Practicing Science Teachers (Discussing and Evading) Race Talk

• In Event: “No Justice, No Peace”: A Racial Reckoning for Science Education

Abstract

Objectives, Theoretical Perspectives, and Methods: While studies of race-evasion are not new, research on science teacher race talk is nascent. Since science has been positioned as politically neutral and objective (Tolbert & Bazzul, 2017), discussions of race and racism may be more challenging (Bang et al., 2012; Sheth, 2019) than in humanities. However, without these conversations, problematic assumptions are perpetuated. The purpose of this qualitative case study is to investigate science teachers’ race talk as they collaborate to implement more just teaching practices in professional learning communities (PLCs). Part of a larger project, the present study focuses on one PLC with seven high school science teachers. The PLC read and discussed Not Light, But Fire: How to Lead Meaningful Race Conversations in the Classroom by Matthew Kay (2018) one chapter each month. Data sources include PLC meeting transcripts, focus group interviews, and artifacts created by the PLC (e.g., meeting agendas). Data were thematically analyzed with a lens of ‘new racism,’ a more covert and subtle system of racial oppression (Bonilla-Silva, 2003).

Findings: Teachers talked about their students, schools, and communities using descriptors other than race, such as “urban” and “rural.” One teacher mentioned, “we didn't [talk about how education level correlates with COVID death rates] because our population, typically, families were happy if they graduate high school.” At times, this language was deficit orientated or othering, especially given that most of the teachers do not live in the communities where they teach. For example, “there's so many chips against our students.”

Teachers talk about facilitating “those” conversations in their classes. This PLC read Not Light, But Fire, which explicitly focuses on talking about race in classrooms. However, teachers discussed facilitating “difficult” and “uncomfortable conversations” without naming race or racism. Emotions like anxiety, nervousness, and fear were mentioned in multiple meetings throughout the year. At one meeting in March a teacher shared “So, my fear is that no matter how I do it, being the white lady that I'm still going to mess it up. So, it makes me nervous.” This teacher brings her own gendered racial identity into the conversation, which is one of the only times race is explicitly discussed.

Teachers shared feelings of uncertainty. Throughout the academic year, teachers mentioned not being prepared to facilitate the discussions. “I actually thought that this chapter gave some insightful points, like some actual tools in how to guide these conversations because I think that one of the points of anxiety that I have and I also have heard you guys express them too, is we don't feel equipped to have some of these uncomfortable conversations.”

Significance: These preliminary results align with previous studies documenting discursive practices that allow white teachers to evade discussions of race (Haviland, 2008; Picower, 2009; Segall & Garrett, 2013). Considering how white supremacy is maintained in science teacher education (Mensah & Jackson, 2018), this study brings particular attention to the unique ways science teachers may side-step explicit discussions of race even in ‘safe’ spaces, like a justice-focused PLC.

Author

• Hannah Cooke, University of Connecticut