We
had a strange professional development sequence this past week that left me troubled.
The meeting was led by one of the assistant principals and it focused around
the brain development (or lack of development) by students in high-stress
situations. The teachers were all asked to brainstorm some of the specific
challenges that students face, and to discuss the problems that cause
stress in students’ lives (i.e. Teen Pregnancy, Low Income, Lack of Food,
Abuse, Drugs, Gangs, Missing Parents…). This led to a discussion of
particularly tragic situations that some of the students are currently dealing
with, and teachers/administrators used this as a way to justify lack of
intellectual development.
The
entire conversation struck me the wrong way, obviously, because it just acted
to support the deficit perspective that is already pervasive throughout the
school. I understand that students in “high risk” areas have to deal with
certain stresses and anxieties, and I also recognize the importance of getting
to know your student population, but when you connect the stresses of
low-income living to fundamental brain development issues (regardless of the
research supporting this connection) you run the risk of strengthening
stereotypes and growing the deficit model that drives the teacher’s perspective
of local school culture. I would argue that this was exactly what happened in this week's meeting and that the entire thing
positioned low-income youths as fundamentally damaged when compared to their
middle-class peers.
This is an interesting topic. I wrote a little bit about this last week. To position students from low-income areas as "at-risk" is in one way reinforcing a deficit perspective by saying "well, these students lack something." In a way, you're saying they're not normal or something.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do see some value in recognizing the uphill battle many of these students are facing. There is some research that suggests that trauma in childhood can create neurotoxicity in the brain which affects them for the rest of their lives. But to sit around and pontificate about students and their brain issues or whatever is a bit asinine. Maybe they do have sturggles. Maybe some of them do have early childhood trauma. Maybe they have trauma now. That's just one more reason to be compassionate and look for the strengths rather than the weaknesses. How this plays out in professional practice, I'm not sure.