-6) would be
enrolled into High Point for the school year.12
This recommendation included all students who
were still classified as ELD and any redesignated or mainstream EO student who was below the
two test benchmarks. The rationale that the administration gave was that all students should be
able to benefit from High Point regardless of their reason for reading below grade level. This
argument was based on the High Point curriculum being state approved for both ELL students
and other ‘struggling readers.’
The change in the tracking structure in the 2003-04 school year was tremendous as
students from both the ELD/High Point and mainstream tracks were combined. Since the main
neighborhood elementary school had also been segregated by ‘language needs,’ and thus also by
race, this was the first time for most of the ELD students that African American students were in
their classes. Likewise, for most African American students this was the first time they were in
classes where a majority of the students were non-native English speaking and non-African
American. Also, the students were now combined by ‘High Point level’ for all their classes,
including math and science.
This shift in tracking led to changes in the relative heterogeneity, or ‘diversity,’ in three
categories: 1) academic, 2) linguistic, and 3) racial (See Table One). In Year 0, the year prior to
the implementation of High Point school-wide, the academic diversity was more mixed in the
tracks, with low achieving students in both the EO and ELL tracks. This is different than either
the racial or linguistic diversity; tracking based on language created almost entirely segregated
tracks between the ‘English Only’ African American students and their ELL non-African
American counterparts.
12 California Standards Test (CST) is the test used by the state of California to compile school accountability
performance records. The California Achievement Test (CAT-6) is used to compile national accountability data for
NCLB measures.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
25/45
22
The shift between Year 0 and Year 1 was based on the tracking of academic ‘ability,’
such that all students who read below grade level are placed in High Point classes based on
literacy level. This created both racial and linguistic diversity in the classrooms as High Point
students now come from both the ELL and EO tracks. This structure continued in Year Two of
my study though with very different student understandings. I will discuss teacher and student
understandings of this shift in school structure and programming between Years 0 and 1 as well
as between Years 1 and 2.
Tracking Structure ELL/EO HP/English HP/English
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
Academic Mixed Tracked Tracked
Linguistic Tracked Mixed Mixed
Racial Tracked Mixed Mixed
Table One: Tracking Structure and Academic, Linguistic, and Racial Diversity
The change in tracking structure stems from a shifting assumption. In Year 0 the school is
tracked based on a pedagogical assumption that ELL students require a curriculum based on a
‘cultural difference’ discourse that legitimates the linguistic needs of the immigrant students. By
Year 1 the new tracking system claims that a single curriculum can meet all of the students’
needs regardless of difference in primary language spoken. This new ‘cultural deficit’ discourse
converts ELL students’ linguistic differences into simply a deficit in English literacy ability,
thereby lumping the immigrant students into the same category as African American students.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
26/45
23
Student Responses to High Point
Year 1 Student Responses: The Value of Racial Diversity
Easy As Achievement
In the 2003-2004 student interviews, the four interviewed students could not say why
they were placed in the High Point program. Unlike the teachers, who were very aware that the
students were being tracked into a full daily schedule of classes based on their perceived reading
ability, the students did not know how or why they were in High Point nor did they seem aware
of their classification as ‘struggling readers.’ The lack of value-attachment to being in a certain
class because of a ‘deficit’ rather than just ‘difference’ created an interesting set of responses by
the students which ran counter to much of the recent research on tracking (Oakes 1985, Mahiri
1998).
All four students who were interviewed stated that they ‘liked’ High Point because it was
‘easy.’ This claim of ‘easiness’ seemed to be a positive aspect of the program for the four
students. One possible explanation could be that students felt that the standardized High Point
curriculum allowed for more transparency in both expectations and structure of assignments and
assessments. Such an explanation would be a possible positive effect for ‘struggling’ students
who perhaps felt they had no understanding or control of their success since expectations seemed
arbitrarily determined by teacher and other social factors rather than the curriculum (Ferguson
2000). However, the sense of ‘easiness’ that the students described did not seem to correlate with
either their grades or the grades of their High Point peers.
Hai, one of the four students interviewed, explained he liked High Point “cuz it’s easy,”
but when asked what grades he was getting he stated “mostly C’s and some B’s.” Likewise,
another student explained she liked High Point because it is her easiest subject and she thought
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
27/45
24
all the students were doing well, but when asked about whether students understand the High
Point curriculum she states, “no, not really. I can tell sometimes when my neighbors or just
people who I’m looking at when I’m done are just like staring at their papers and like ‘what I
going to do,’ and I feel kinda bad for those people… and then they’ll be stuck on that same
subject for a long time.” For both of the above students, as well as the other two interviewed,
there seemed to be no link between ‘easiness’ and academic success. The inability to
contextualize the ‘easiness’ of High Point for the students seems to relate to the general lack of
consciousness regarding their classifications or placements in general. So how did students
explain their placements if they did not recognize it as being based on their academic
performance?
Multiculturalism Matters
The four students seemed largely oblivious to the segregation based on perceived English
literacy ability. Moreover, none of the students seemed to attach any value to language diversity
in their classrooms. None of the three students who are classified as having English as their
‘second language’ stated that they spoke anything but English when directly questioned. Rather
than defining themselves as bilingual, or having proficiency in a language other than English,
they all identified themselves as only English speakers. Upon further questioning regarding what
languages they spoke in different social contexts, it was revealed that they did possess clear
conversational proficiency in languages other than English (Vietnamese, Spanish, etc.),
particularly when speaking in the home or assisting parents in translation. However, they chose
not to recognize this capacity as any kind of language ability – a belief that seemed to be
sustained and emphasized by their tracking placements and curriculum at Bancroft. In a post-
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
28/45
25
bilingual education era, languages other than English do not seem to count. So what did ‘count’
as an explanation for the changing classroom composition?
Three of the four students focused on the increased racial and cultural diversity of their
peers at Bancroft Middle as the primary difference between their classes in Year 0 and 1. A
young Latina, Maria, was the most explicit in stating that she liked Bancroft because at “my
school in Gilroy [California] there were mainly Mexican kids there. So when I came here, I was
like, wow, there are so many different faces and it was so cool.” She especially noted that having
African American friends and teachers was a new and positive experience for her, “Yeah, that
was tight, ‘cuz all my other teachers were Vietnamese, Asian, white, that’s it. So it was really
cool having an African American teacher this [year]... and my cousins, they aren’t used to being
around all these different races either, so when they come to visit me, it’s really different when I
introduce them to all my different friends... they didn’t really know I had all these different race
friends.” She goes on to explain how at her birthday party she was so proud of the fact that she
could invite both African American and Asian American friends instead of only her Mexican
friends.
Having ‘different race friends’ is a positive experience for Maria, showing how
increasing such ‘racial’ diversity could be understood to be an intended choice of the school,
much like it was for Maria in making friends once she got to Bancroft. For Maria the racial
diversity of the school, and especially the presence of Black teachers and Black students in her
group of friends, is a ‘positive’ diversity that she appreciates despite the racial tensions in the
school. Similarly, when asked about an explanation of why students were placed in High Point,
she used the importance of appreciating racial ‘diversity’ as the reason for the class shift.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
29/45
26
Increasing racial diversity seemed to her a plausible explanation since it led to an outcome of her
and her friends having more ‘different race friends.’
Darnell, an African American boy in the High Point class, also noted the racial/cultural
diversity of his friends, most of who came from his High Point student class. Darnell explained
that he had friends in class who were of other ‘cultures’ and that this was not a problem for him,
unlike many of his African American friends. For Darnell, the point of having friends from
different ‘cultures’ was what he came back to when asked about what he thought were any
differences between his current class and that from the prior year.
The ‘Hidden’ Curriculum of High Point
A possible explanation for the focus on ‘racial’ diversity among the students is as a
reaction to another layer of school policy. Racial tensions, often boiling into violence among
students, are an ingrained part of student life at Bancroft, as is the school’s public effort to
relieve such tension in marginal spaces of the school such as assemblies and homeroom. Mr.
Durant, the teacher of the observed High Point class, noted that the school was making an effort
to celebrate ‘diversity’ to address the recent racially-charged incidents: “we have assemblies
almost every marking period [six weeks] and they’re pretty positive. Whether the children get
the message as clearly I’m not so certain of. There’s a curriculum developed that teachers try to
implement [in homeroom] to address some of these needs, but I don’t know how well it’s
implemented across every class.” In addition, Mr. Durant explains that all teachers are expected
to try to ease racial tensions in the classroom through techniques such as disciplining of
inappropriate comments and purposeful grouping for class activities. Regardless of the
effectiveness of the message to stem racial violence in the school, Mr. Durant’s students seem to
conceive this message of racial diversity as the school’s primary purpose for High Point.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
30/45
27
Mr. Durant recognizes this aspect of the High Point curriculum too and goes on to
explain that, “the Latino kids play with the Latino kids, the African-American children hang out
together [outside class]. The racial dynamic is just there… but I do know that the children get
along; at least in the four walls of the classroom, they’re working together. It’s a start.” The
focus on the ‘hidden’ curriculum of trying to get students to work together across racial and
cultural lines seems to have become the ‘explicit’ curriculum for these students. The segregation
and tracking of students as well as the ‘remedial’ curriculum and classification seemed to be
‘hidden’ from those who were most affected by it, at least in Year 1.
Year 2 Student Responses: Reconstructing Black as Bad
Student Rationales for Tracking, Changing the ‘Diversity’ Narrative
In the second year of school-wide implementation, I interviewed six additional High
Point seventh graders and their teachers. There was a significant difference in student perception
of High Point although the implementation of High Point did not change between Years 1 and 2.
The biggest change according to teachers was how students attached importance to academic
‘diversity,’ or lack of it, in their ‘struggling reader’ High Point classrooms. Students interviewed
in Year 2 constructed a different significance regarding ‘racial’ and ‘linguistic’ diversity than the
first set of student interviews. The conceptions of the students in Year 2 seemed to reconstitute
much of the racializations, particularly regarding blackness, of the prior bilingual education era.
The four students in Year 1 all seemed oblivious to the lack of academic diversity, and
when asked why they thought the classes were restructured that year, the most popular answer
was to ‘increase racial diversity’ in their classes. By Year 2 the importance of ‘racial diversity’
as a positive shifted to a negative for many of the students. In the two African American student
interviews language was racialized. Both students said they were not supposed to be in the High
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
31/45
28
Point class with ‘immigrants’ and complained that some Asian American and Latino students
‘who barely spoke English’ were in the mainstream English class. Likewise, for the ELL
students, there was a total devaluation of the increased ‘racial diversity’ compared to their prior
ELD classes and an increasing racialization of black students as not ‘deserving’ of being in the
High Point classes since they ‘spoke English.’
Stigma of High Point
By Year 2 the students were much more conscious of the school’s rationale for
placement. All the students still stated that High Point was ‘easy,’ but students denigrated this
‘easiness’ versus the ‘real’ English class that they wanted to be in. ‘Easiness’ now had a negative
connotation rather than a positive one, and all but one student wanted to move out of High Point.
One student, Ken, explained his feelings: “High Point is easier words, and I guess they give us
High Point because they think we’ll get reading, but it’s not helping. Giving us easier words for
us to read is making it worse ‘cause when we get to chapter books there’s gonna be way bigger
words that we not gonna know. So it’s not really helping us. They might as well put everybody
in English.”
With his comment, Ken made an explicit connection to both the reason why they were
placed in High Point and the importance of trying to get out. This issue of individual upward
mobility for the students to leave the High Point class and get into the mainstream English class
became the main point of concern for these students, which led to a very different perception of
their classmates from the Year 1 students. Unlike the Year 1 students, who did not mention
anything negative associated with being in a High Point class, all but one of the Year 2 students
interviewed perceived their High Point placement as being a stigma and spoke of efforts to move
out of High Point. Carlos was the only student who expressed positive reactions to High Point,
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
32/45
29
but he also could not readily explain the placement system (paralleling all the students
interviewed in Year 1).
One student was aware that parent intervention could lead to a placement change;
however, when he and his parents attempted to change his placement to the mainstream track,
they were told there was “no room.” Despite the fact that a majority of students spoke of not
wanting to be in the High Point track, none of them objected to the existence of the tracked
system itself or the criteria by which students were sorted into the tracks. They all accepted that
certain students would end up in the “low” track—they just did not want to be those students.
Though all students believed that they could move into the “regular” classes if they worked hard
enough, there was also a general student understanding in the High Point class that the African
American students should be in the regular classes.
Language Matters
It was not clear exactly how the students became aware of the intended reason, and
attached stigma, of being placed in High Point. The interviewed students definitely recognized
both the lack of academic diversity (homogeneous class of ‘struggling readers’) and the
intersection of language and race in identity as they tried to come to terms with why the class
composition was structured this way. As school structures, such as student programming and
class curriculum, shape the language practices taking place in the classroom, they also shape the
understandings of when and how language matters. In the case of High Point , the students
interviewed generally understood it as an appropriate or ‘deserved’ placement for students who
needed to learn English. As Gavin, an African American student, articulated, “If a new student
[in reference to an immigrant student who is ‘new’ to the United States] doesn’t understand
English well, you might just put them in a class where you can fail easily and you might have to
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
33/45
30
flunk and do all that over. If you put them in a High Point class where all the kids are all the
same, it’s easier for them.” However, it also was generally voiced by the students that this was
not a proper or ‘deserved’ placement for African American students – based on the
understanding that they already spoke ‘real English.’
Celia, another ‘true’ English speaker, openly questioned why one student she knew was
in the mainstream English class and not in High Point: “A guy in that class is a FOB [“Fresh off
the Boat,” a derogatory reference for recent Asian immigrants] but he’s in the Holt [the
mainstream English class, which uses textbooks published by Holt].” She also noted that the
student read very slowly, which seemed to be an indication, in her mind, that he did not deserve
to be in the mainstream English class. Both comments identify the importance of being an
English language learner as a proper reason for being in a High Point class and not a mainstream
one.
This intersection of race and language continued to crop up in interviews and classroom
observations. In one instance, when an African American student left the High Point class to
move with his family to another city, a student remarked, “Well, we only got five English
speakers left.” What was meant was that only five African American students were still
remaining in the class. But the conflation of African Americans as being the only ‘true’ English
speakers, though the whole class was conducted in English, translates into a particular logic for
the students as to which students deserve to be in High Point and for what reasons.
Reconstructing Black as Bad
This reconstruction of African Americans as the only ‘true’ English speakers, and
therefore undeserving of extra support for learning English, such as High Point, again becomes
racialized. In Year 1, ELD tracked students stated their appreciation for having an African
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
34/45
31
American teacher and peers in their class. By Year 2 this appreciation turned sour and the
‘blackness as bad’ logic that the teachers lamented prior to High Point implementation seemed to
have been reconstituted. Though the students were not able to explain the difference, teachers
posited that the increased awareness seemed to have come from the students themselves, with the
higher achieving students leaving to mainstream English and those remaining in High Point
during the second year realizing what it meant to be left behind. The reconstruction thus was
based on the conscious stigmatization of being in a lower tracked class compared with others in
their grade and a rationalization that intersected language and race in its logic. This is somewhat
different than the factors under which the prior racialization of blackness occurred at Bancroft,
since then the students were racially segregated, yet the particular racial formation of Year 2 had
similar consequences of how African American students were racially represented and whether
they were ‘deserving’ of the resources that the school could provide.
Immigrant English language learner students ‘deserved’ to be in these classes based on a
‘legitimate’ reason for not performing well in English: they were learning English as a second
language. African American students in the class were not provided this ability to claim ‘special
language needs,’ since they were perceived by all the students as the ‘real English speakers.’
Thus, the racial project drew (as it often does) from a prior conceptual framework among the
students of using a racial representation that was already present inside and outside the school to
explain why African American students were in these classes. If African American students were
not in the High Point classes because of ‘legitimate’ language needs then the next ‘socially
significant’ and ‘common sense’ identifier for the students, including the African American
students, was race. Blackness, whether as linked to low ability or motivation to succeed, became
reconstructed as ‘bad.’
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
35/45
32
Both Gavin and Celia displayed these conflicting feelings about their own placement in
High Point. During his interview, Gavin, who wanted to transfer to the mainstream English class,
explained that, “when I was doin’ the CAT test, I don’t really read the question and read the
answer. I just would mark anything. I used to always wanna hurry up and finish, that’s why.”
When asked about why other African American students were also in his class, he stated he was
not sure, then simply said, “dunno, maybe they aren’t smart, but I’m guessing they’re just lazy
too like me.” Similarly, Celia’s earlier comment about the boy she considered a “FOB” revealed
her own judgments about those who seemed like they should be in High Point, and also her own
frustration at being in it herself. However, when asked why she thought she was in the class, she
thought it was because she “didn’t talk enough in class.” Though they both report making efforts
to work hard to move out of the High Point track, Celia’s reluctance to verbally participate and
Gavin’s resistance to High Point materials may prevent them from actually doing so, regardless
of actual English literacy ability.
Discussion
This case study of Bancroft Middle School suggests that shifting school structures
towards racial integration can potentially create new spaces that diverge from the racialized
cultural representations and structural resources stemming from a project of racial segregation.
However, findings in the second year point out the often ephemeral nature of such spaces. In this
instance such an anti-racist project was not sustainable because the students came to recognize
the stigma of being of ‘low academic ability’ and its effects on upward mobility and expectations
of academic success.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
36/45
33
The positive counter-narrative among the Year 1 students to ‘increase racial
harmony/integration’ in the previously segregated English Only (mainly African American) and
English Language Learner (mainly Latino and Asian American) classes defied the claim that
these tracked academic placements automatically stigmatize students (Oakes 1985, Lucas 1999).
However, the production of such a seemingly positive ‘social good’ came at a cost that conflated
issues of differences in linguistic as well as other academic needs raising real questions regarding
race and school structures. Does the potential positive benefits of increasing ‘racial harmony’
outweigh the damage of tracking students into classes that do not provide realistic possibilities
for future academic success? How does the lack of value that the students seem to attach to
language ‘diversity’ and cultural maintenance, both ideas promoted by bilingual education
advocates, compare to the increased discourse of ‘racial harmony’ that such
desegregated/integrated classes created temporarily at Bancroft Middle School? Can either
discourse truly address and transcend the racialization of ‘blackness as bad?’
This study critiques the claim that shifting demographics will naturally transcend the
racial binary of whiteness and blackness. Though Bancroft had no white students, ‘whiteness’ is
still present in the ‘power structure,’ including in the bodies of the educational policy makers,
administrators, and teachers in the school. In addition, ‘whiteness’ as a racial formation moves
beyond people and into broader structures and projects in the state that glorify elements
associated with whiteness, such as the ability to speak ‘standard English,’ as self-evident and
‘natural’ (Delpit and Dowdy 2003). Likewise, the continual recreation of ‘blackness’ as the
‘other’ in this racial binary is also a racial project of the state, whether historically in the state’s
assistance in the simultaneous rise of the ‘white middle class’ and ‘black ghettoes’ in the 1940-
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
37/45
34
50’s (Lipsitz 1999, Bonilla-Silva 2001) or the rise of the US black penal state system in recent
decades (Gilmore 2007).
I found that the school structures, not the changing compositions of the students in the
class, ultimately determined the racialization of the African American students at Bancroft. It did
not matter whether the African American students were in the high level ‘mainstream English’
class (bilingual language tracking of Year 0) or the low level ‘High Point’ class (English literacy
tracking of Year 2). In both placements the African American students were seen as ‘not
deserving’ of their placement based on a racialized representation. Even the unintended
consequence of racial desegregation of the classes did not ‘naturally’ change the racial
construction of ‘blackness’ in the eyes of the students. The school tracking structure ultimately
shaped the perception of value attached to English and perceived distribution of resources based
on this value. Though the teachers and students continued to try to create alternative discourses
about race in their classrooms, the way the classes were structured, not the changing composition
of bodies in the classrooms themselves, became the determining factor.
Conclusion
Drawing upon the thesis of racial formation to articulate how social structures and
institutions serve to racialize suggests an approach to question other ‘common sense’ racial
logics that have been shown to be prevalent among both teachers and students in urban public
schools, such as the supposed lack of ability or motivation among black students to succeed
(Fordham and Ogbu 1986, Ferguson 2000, Lewis 2003). The reification of racial representations
so often attributed to marginalized, racialized communities can then be theorized as
manifestations both responding to and reflecting structures of power in relation to those
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
38/45
35
controlling the power within the racial state. By using the institutional structure of schools as a
lens, I argue that there are structures in schools that are inherently racialized. As in the work by
Ann Ferguson, whose book Bad Boys (2000) focuses on the racialized violence towards black
boys through the disciplinary structures of the schools, and Jeannie Oakes, whose book Keeping
Track (1985) studies the tracking system of large, comprehensive high schools, race is exhibited
in children’s identity, relationships and behaviors as reflections of their negotiation with the
more fundamental source, the structure of the school itself. The type of racialization described
goes beyond individual acts, behaviors and attitudes to a more institutional/structural violence
towards youth through school structures, such as tracking.
Analyzing schools as institutional structures that perpetuate and maintain the social
construction of race relates to broader questions theorizing the purpose of schools in what Omi
and Winant call the ‘racial state.’ Educational practices help manufacture racial formations of
control through tracked ‘failure,’ such as the reconstruction of ‘blackness’. In this case it was the
Latino and Asian American students who were used to reinforce the black-white binary as the
racial project of the school. The perception of ‘blackness’ as either unintelligent or unmotivated
to succeed seemed couched within a new racial project/logic that is ‘colorblind.’ By refusing to
recognize race, ‘colorblind ideology’ (Guinier and Torres 2002) simultaneously tries to
assimilate and commodify all other ‘cultural beings’ (namely immigrants, those who have
another ‘legitimate language/culture’) except African Americans. While race and racial
formations are not unchanging, particular racializations can continue to be reproduced in
different social contexts. In this case a reconstituted American racial binary continues to
construct ‘blackness’ as bad regardless of shifts in demographics or structural accommodations.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
39/45
36
References
Aguirre, F. 2005. “Mendez v. Westminster school district: How it affected Brown v. Board of
education.” Journal of Hispanic Education. 4(4): 321-332.
Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy inCalifornia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Althusser, Louis. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. New York: Verso.
Anyon, Jean. 1997. Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Apple, Michael. 1996. Cultural Politics and Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barlow, Andrew. 2003. Between Fear and Hope: Globalization and Race in the United States. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bell, Derrick. 1980. “Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma.”
Harvard Law Review. 93(3): 518-533.
Bettie, Julie 2003. Women Without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre. [1979] 1997. “Forms of capital.” In Education: Culture, Economy and Society,
edited by Halsey, Lauder, Brown and Wells, 46-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform
and Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books.
Chomsky, Norman. 2002. “The Function of the schools.” Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. New York: The New Press: 233-238.
Davis, Angela. 1981. Women Race and Class. New York: Vintage Books.
Davis, Mike. 1990. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future of Los Angeles. New York: Verso.
8/19/2019 Theorizing Race
40/45
37
Deloria, Vine. [1973] 2002. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum
Publishing.
Delpit, Lisa and Joanne Dowdy, eds. 2003. The Skin that We Speak: Thoughts on Language and
Culture in the Classroom. New York: The New Press:
Duster, Troy et. al. 2003. Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-blind Society. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Dutro, Susana and Carol Moran. 2003. “Rethinking English language instruction: An
architectural approach.” In English learners: Reaching the highest level of English
literacy, edited by G. Garcia, 227-258. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Erikson, Erik. 1976. “Psychoanalysis and ethics--avowed and unavowed,” International Review
of Psychoanalysis, 3:409-416.
Ferguson, Ann. 2000. bad boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fordham, Signithia. 1996. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and Success at Capital High. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fordham, Signithia and John Ogbu. 1986. “Black students’ school success: Coping with the‘burden of acting white.” The Urban Review. 18(3): 176-206.
Fredrickson, George. 2002. Racism: A Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1998. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Lanham,MA: Rowm