Dismantling dehumanizing educator talk about children and families: the moral imperative for early childhood teacher educators

Abstract

This reflection on practice explores dehumanizing educator talk as an explicit topic within multicultural/diversity/anti-bias and anti-racist teacher education. Dehumanizing educator talk is defined as formal or informal conversation during which targeted individuals or groups are openly demeaned with offensive generalizations in the absence of discernable educational goals leading to improved outcomes. The significance of deficit-based dehumanizing educator talk is supported with linguistic theory, critical race theory, cultural capital theory, and the theory of funds of knowledge. A counter-educator talk of ethics, care, and resistance to bias is proposed with examples. Recommended topics for early childhood teacher educator reflection include potential resistance of White future teachers to acknowledgement of racism as well as the presence of deficit-based and dehumanizing ideas in early childhood-focused educational scholarship. Recommended actions include emphasis on critical literacy, critical racial literacy, proactive course syllabi, and focused classroom strategies. Early childhood teacher educators are encouraged to model new narratives of hope and possibility and to be advocates and activists who challenge and counter dehumanizing talk about children and families.

Speech has power and few men (sic) realize that words do not fade. What starts out as a sound ends in a deed.

(Abraham Joshua Heschel cited in Branch, 1998, p. 23)

This reflection on practice is written to promote understanding of the significance of dehumanizing educator talk and to explore the unique opportunities of early childhood teacher educators to challenge and change it. I approach dehumanizing educator talk as an explicit topic within multicultural/diversity/anti-bias and anti-racist teacher education. The terms related to this topic will be defined in the following section of this article. My goal is to foster exploration of the ways in which dehumanizing educator talk has the power to secure intractable and damaging bias and racism into place in educational institutions. Although this is problematic across the Pre-K/16 educational enterprise, it is early childhood educators who are first able to intercept and refocus dehumanizing educator talk with the creation of new narratives at the start of children’s educational experiences. Their documented commitment to a language of ethics, care, and resistance in spoken and written word has the potential to follow children into later educational experiences. It is essential for me to clarify that this article is not written to imply that the genesis of bias and racism is in schools but to elaborate on how pervasive racism and bias in our society can make its way into educational institutions (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2021). It is important to draw attention to habitual dehumanizing educator talk because it has the power to undermine the good that so many committed educators are seeking to accomplish in school and society.

I will begin my discussion of this topic with terms related to dehumanizing educator talk and an explanation of an alternative educator language of care, ethics, and resistance to bias. Following a disclosure of author experience and identity, I will explain theories structuring a rationale for a focus on educator talk in educational institutions. Further, I will provide recommendations for early childhood teacher educators focusing on both essential reflections for their profession and positive actions in teacher education that can contribute to the construction of new and hopeful narratives for all children and families. Throughout this article I consider all designated human characteristics which can be targeted for bias in dehumanizing educator talk. There is a predominant focus on racism because racism has been an intractable source of historic and current social, political, economic, and educational inequality in the United States.

Defining and countering dehumanizing educator talk

My conceptualization of dehumanizing educator talk emerges from a historic and present critique of deficit and damage-based conceptualizations of children in early childhood literature (Colegrove & Adair, 2014; Derman-Sparks, 1989; Dudley-Marling, 2007; Fennimore, 1989, 1996, 2014; Nxumalo & Brown, 2019; Souto-Manning, 2022; Williams, 1978). In this article I extend concern about deficit -based and discriminatory conceptualizations of children into the overarching topic of dehumanization. I define dehumanizing educator talk as formal or informal conversation during which targeted individuals or groups are openly demeaned with offensive generalizations in the absence of discernable educational goals leading to improved outcomes. The word targeted refers to ways in which specific groups of children and families are singled out and disparaged because of race, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status, or any school-based devalued characteristics (Fennimore, 1996, 2014, 2017). Dehumanization is an end result of deficit-based talk; it damages relationships and expectations in social institutions (Bruneau, Szekeres, Kteily, Tropp, & Kende, 2020). The United Nations Strategy and Action Plan on Hate Speech proposes that any pejorative reference to groups or individuals can lead to dehumanization and thus become potentially dangerous to those who are victimized by it (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/hate-speech-strategy.shtml). Dehumanization creates a social context of moral disengagement by establishing distinct differences between groups and supporting conceptualizations of group inferiority and superiority (Bruneau et al., 2020). Habitual pejorative talk about targeted groups can make punitive policies and disrespectful treatment seem inevitable and right because the deficiencies of whole groups are taken for granted (Bandura, 2016; Dyson, 2015; Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019). It is for these reasons that I believe early childhood teacher educators have a moral imperative to address dehumanizing educator talk as a significant if not urgent professional issue.

Countering dehumanizing educator talk

Countering habitual dehumanizing educator talk is far more complicated than just being positive or saying nice things about children and families. It requires active and intentional acknowledgment of the potential of every child as worthy of respect, encouragement and optimal development. When children enter school with characteristics that place them at risk for being targeted for bias, educators should be even more determined to articulate and act on a professional desire for their success (Souto-Manning, 2022). With that in mind, I offer a conceptualization of an alternative educator talk with three touchstones: ethics, care and resistance to bias. The primary ethic guiding all educators is that no child should be harmed in the process of education (Freeman & Feeney, 2005; Pizzolongo, 2005; Strike & Soltis, 2015). The early code of ethics of the National Education Association, under Principal I Commitment to the Student, instructed educators to “ … refrain from commenting about the student and his home” (National Education Association of the United States, 1964, p. 12). The avoidance of unethical harm necessitates the presence of care demonstrated in the relationship of educators and those – children and families – for whom they care (Noddings, 2005, 2012). A caring relationship centered on educational equity is further structured on the theory of Black Feminist Caring (BFC) which establishes an ethic of empathetic care enhanced by the personal experience of racism and oppression (Bass, 2012). Author bel hooks (2000) wrote that “ … feminism is for everybody, so long as our goal is to create beloved community, to live together, realizing our dreams of freedom and justice, living the truth that we are all created equal.’ (hooks, p. xii). Finally, resistance, an organizing principle of Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Su, 2007) is reflected in educator talk enacting a desire to change dehumanizing narrative. In the section below, and throughout this article, I bold examples of dehumanizing talk and italicize my conceptualization of a response reflecting ethics, care, and resistance to bias. The following examples demonstrate how dehumanizing educator talk might be converted to an educator language of ethics, care, and resistance to bias:

This low kindergarten group lacks any readiness for reading instruction.

These children are curious about books and they enjoy listening to stories; we need to work every day to build on their interests and abilities. They have brought unique skills and knowledges from their families and communities, and we must learn as much about them as possible to support our desire for their success in reading.

The early damage done by poverty limits what any teacher here can accomplish.

We acknowledge that our students face challenges, and we are concerned about the ways in which social inequalities have affected so many of them. However, even in difficult circumstances, we teachers are determined to recognize and build upon the strengths and knowledges of our students. We desire their success and well-being.

Our students come from homes with families that don’t care about education.

Many of our families seem to feel less comfortable with schools and educators for reasons we need to understand more fully. If we continuously demonstrate that we care about and respect the families, they will feel more welcome here. All families have strengths and it is our responsibility to recognize and include those strengths in our efforts to involve them in their children’s education.

Clearly, educator talk has the power to reinforce biased assumptions or resist them in a respectful narrative of desire for the well-being of all children (Fennimore, 2016).

The power of early childhood teacher educators to confront dehumanizing talk

Although the problem of dehumanizing educator talk spans Pre-K/16 institutions, early childhood teacher educators have the unique opportunity to challenge them at the very beginning of children’s educational experiences. As professors and scholars, program consultants, conference presenters, grant writers, and professional developers, early childhood teacher educators have a myriad of opportunities to resist and revise deficit-based assumptions in written and presented materials about children and families placed at risk for being targeted. These materials might include published books and articles, program mission statements, descriptive program brochures, and professional presentations. The well- established and proud history of advocacy and leadership in multicultural and anti-bias early childhood education (Derman Sparks, Fennimore, 1989; Goffin & Lombardi, 1988; Ramsey, 1989; Williams, 1978) sets the path for a challenge to dehumanizing educator talk

As advocates early childhood teacher educators can listen carefully to the ways in which children and families are described by others, explain concerns and alternatives, and contribute to policies and programs that adopt a commitment to respectful and hopeful descriptions of children and families. It is possible to create change in terminology on the policy level; an example is the section on Bias Free Language in the 7^th edition of the American Psychological Association Manual for Publication (2020). This section, continually evolving through past editions, reflects persistent advocacy for changes in deficit-based conceptualizations and related language used to describe targeted groups. Early childhood educators, who are the voices of young children, may well become aware of and act on future opportunities to specifically address dehumanizing educator language describing young children and families.

As activists they can take advantage of opportunities to protest and resist the presence of dehumanizing language about children and stand up to it in their own programs, professional organizations, and wider community and social circles (Letiecq & Anderson, 2017; Souto-Manning, 2022). Most importantly, aligned with the purpose of this article, early childhood teacher educators can prepare future teachers to recognize the presence of dehumanizing educator talk in the educational environment and learn to change the narrative of deficit to a narrative of respect and opportunity.

Author identity and experience

I am a White professor who began my university-based work with special interests in child advocacy, children and social policy, and activism for equity in public education (Fennimore, 1989). My praxis as a teacher-educator began in the post-Brown desegregation era, during which I encountered many ramifications of White resistance to integration and equal educational opportunity (Fennimore, 1996, 2001, 2005). My central goal became the preparation of teachers and administrators who were skilled advocates for children, who stood against educational injustice, and who enacted equitable educational opportunities in their institutions. The greater part of my 32-year academic career took place in a state -wide university system with the articulated mission of providing the highest possible level of education at the lowest possible cost to students. Originally a Normal School for teachers in the 1800s, my university later became a doctoral degree-granting institution with a commitment to teacher education programs at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels. The unionized faculty members in my system were required to carry 12 teaching credits a semester; for me this included extensive field supervision of teacher candidates in rural, urban, and suburban schools within about a 250-mile radius. My demanding schedule provided me with the opportunity to teach a wide variety of courses undergraduate through doctoral, infuse a focus on advocacy for children’s rights into my daily work, and interact with practicing teachers and administrators in many school settings.

As a university-based field supervisor, I could routinely enter and exit schools at will and spend as much time in them as my schedule required. I appreciated the welcome I received from so many administrators and teachers, and I learned a great deal from observing the different classroom experiences of so many young children. I was permitted to walk freely for entire days into classrooms, hallways, lunch rooms, outdoor play areas, school offices, and private teacher conference rooms. Thus, I overheard and engaged in countless conversations with teachers, administrators, and other school personnel. As an on-the-ground teacher- educator, I was a naturalistic observer of unguarded real-life school environments that formal visitors or designated researchers might never witness. My concern about dehumanizing educator talk initially developed through my frequent encounters with school-based disparagement of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) (Carter Andrews, He, Marciano, Richmond, & Salazar, 2021; Price-Dennis & Sealey-Ruiz, 2021) and people living in poverty. I became increasingly aware of the intersection of racism with diversities such as disability, gender and gender orientation, parental employment status, language differences, immigration, and faith traditions (Osanloo, Boske, & Newcomb, 2016). While targeted groups could change from place to place, the potential harm done by dehumanizing talk remained the same. It infiltrated the climate of educational institutions, reinforced prejudice, justified low expectations, stratified opportunities, and blamed school failure on the perceived deficits of children and families (Fennimore, 2000). My frequent encounters with disparaging and deficit-based talk about targeted groups concerned me a great deal. Many educators did not appear to regard such talk in conversations among themselves as ethically compromising. Yet, I believed that this talk normalized unexamined beliefs that children with certain characteristics were inevitably deficient and unlikely to succeed.

I felt a compelling need as a scholar to resist dehumanizing talk not only with my own words and actions but also through professional publications and presentations. In terms of formal research on this topic, however, I faced an ethical barrier. My frequent encounters with dehumanizing educator talk in schools were spontaneous and unpredictable; they occurred in the context of my official duties for the university. School districts trusted me with open and unfettered access to classrooms, teachers, school personnel, and administrators. They expected professional confidentiality in return. I knew that it would be highly unlikely for school administrators to provide me with the Institutional Review Board (IRB)-required site approval to research a sensitive topic such as dehumanizing educator talk encountered during my supervision of university students. I also knew that the IRB of my university (on which I served) was likely to find ethical dilemmas in such research, including potential disruption of the university relationship with the site, professional harm to participant-educators, and conflict of interest with the goals of my students in field placement (Felzmann, 2009).

My decision thus was to focus my scholarship on broadly-based conceptual analysis of the problem of deficit-based and dehumanizing educator talk. I began to address it in my publications, professional presentations, and courses undergraduate through doctoral. I retained two important goals: the first was to raise awareness of dehumanizing educator talk as a specific focus within the larger goals of multicultural, anti-bias, and anti-racist education. The second was to focus on practice-based challenges to dehumanizing educator talk that could be implemented in real school and program settings (Fennimore, 2014, 2016). My suggested remedies included individualized institutional ethics specifically focused on the language environment and talk about children and families (Fennimore, 2000).

I acknowledge that my White privilege has made it possible for me to focus on dehumanizing educator talk without the pain of knowing that such talk was directed at me, my family, and my community. I acknowledge the persistent presence of racism and bias in dehumanizing talk and I am grateful to many BIPOC colleagues who have critiqued and improved my work with their perspectives on the injustice and oppression they have personally experienced. They know more than I ever could about the experience of daily discrimination and marginalization. It my hope that all voices participating in critical examination of this topic will be honored, most particularly the voices of those who have had first-hand experience of oppression, inequity, and injustice in school and society. It is also my hope that all early childhood educators will share a sense of moral outrage at biased and discriminatory talk about children and families in educational institutions and collaborate in the institutionalization of determined solutions.

Theoretical foundation

Many students, teachers, administrators, and colleagues with whom I have spoken about dehumanizing educator language have shared their belief that “just talking” out of the hearing of children and families does not affect the quality of professional practice. Theory provides a strong opposing argument that everything we say as educators actually does have a powerful impact on our professional practice. The following theories offer support and guidance for the elimination or reform of dehumanizing educator talk in educational institutions.

Four intersecting theories

There are four intersecting theories that support the critical importance of the content of educator talk about children: linguistic theory, critical race theory (CRT), cultural capital theory, and the theory of funds of knowledge (FoK). These theories will be discussed in the order in which I believe they set a foundation for the theoretical rationale they provide. To begin, linguistic theory supports a focus on the ethical significance of every spoken word; no one is ever “just talking.” All spoken language is an action and a behavior that makes things happen and continue to happen in one way rather than another (Caws, 1996; Searle, 1969). The composite of everything we say in schools constructs what is called a semantic (language) environment – the totality of “what is said, how it is said, and the intended and unintended effects of saying it” (Fennimore, 2000, p. 2; Postman & Weingartner, 1969). Because language is social in nature, every word spoken has an inevitable impact on listeners as well as those being spoken about. Saying something is “making it so” (Austin, 1962, p. 7) because “to utter a sentence is not to describe it but to do it.” (p. 6). For example, a teacher who tells colleagues in the teachers’ lounge that their class is “the worst they have ever had” is doing something to the reputation of the entire group. A harmed reputation can result in lowered expectations and increasingly negative actions on the part of other teachers. The children may respond to their sense of unfair teacher antagonism or disengagement with increasingly difficult behaviors. This ultimately has an effect on school climate and educational outcomes for students (Fennimore, 2000).

Linguistic theory intersects in significant ways with the focus of Critical Race Theory on the larger historical, political, and social context of racism and discrimination. It is important to emphasize that CRT is complex with many important layers of meaning. In this article, I am focusing on CRT theory to emphasize that dehumanizing educator talk cannot be superficially attributed to a few errant individuals or troubled schools. Rather, it represents a broad manifestation of the ways in which race, class, and privilege are deeply ingrained in our social institutions and the language we use to describe those within them (Howard, 2019). Through utilization of CRT, we can better explain how our social construction of race, supported by our own laws, has fostered and sustained inequality and educational injustice (Dixson, 2018; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2021). People who are BIPOC and/or living in poverty have been historically subordinated by social, educational, and legal forces serving to sustain the dominance of White normativity (Dixson & Rousseau Anderson, 2018). It is essential to recognize that dehumanizing educator talk makes it possible for historic oppression and subordination to continue to be normalized in current social institutions. The negative influence of this ingrained talk can undermine stated school intentions to focus on diversity, equity, and fairness.

A touchpoint for the link between linguistic theory and critical race theory is the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1991). In their landmark book Language and Symbolic Power Bourdieu argued that language is a political “representation of the continuity of class” (p. 173) and “ … every linguistic interaction however interpersonal and insignificant it may seem bears traces of the social structure it both expresses and helps to reproduce” (p. 2). Thus, “ … the educational market is strictly dominated by the linguistic products of the dominant class and tends to sanction the preexisting differences in capital” (p. 62). Bourdieu’s theory of language as cultural capital leads to critical analysis of the traditional school-based classifications that prioritize and value some students while and sidelining those deemed less worthy (Bourdieu, 1991). Common labels given to groups that are “low” or “disabled” or “lacking school readiness” exist in direct contrast to labels for groups that are “high performing” or “academically advanced” or “gifted and talented.” While the positive labels have the power to enhance one’s education, the negative labels have the power to do significant harm. As feminist legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon wrote:

Saying someone is inferior is largely how structures of status and differential treatment are demarcated and actualized. Words and images are how people are placed in hierarchies, how social stratification is made to seem inevitable and right, how feelings of inferiority and superiority are engendered.

(MacKinnon, 1993, p. 31).

Cultural capital and funds of knowledge

While Bourdieu’s theory supports the importance of recognizing the relationship of educator talk to the reproduction of social stratification, it has been critiqued by Yosso (2005) because of a frequently perceived implication that only the most privileged in society have cultural capital. Rather, Yosso has argued, all children bring qualities of community cultural wealth into the classroom. This community wealth, called cultural capital, is located in their existing skills, understandings, knowledges, and resources. A related theory called Funds of Knowledge (FoK) also offers a conceptual framework that recognizes the skills and ways of knowing that are embedded in the lives of children within families and communities (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2006; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). This theory emphasized that, “ … people are competent, they have knowledge, and their life experiences have given them that knowledge” (González et al., 2006, p. ix-x). It has been suggested (Rios-Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt, & Moll, 2011) that it is essential for educators to move beyond just recognizing funds of knowledge to supporting children in their own efforts to “ … activate (and) mobilize their funds of knowledge and/or social and cultural capital” (p. 176) so to attain desired goals in school. A language environment reflecting ethics, care, and resistance to bias can become an effective starting point for this activation and mobilization of children’s unique set of skills and knowledges.

Recommendations for early childhood teacher educators

The word recommendation denotes specific strategies for implementation. While the strategies I recommend are grounded in the existing commitment of early childhood educators to anti-bias and anti-racist education, my specific purpose is to identify pathways for early childhood teacher educators to help future teachers confront the seriousness of dehumanizing educator talk, learn to recognize and challenge it, and develop new narratives utilizing the strategic alternative educator language of ethics, care, and resistance to bias. I recommend two separate strategies for teacher educators who desire to challenge and change dehumanizing educator talk. The first strategy for early childhood teacher educators is essential reflection on professional controversies related to the topic, and the second is positive action to prepare the future teachers in their classrooms to critique and reconstruct denigrating and deficit-based discussion of targeted children and families. Why is reflection the essential first step? The idea of using words to create change may seem deceptively simple at first, but any effort to challenge inequality and discrimination in education is a highly complex undertaking. Dehumanizing talk about targeted groups is deeply grounded in a long social history of stratification and oppression; those attempting to interrupt and eliminate it may well encounter controversy and resistance. Dehumanizing talk often arises unpredictably and spontaneously in educational conversations or professional meetings. It is essential, in the moment of that encounter, that an educator is already grounded in prior reflection on dehumanizing talk and has an established commitment to an ethical, caring, and resistant response. This enables the educator to engage in an action that is well thought out and effective.

Recommendations for reflection

This section recommends two essential reflections as a platform for discussion in committee or faculty meetings as well as personal consideration. The first is a critical examination of the prevalence of whiteness in teaching and teacher education. The second is a critical examination of the possibility that dehumanizing talk or ideas about targeted children and families might enter into program and course materials due to the prevalence of damage-based research and scholarship in early childhood education and in the social sciences as a whole (Souto-Manning, 2022; Tuck, 2009).

Whiteness and resistance in teaching and teacher education

What is the relationship of the continuing predominance of Whiteness in teaching and teacher education (Ingersoll, May, & Collins, 2019) to the persistence of dehumanizing educator talk? This question calls for serious reflection of all teacher educators. Critical race scholars have raised concern that teacher education “is structured to privilege White comfort” and that it has remained “ … steadfast in reproducing a predominantly White teaching force with … deficit frames of students, families, and communities of Color” (Kohli & Pizarro, 2022, n.p.). Approximately 79% of teachers in the United States were White non-Hispanic in 2017–2018 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020) and one-half of United States Schools do not have a single teacher of color (Picower, 2021). The closest match of teacher ethnicity to student ethnicity is found in White schools with majority White teachers. In schools with a majority of BIPOC students, approximately 75% of the teachers are White. On the university level, 84% of full-time professors are White and 75% all instructional faculty are White (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). This situation exists in spite of the research demonstrating that teachers of color benefit all students and especially BIPOC students; they often choose to teach in hard-to-staff low-income schools, they help boost achievement scores, they provide social and emotional support to students, and they support other BIPOC teachers in their buildings (Carver-Thomas, 2018). The predominance of White teachers and White teacher educators exists in direct contrast to an increasingly diverse child population in our schools. It also exists while the deeply entrenched oppressions of unequal resources, inadequate opportunities, and unnecessarily limited school outcomes for students who are BIPOC and living in poverty persist (La Salle, Wang, Wu, & Rocha Neves, 2020). These unbalanced demographics not only require our commitment to recruiting and retaining more BIPOC educators but to centering on anti-racist and anti-bias strategies as a universal core value for every student, regardless of race, who aspires to become a teacher in our nation.

White resistance in early childhood teacher education classrooms

I problematize the predominance of White students in teacher education classrooms on two levels. The first, discussed above, is the urgent need for diversification of our future teacher population. The second level, to be established in this section, is the possibility that White students in teacher education may respond with denial or resistance to classroom discussion or assignments focused on racism and bias. Many early childhood teacher education programs have met accreditation standards that specifically focus on the need to prepare all teachers for diverse child and family populations (Heafner, McIntyre, & Spooner, 2014). However, teacher educators who raise topics of prejudice, race, and racism in their classrooms may encounter forms of resistance from White students (La Salle et al., 2020; Milner, 2020; Tosolt, 2020). This resistance, more recently referenced as White fragility (Bates & Ng, 2021; DiAngelo, 2018) is the enacted discomfort or sense of entitlement when students are asked to acknowledge White responsibility for the history and continuation of racist oppression. Student resistance may emerge in claims of color blindness, insistence that racism did not exist in their White childhood schools, or an embrace of meritocracy with examples of people who successfully overcame racial bias (Carter Andrews et al., 2021; Price-Dennis & Sealey Ruiz, 2021; Matias & Zembylas, 2014). It may also emerge as the form of denial which Kendi (2019) describes as “the heartbeat of racism” (p. 9). The marginalization of BIPOC students in teacher education classrooms when majority-White students resist acknowledgment of racism inevitably affects the ways in which they experience their programs (Goodwin, 2023).Teacher educators, particularly those of color, who persist in pursuing the topics of bias and racism may encounter evasive silence (Aronson & Meyers, 2020; Tosolt, 2020), administrative reports of student complaints, or poor student evaluations endangering tenure and promotion (Kohli & Pizarro, 2022; Milner, 2020).

Clearly, reflection on Whiteness and resistance is a complex task. Teacher educators are not in control of many of the issues that are implicated in these problems. Our students may have developed deeply-entrenched biased beliefs long before they entered teacher education programs, they remain exposed to biased ideas in their social interactions and activities, they are influenced by social media and a myriad of other information sources, and they may be taking other university courses exposing them to deficit-based research or information. We early childhood teacher educators have demonstrated commitment to overcoming bias and racism for many years (Day, 2014; Derman-Sparks, 1989; Washington & Harvey, 1989) and we cannot be complacent now. The forces of racism and bias have yet to be confronted and defeated in the United States (Kendi, 2019), and many children and families continue to be harmed by these forces of oppression (Yosso, Smith, Solórzano, & Hung, 2022). Specific recommendations related to White resistance to acknowledgment of racism and bias in teacher education classes will be made in a section to follow.

Does dehumanizing educator talk emerge in program and course materials?

Teacher education programs are shaped by many influences, including ever-shifting state and accreditation requirements. The initial mission of early childhood teacher education programs can drift over time as social trends and certification requirements change. The cohesiveness of a shared program vision can be affected by increased replacement of tenure track positions with temporary or part-time faculty program (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Teacher educators have the academic freedom to choose topics of emphasis in required courses; not all faculty members have a specialty in diversity-related issues (King & Butler, 2015). However, it is still possible for early childhood teacher education programs to articulate a focused interest in reducing bias and racism. A good place for all faculty to start is examination of required readings for dehumanizing ideas that take a deficit and damage-based approach to targeted groups. I present below three quotations in publications spanning over 40 years for critical consideration. To support this reflection, I offer a framework of characteristics of dehumanizing educator talk:

• Generalizes about deficits as existing in entire minoritized groups.

• Focuses exclusively on deficits without acknowledging strengths.

• Places blame for deficits on the home lives and habits of targeted groups.

• Compares targeted groups negatively with White or more privileged groups.

• Silences the impact of bias and institutional racism on alleged deficits.

• Indicates that child and family deficits cannot be overcome in school.

I selected the quotations from countless others that would reflect similar views of targeted children and families. I do not reproduce them to disrespect their intended purpose; they appeared in publications designed to support educational, economic, or political improvements for children in the United States. Yet it is possible that these and many similar quotes have deeply influenced the beliefs of past and present teachers about targeted children and families.

… . with no known exceptions, studies of three-to-five-year-old children from lower socio-economic backgrounds have shown them to be retarded or below average in every intellectual ability

(Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966, p. 3).

“ … . (the characteristics of lower class families are) … a collection of occupational, psychological, personality, health, and economic traits that interact, predicting performance not only in schools but in other institutions as well, that, on average, differs from the performance of families from higher social classes (p. 4) … . … The influence of social class characteristics is probably so powerful that schools cannot overcome it, no matter how well trained are their teachers and no matter how well designed are their instructional programs and climates“

(Rothstein, 2004, p. 5).

Poor children and children of color are likely to already be behind their wealthier and White peers when they start school, and as they progress through schools with smaller budgets and fewer educational resources, it is too often impossible to catch up … Less than half of children born into household and neighborhood poverty are ready for school at age five compared with 78 percent of their wealthier peers

(Children’s Defense Fund, 2021, p. 2)

The first quote was written in the 1960’s when Federal compensatory programs were informed by a steady stream of social research studies focused on the deficits and “cultural deprivation” of the poor. Children who lived in poverty were uniformly set apart as deficient and in need of remediation (Fennimore, 2000). It is important to note that the multicultural education movement began in the 1970s with a goal of countering the prevalent idea that children who did not live in the White middle-class culture were “culturally deprived” (Banks & Banks, 2001). Yet, almost 40 years later, the second quote, in a book focused on closing the Black-White achievement gap continues reflect characteristics of dehumanizing educator talk. The third quote appears in 2021 in a publication focused on the need for greater funding to improve social, economic, and educational needs of children. Although I recognize that those who provide funds for programs serving young children require the establishment of need, a focus on group deficiencies can ultimately undermine the outcomes of funded programs. Is it possible to advocate for children’s needs while avoiding characteristics of dehumanizing talk? I attempt (narratives are always under construction) to re-write the Children’s Defense Fund quote with a focus on eliminating characteristics of dehumanizing thought:

Children who are BIPOC or living in poverty are less likely to have experienced the benefits enjoyed by their wealthier and White peers. The economic and social inequities they have encountered in their lives are also reflected in the under-resourced schools they are more likely to attend. Traditional measures of readiness at the time of school entry may appear to indicate that they do not compare well at age five to wealthier and privileged peers. However, traditional readiness measurements seldom identify ways in which children have developed significant strengths including skills, cultural knowledges, resilience, and resourcefulness. We recognize the impact of racism, bias, and inequality in our society, and we are committed to helping children overcome it. Funding is needed to support smaller class size, adequate school resources, fair and comprehensive readiness testing, and culturally relevant teaching strategies. An increase in funding will support our determined efforts to uncover and further develop the true strengths and potential of all the children for whom we desire success.

In my experience it is not unusual for books and scholarly articles considered valuable to the field of teacher education to contain some long-standing damage-based (Carter Andrews, Brown, Castillo, Jackson, & Vellanki, 2019; Tuck, 2009) generalizations about targeted children and families. If we assign them for the value of the information they contain, we can still prepare our students to notice and critique deficit and damage-based description of targeted groups.

Recommended actions for early childhood teacher education practice

These recommendations for action emerge from previous discussion in this article, from the wonderful ideas that many others have shared with me over the years, and from the knowledge gained from my own professional experiences. Strategies I suggest have been utilized with the predominantly White and female groups I taught for 32 years in my state university as well as with the groups reflecting more racial and ethnic diversity I concurrently taught for over 25 years in the summer program of a large private urban university. These recommendations focus on the teacher education of emergent early childhood practitioners and teachers, but they can be adapted for early childhood graduate and doctoral programs as well as early childhood professional development workshops. Of course, it is important for these recommendations to be envisioned in the context of program- wide “relentless focus” (Allen, Shapland, Neitzel, & Iruka, 2021, p. 52) on the elimination of racism and bias through an infusion of related diversity and equity issues in every course. My own approach to the topics of diversity, bias, racism, and dehumanizing educator talk has grown and changed over time. I have learned a great deal from the evolution of early childhood anti-bias and critical race scholarship as well as critique from peer reviewers, professional colleagues, and students. I acknowledge that my recommendations reflect my own experiences as a White teacher educator who did not encounter race-based bias in their own life. I encourage my readers to adapt these recommendations to their own identities and experiences and those of the students in their teacher education classrooms.

Differentiate dehumanizing educator talk from needed educator communication

Two questions repeatedly emerged when I talked to students and educators about dehumanizing educator talk. The first was if I was suggesting that it was wrong for educators to discuss problems with children and families in the school setting. My response is that educators absolutely must discuss professional concerns in honest detail with those who can provide help and support. These discussions should be characterized by confidentiality, compassion, and a hopeful desire for improved outcomes for children and families. The second question focused on how educators might be able to “vent” honestly with one another when upset, disappointed, or frustrated during the school day. My answer was that educators absolutely do need to seek comfort and advice through confidential sharing with well-chosen colleagues. These conversations should take place behind closed doors with trusted and empathetic colleagues who extend friendly solace and supportive suggestions for the resolutions of problems. Dehumanizing educator talk is entirely different. It openly demeans targeted individuals or groups with offensive generalizations in the absence of discernable educational goals leading to improved outcomes. Although these differences might appear obvious, the subtleties of language are complex. It is helpful to provide examples and give students an opportunity to develop the three kinds of responses to a new problem in group activities:

Example: A kindergarten teacher is upset by a student who has temper tantrums when their parent leaves them at the classroom door every morning:

Professional discussion: I am concerned that this child is so upset every morning. I think we need to ask the parent to meet with us and strategize a new way for the child to enter the school. They love to be a helper; maybe I could meet them at the door with a helping task for them to do right away.

Venting privately with a trusted colleague: I really need your help. I worry about these tantrums, and I want this child to have a happier start to the day. I have tried a lot of ideas but I still need help. You are so good with children – can you give me some suggestions?

Dehumanizing educator talk: This child is out of control and the parent doesn’t seem to care. So many children in our population come to school with serious behavior issues.

Students in teacher education should be prepared to express concern about challenges without demeaning students and their families or communities.

Explain educator language of ethics, care, and resistance to bias as a strategy

The educator language of ethics, care, and resistance to bias is a focused and strategic response to dehumanizing talk. I consider it a dynamic and “living” way (p. 185) to infuse an observable commitment to fairness and equity into the daily lives of educators (Fennimore, 2008). It is strategic because it has a structure that can be analyzed and practiced in teacher education classrooms; role playing will usually reveal that further explanation and more practice is important. Ethics in a response reflects the commitment to do no harm to children; caring in a response reflects a personal desire to protect children placed at risk by oppressive educational practices. Resistance to bias is a response countering the deficit narrative with one honoring the strengths that the children bring to school. I provide an example (always open to critique) of a response below:

Dehumanizing Educator Talk: You have a really tough pre-K class this year. They did poorly on the basic assessments, and lacked self-regulation. There are a lot of single parents too.

Educator language of ethics, care, and resistance to bias

Ethics: I am eager to meet all these children; I will do my best to help each one grow in knowledge and skill.

Caring: I care about them and want to see their potential as they start school.

Resistance to Bias: I think it is important for me to avoid allowing entry tests or any other circumstances to interfere with my respect for my children and desire for their success.

White teacher educators in predominantly white teacher education classrooms? Focus on whiteness as an explicit diversity!

This recommendation is written for the consideration of all early childhood teacher educators concerned about Whiteness in teaching and teacher education. In my experience there are ways in which White teacher educators can have an impact on White resistance to topics of racism and bias in teacher education classes. As a White teacher educator who spent a great deal of time in predominantly White schools and districts, I frequently encountered the opinion that anti-racist and anti-bias education was unnecessary unless “diverse” children were physically present in classrooms. I considered this perspective reflective of unexamined White privilege. It established Whiteness as the norm and assigned the term “diversity” to anyone who was not White. It ignored the need for White educators to confront their own bias and to prepare their students to be fair and equitable citizens in a diverse nation.

When White children attend predominantly white schools that do not provide diversity-based education and experiences, they may not become familiar with topics related to bias and racial differences. In fact, they may not even see their own Whiteness as a racial identity. The only perspective of Whiteness to which they may have been exposed in their life experiences is one of themselves as belonging to the superior social norm (Goldstein, 2001). These could be reasons why White students in teacher education resist or opt out of discussion of race and racism, particularly when expected to respond with uncomfortable self-critique concerning White responsibility (Fennimore, 2001). Thus, it is important for White teacher educators to be anti-racist role models who make direct reference to their own White identity in courses. Future teachers who are White must be given the supports necessary to transcend a lack of experience and begin to envision themselves positively as White teacher advocates and activists. Such a vision of themselves, of course, must also be developed through regular contact with BIPOC educators, leaders, and scholars during their teacher education programs (Goldstein, 2001). The following strategies can be useful starting points for White teacher educators who hope to draw White students more closely into an examination of race, racism and bias in school and society:

Be explicit about your Whiteness and your responsibility to challenge educational inequality. “I am a White teacher educator, and I grew up in a privileged White suburban community. I was exposed to racist beliefs; as a child I did not have one Black schoolmate or friend. As a young competitive swimmer, I never raced against a Black child. Swimming clubs were expensive and exclusively White. It was the civil rights movement and the White racism on television that opened my eyes in high school. I became determined to rise above prejudice and discrimination. In fact, that was one of the main reasons why I became a teacher.”

Be explicit in sharing mistakes you have made when addressing racism and bias. In graduate school, I was assigned a presentation on strategies for teaching Black children to read. I researched it carefully and was shocked when a Black classmate angrily objected to the content. They said they were not comfortable with White teachers suggesting that Black children had to be taught differently. The professor indicated appreciation of the controversial topic but I left class feeling very bad. I later approached my classmate and asked them to help me understand more about why they had objected. They told me how the strategies might reinforce White racism in their own children’s schools. I agreed with their objection, and assured them that I would evaluate research much more carefully in the future. That student did me a big favor! They taught me a life-long lesson about critiquing articles and books for potential bias.”

Be explicit in discussing Whiteness as a diversity in discussions. “Many White people think that they are the norm, and that the word diversity only applies to other people. I encourage you to think differently. There are many kinds of diversity in our country, and Whiteness is just one of them. Many White people think of themselves as superior, and they continue to oppress people who are Black. I want you to know that I stand against this in my life and my work. I invite you to join me in seeking justice and equal treatment of all people.”

White teacher educators need to have humility and the courage of their convictions (Fennimore, 1989); the explicit discussion of racism can make them vulnerable to controversy and to the possibility of making mistakes. I have always found it very helpful to seek advice from BIPOC colleagues about how to address difficult classroom or professional issues when they arose.

Design proactive course syllabi

I recommend approaching early childhood teacher education courses with proactive syllabi that anticipate discussion of topics of racism and bias related to established course content and program goals. Since universities may currently advise faculty to avoid “political” topics unrelated to course content in class (mine did) it is helpful in the syllabus and in classes to clearly articulate the direct connection of a course-related focus on racism and bias and the established ethics of the profession (Freeman & Feeny, 2005; Pizzolongo, 2005; Strike & Soltis, 2015). Course syllabi can also establish guidelines for civil discourse during discussion of controversial topics and introduce the strategic use of educator talk that is ethical, caring and resistance to bias. I conducted rehearsals of civil discourse at the beginning of a course to practice productive sharing of perspective-based narratives rather than back-and-forth arguments between a few students. My White students in teacher education, sometimes hesitant to be involved in argument or uncomfortable with controversy, often appeared far more willing to express themselves when broad construction of a variety of narratives become the initial focus. Utilizing the structure of educator talk that is ethical, caring, and resistant to bias provided a structure that helped them to design more thoughtful narratives. I consistently emphasized the ways in which the strategies I used in class were related to possible advocacy and activism in their future placements of practice.

Plan in advance to allow for missteps and provide positive guidance

It is not easy to allow for missteps, particularly when they involve student views that concern or upset us. I thought carefully about my initial response to remarks I viewed as reflecting bias or racism in class; every situation was different but I always attempted in some direct way to create open spaces for further thought. As an early childhood teacher educator, I desired the progress of all my students over time as they learned to embrace the harmful realities of racism and bias in school and society. I found that the core structures of some popular early childhood education strategies could be successfully adapted for adult learners. For example, when initially introducing discussion of controversial issues, I utilized the play-debrief-replay strategy with my students (Wasserman, 2000). Before group discourse about a controversial topic I would pose a question and ask students to “play” by silently trying out their own ideas with quick personal notes. Then, in large group discussion we would “debrief” the question and broadly explore many different ways in which the question might be answered. (Note that the broad discussion did not include student sharing of personal notes.) Students would “replay” by first individually evaluating their initial notes and rephrasing them as they deemed necessary. Their new narratives could then be voluntarily shared in small or large group discussion.

I also initially utilized the “third space” strategies (Bostock, 2012; Gutiérrez, 2008; Laughlin, 2021) to help students see the potential for points of agreement in disagreements over controversial issues. Drawing a Venn Diagram on the board, I would invite two different narratives about a specified controversial problem. After collaborating with students to list details that could construct the two different narratives, we would work together to find points of agreement in the “third space” that might construct positive discourse on the problem. I invited students to engage in this activity with the understanding that they were critically examining an issue rather than expressing an opinion. This seemed to give students more confidence and a greater willingness to actively explore controversial issues. Stronger position-taking could and often did emerge over time.

A good sign of progress, which I often saw, was the point when students begin to self-correct and to independently change their words for the better. Another good sign was when students began to independently recognize and critique dehumanizing generalizations they came across in course readings. I did meet with individuals or small groups when I was concerned about responses or behaviors related to discussion of racism and bias in class and I did confront serious problems as I deemed necessary. However, I also hoped that students who were offered positive support for change when critiqued for missteps would progress toward becoming teachers with the humility and understanding to see themselves in a complex and diverse world (Beck, 2020).

Utilize critical literacy and critical racial literacies in action

If our students in teacher education are going to be prepared to “ … disrupt and transform inequitable ideologies in educational contexts and to imagine new ways of constructing the world” (Beneke & Cheatham, 2020, p. 2630) they must be immersed critical and racial literacies during their preparation for teaching (Price-Dennis & Sealey-Ruiz, 2021). This means that some form of language inquiry should be present in every teacher education course (Kelchtermans, Smith, & Vanderlinde, 2018). I found it helpful on every level to pull out one or more citations of “research” in a course reading and ask students to read the entire study. Critical analysis often demonstrated that the studies were interesting but not designed for generalization of results. Specifically, it is through the development of habitual critical analysis of statements about children and families who have been historically marginalized that our students can develop the habit of self-revising dehumanizing and deficit-based expressions to create desire-based descriptions (Souto-Manning, 2022).

Provide media-based opportunities to critique and change narratives

Example: “We viewed the 10-minute film on children who are alone after or before school, and need to take care of their siblings. The film narrator expressed deficit and damage-based ideas about the children’s lives. When we looked at the film a second time, we saw skills and strengths that could be very helpful to the children. Each group has a copy of part of the deficit-based film narrative. You will have time to work on and continually revise it with ethical and caring narratives that resist bias for sharing in discussion later this week.”

Use scenarios for utilize repeated role playing over time

Role playing can be an excellent source of growth and self-reflection. My students and workshop participants always seemed to enjoy role playing and gain insights from it. Missteps were sometimes humorous but the reflection on their words in role playing helped students to continually critique and restructure their responses. I planned carefully for each group depending on their current status as developing or experienced educators.

Example:

“You are attending a professional development workshop for teachers in your school. The speaker says,“Here is an idea that will work really well for your gifted groups and top classes. I am not sure about the other students but it will work with your advanced students.”

Ethical and caring educator response:

“As a teacher of young students who are not considered advanced, I always look for ways to implement gifted strategies in my classroom. I care a lot about my students and I often see remarkable abilities and changes in them over time. I would appreciate some thoughts you might have on the general applicability of this strategy.”

Many of the actions I have suggested are not completely original; they are often used in different ways in the process of teacher education. However, my specific focus on dehumanizing educator talk is intended to add to the repertoire of concrete ways to enact commitment to anti-bias and anti-racist strategies in early childhood programs and practice.

Conclusion

Educators in every school have the power to recognize and change deficit-based and denigrating narratives about targeted groups. I believe that a significant effort to interrupt and redirect habitual dehumanizing educator talk would have a major impact on the larger issues of bias and racism in educational institutions. School districts and early childhood programs might have mission statements that focus on equal rights and treatment of all students, they might adopt books and materials that promote diversity, and they might provide professional development in anti-bias and anti-racist areas of interest. But, if existing habitual dehumanizing educator talk remains unchanged, active streams of prejudice and discrimination will continue to flow into the daily conversations of educational environments.

It will take commitment on the part of many educators to challenge and change dehumanizing conversations, but it can be done. We early childhood teacher educators are fortunate to be holding the key to a new narrative of ethics, or care, and of resistance to bias in the emergent early childhood teachers of the future. Realistically, we know from our own experience that our future teachers will experience conflicts and difficulties as they seek to make their values and beliefs evident in their lives and work. We can assure them that the struggle is worth it, and encourage them to begin their journey with a commitment to changing dehumanizing educator talk into narratives of hope and change for the enduring good of children and families everywhere.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges thoughtful reviews of an earlier version of this manuscript by Marvin Fein and Maryann Fennimore Kranis.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.