Professional Irresponsibilty in the Academy

Professional Irresponsibility in the Academy

Director’s Corner Column Spring/Fall 2014

African American Learners 

 Journal of ISAAC

Janice E. Hale, Ph.D.

Professor of Early Childhood Education

Founding Director of ISAAC

A central goal of ISAAC is to strengthen the intellectual infrastructure within the African American community.  This includes increasing the numbers of African Americans who earn the doctoral degree, obtain tenure and senior rank in the academy, contribute to the research literature and secure funding for major research projects.

In this vein, I am raising an issue in this column that crossed my path and is very disturbing to me as a dangerous trend.  The issue is shortcuts that two African American male editors of major education journals have taken in the scholarly review/revision process.  I am sharing the experiences I have had this year to pose the question of whether “it is just me.”

In the summer of 2013, I submitted 7 articles or chapters to editors for publication.  Four were submitted to African American editors.  I was shocked by the actions of one African American female but I am not including her as the focus of this column because she was not a journal editor.  The two editors I will discuss here were both editors of major journals and also African American males.

My publication career has extended over a 40 year period.  I wrote my first book, Black Children, relatively early in my career and therefore was invited to write many of the articles I published during that time.   I admit that on the face of it, one is treated with more largesse when an article is “invited” rather than submitted for the blind peer review process.  Likewise, I cannot recall having an African American editor of a journal prior to the submissions in 2013.  Every editor I had prior to last year was Anglo-American.  So, my experience with African American editors was limited in the past.  The fact that we have African American journal editors should be a cause for celebration, not a moment of anguish.

I can recall early in my career when senior scholars admonished African American scholars to be careful about “showing how bright and competent we are by destroying the work of other African American scholars”.  He noted that when the work of African American scholars was sent out for review, in the name of fairness and cultural sensitivity, other African Americans were called into service to conduct those reviews.  When African American grants were reviewed or articles for publication, it was African Americans who were asked to review the work of their fellows.  This senior scholar noted that often the reviewer seized upon this occasion as the opportunity for them to show how bright they were and how competent they were by literally destroying the work of other African American scholars to the point that their grants were not funded and their articles were not published.  He urged us to reflect on that trend.  The issue raised in this column are dedicated to an aspect of that admonition.

The long and short of my beef is that on two separate occasions, when I submitted an article for publication to two separate African American male journal editors, the articles were sent out for review to 2 reviewers.  The report from the reviewers was sent to me.  The editor chimed in as to which revisions he agreed with and felt were key.  I was given a detailed list of substantial revisions and a deadline for submission of those revisions.  In both instances, I was told in writing that if I made those revisions, my article would be published.  There was no statement that making the revisions did not assure publication.    There was no statement that they editor reserved the right to send the article to additional reviewers for review.  A personal statement was rendered – in one case that the editor would be honored to publish the article if the revisions were made.

I spent a substantial amount of time under a deadline making each revision and responding to each and every comment by the reviewers.  In today’s world with the Review Mode on Word, I was able to create a Comment balloon for each edit.  I wrote in the balloon the comment of the reviewer.  I think created a Comment balloon in which I pinpointed the point in the text where the change was made and provided an explanation.

In one of the articles that I submitted, the editor who was an African American female went through each of the Comment balloons and deleted the ones that satisfied the request for revision.  When she sent the manuscript back, it was crystal clear that she had reviewed each one and that there were only two left that needed to be satisfied.  Once we dialogued about those two issues, the revisions were accepted and the article was accepted for publication.   I knew that she had reviewed my revisions and that I had been fairly treated.  This was a baseline for proper behavior by a journal editor.

In the two instances of which I complain, neither journal editor gave any indication that they had even read the revisions I submitted.  They each sent my revised article out to 2 new reviewers, obtained reviews from them and sent them back to me.  The editors then told me that if I would make these new revisions, that no more would be called for and that they would then publish the manuscript.

In the first instance, I wrote back and complained.  I reminded the editor of the promise he had made of publication after the first revisions.  I also said that it was unfair to me as the author to be subjected to 4 reviewers.  I had never heard of that.  However, the main complaint was that the editor was abdicating his job as the editor.  By following this procedure, he didn’t have to read anything.  He could just send the revisions to a new set of reviewers and see what they came up with.  He didn’t comment on anything.  He didn’t show any evidence that he had read my revisions or that anyone had read them.  He was just sending it out to new people, which wasn’t fair to me.

I reported his behavior to the publisher of his journal.  In response, the editor in question wrote and said that it had been investigated and he had been found to be correct.  I then asked for the person who did the investigating.  I wrote him (a white male) and provided him with all of the documentation .  The editor tried to claim that he had sent the manuscript to the same reviewers, not two different reviewers.  I documented that that was not true because the 2^nd set of reviewers had contradictory opinions from the first.  Even though I sent detailed documentation of my position, I never received a response at all from the “investigator”.  I received messages from the editor asking me to submit the manuscript again, but no resolution of the dispute.

I was shocked when the whole scenario was repeated by the second African American editor of a different journal.  I was promised publication if I made the revisions.  There was no evidence that the revisions were read by anyone and the revisions were sent to a new set of 2 reviewers.  When I wrote the editor and pointed out that he was abdicating his role by not reading or responding to my revisions, there was no response. 

I am very disturbed by these events.  What it tells me is that these two journal editors are cutting corners.  They are using new reviewers in the place of their responsibility to review revisions.  I believe they get away with it because of the “publish or perish” culture.  I venture to say that most of the scholars who are submitting articles are junior faculty whose careers depend upon acceptance of their manuscripts.  Few are submitting manuscripts at the twilight of their careers as is the case with me.  Few have the audacity to tell the editors what they should be doing or have the leeway to withdraw their manuscripts and submit them elsewhere.

Just to be sure that my outrage was legitimate and what in the words of Pearl Cleage, “looked like crazy on an ordinary day,” was truly crazy, I consulted with V.P. Franklin, ISAAC Founder and Senior Fellow, Distinguished Professor and Presidential Scholar at the University of California Riverside and Editor-in Chief of the Journal of African American History.  I wanted his opinion about this whole scenario.  Dr. Franklin said that if they promised me that the manuscript would be published if I made the revisions, then it should have been published.  He also recommended that I report the editor to his superiors.

I am putting this issue “on blast” to ask whether any other scholars have had this experience.  I am also raising the question of whether this is an issue that ISAAC Fellows should attack collectively. 

I am going to post this column on my blog, AfroCognition which you can find on the ISAAC web site from the homepage tab “Visit our Blogs”.  You can comment on this column in that space.  If you register your email address, you will be notified when someone else comments.  In that way, everyone can see what everyone else writes.  We can then have a progressive chat on this issue.

If this has never happened to you, but happens in the future, the blog will be there and you can comment whenever you wish.

Let me hear from you. 

The 3 biggest right-wing lies about poverty by Robert B. Reich

The theme of the Conference on Research Directions 2015, sponsored by ISAAC will be wealth development and economic issues that affect the educational fortunes of African American children.  Our opening keynote speaker on May 4, 2015 will be Dalton Conley, author of Being Black:  Living in the Red.  African American Learners, journal of ISAAC is preparing to issue a Call for Papers designed to flesh out a Ten Point Program to guide the award of reparations for the development of African American youth and educational institutions due to the devastating effect of slavery and discrimination on our community.  African American Learners is joining with the Journal of African American History, The Black Scholar, The Journal of Black Psychology and other scholarly journals in issuing a call for manuscripts on this subject.

As a part of creating a dialogue on economic policies that impede the provision of equal educational opportunities for children, I am sharing an article by Robert B. Reich that appeared in the Detroit Free Press on June 30, 2014.  Please click the link to read the article.  You can post the article on social media sites and invite your colleagues to comment on this Blog.  You can also indicate that you want to be notified when comments are made.  In that way, you will receive an email alert that new comments have been posted.

Click on this link to read the commentary:
http://www.freep.com/article/20140625/OPINION05/306250004/poverty-in-America

Join us in discussion the issues in this article.  Send me other links that I can post on the blog to enrich the discussion.

Robert B. Reich is a former U.S. labor secretary and Chancellor's Professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley

Oakland County Schools Achievement Gap Commentary

This commentary is offered in support of the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and State Superintendent Mike Flanagan. This is a response to an article that appeared in The Oakland Press on Sunday, October 21, 2012, written by Diana Dillaber Murray entitled, “State slams Oakland Schools for wide achievement gap.”

Essentially, the MDE is holding the Oakland County Schools accountable for being among the 10 percent of schools in the state that have the largest gap between the 30 percent of the highest achieving students and the lowest achieving 30 percent of students.  Their position is that schools need to develop strategies to improve the achievement levels of those students.  We concur, wholeheartedly.  However, I would caution the MDE to avoid the biggest problem associated with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act established by the Bush Administration.  NCLB is a punishment system, not a leadership program.  It is not enough to point out discrepancies and issue warnings.  School districts, of course, as a first step need to be required to acknowledge that there is a discrepancy.  However, they also need to be pointed in the direction of a solution.  That is what is missing in our educational world.

Superintendent of the Oakland Schools, Vickie Markavitch is attempting to defend the indefensible by using code words that hark back to the days of “separate but equal.”  Her position is that even though the African American and lower income children (the lower 30%) are not performing on par with the top 30% in the schools, they have reached levels of “near proficiency” that are good enough for them to be “work and college ready”.  Even though these children’s achievement falls way below the other children in their same school, the level at which they are performing is good enough because it is above the statewide average.  We have to ask some hard questions today when the definition of public education is for some children to be “near proficient” and for others, in the words of Superintendent Markavich to take AP Physics, major in Chemistry and become prolific authors.  She doesn’t state explicitly what occupations the “near proficient” children can expect or deserve.   Is that the role of government to make those designations?

Her use of the term “proficiency” harks back to the days when the argument was made that unequal separate schools for Negro and white children in the South were in fact equal.  Her argument suggests further that the bottom 30% are doing well enough – certainly as well as they would be doing in a low performing Priority school – where they belong?

The “elephant in the room” is the activity of upper middle class white parents.  Principals and superintendents know that on any given day 70% of the parents in their schools can yank their children and enroll them in private schools.  They are catering to those parents.  Upper middle class white parents want to create private schools within the public schools.  They want to penetrate the politics of the public schools and create private school outcomes for their children without having to pay private school tuition.

This cadre of parents whom Lisa Delpil says are connected to the “culture of power” know the “code of power”.  They are only in favor of school practices and policies that elevate the achievement of the top 30% in a single-minded fashion.  That is the condition of their remaining in those schools.  This is the population that the superintendent represents. The parents of the lower 30% do not have the savvy to be able to penetrate the school power structure to change what is happening to their children.  Sometimes it is all they can do to deliver their children to those schools.

As a result, the spotlight should also be shined on the covert activities of schools in affluent communities.  Reports have been made of parents being informed upon entry to high school, that if their child does not have good grades in the 8^th grade and does not pass a proficiency test, they will involuntarily be bussed to an alternative school.  This is an effort to prevent the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in the affluent school from being dragged down by an influx of children who need to be taught. 

Reports have also been made that if there are enough high achieving children in the school that can “mask” the children who need to be taught, the middle range children can remain in the building.  However, for the lower third of children, strategies are brought into play to eliminate them from the assessment pool so that they don’t show up and drag down the AYP when assessments are given.

More time and thought is being given to erecting these evasive strategies and polishing the data interpretation angles of administrators than is spent in seriously trying to meet the educational needs of these children.

The “Hide and Seek” scenarios in private schools are not any different.  In my book, Learning While Black, I chronicled my struggle to guide the journey of my African American male son through an elite private school in Michigan.  Even though he was tested as gifted, the politics of everyday life in the classroom resulted in a constant struggle against his having been tracked and placed in lower ability groups.

The MDE and the Superintendents of schools need to step back from talking to each other from data bases.  They need to avail themselves of the growing body of literature that documents:

1.  the rabid competitive culture perpetrated by white upper income parents in trying to achieve unending advantages and separation for their children;

2.  the ways in which teachers structure statuses in the classroom that result in African American and lower income children entering school eager to learn and departing increasingly disadvantaged for each succeeding year of their journey through school.

What is needed is cutting edge in-service training of teachers and administrators.  However, in order to prescribe that training, the administrators who design solutions need to look beyond the test score data to school climate and classroom solutions.   In my book, I set forth a model of school reform for creating an instructional accountability infrastructure within each school that delivers educational excellence to every child. 

We also have to ask ourselves as a society the question of, “What is the purpose of public education?”  Public school education was created in the 1890’s for the children of white immigrants.  It was never intended for African Americans.  African Americans who were only a few years free from slavery were required to pay taxes to support the quality public school education of white children while being relegated to inferior schools themselves.  They had to use near slave wages to fund schools and colleges to give their children a chance at a better life.  Public colleges and universities that they were taxed to support were allowed by law to exclude them.  

Public school education began when the nation was in a transition from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy.  Public schools were created to give every white child an opportunity to be connected to the 20^th century economy.  Public school education was designed to provide an opportunity for white children to be connected to the future.  What is the plan for all children today?  It sounds like the plan in the Oakland County Schools is for African American children to be “proficiently” unemployed.

Julie Mushing sent the following comment:

Doing a little more search, I came across the response from the Superintendent, you may want to add a link to the information from your blog, to see if people agree or disagree with her statements:

http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Home/ThoughtsandresourcesfromDrMarkavitch/FocusSchools/tabid/3338/Default.aspx

Thank you,

Julie

Concept of the Cultural Prism

The Director’s Corner for the fall issue of African American Learners is devoted to highlighting one of the presentations given at The ISAAC Public Policy Think Tank that was held on April 28, 2012.  The Think Tank was devoted to providing research to educational practitioners that has in the words of Asa Hilliard, meaningful instructional implications.  Our objective is to provide teachers with research that they can immediately in their classrooms and that administrators can immediately use in their schools to create change for African American children. 

            Eleven of the keenest thinkers in the fields of education, history and sociology were invited to serve as the Think Tank speakers.  An important goal was to create a collaboration between scholars and scholar practitioners to bridge the gap between research and practice with the goal of enhancing the academic achievement of African American children.  Each speaker was asked to respond to the Epilogue that is posted in its entirety on the Public Policy/Think Tank page of the ISAAC web site at www.isaac.wayne.edu. 

            In the Epilogue, I give my current thinking which is that to analyze the academic challenges faced by African American children, we need a broader concept that I am going to call a Cultural Prism.  The concepts of learning style and cognitive style have become obtuse and muddied for our purposes.  The nomenclature and specifics of the behavioral processes that have been identified by existing instruments make it very difficult for teachers and administrators to absorb and translate them into practice.   When I originally wrote Black Children, I was seeking to develop an argument that would be heuristic and open up a fertile path of scholarship.  I now feel that this perspective is diminished when it is limited to classroom pedagogy, especially because there are a panorama of components related to schooling that contribute to a child’s educational success and achievement.  All are impacted upon by culture.  There is a need for a Cultural Prism in developing strategies to work effectively with African American parents; design effective classroom management strategies; promote nurturing child behavior management; eliminate student push out from high school; intervene in child failure; understand distinctive patterns of performance in particular subject matter areas, on assessment measures and as mediated by gender.

            Du Bois (1903) said that “The Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world . . .”   It is my position that the scholar/educator who is proficient in utilizing the Cultural Prism must be gifted with a Du Boisian first-sight, second-sight, third-sight, fourth-sight and fifth-sight which are all necessary to decode the difficulties African American children are experiencing in school.  The professional who utilizes this Cultural Prism must be proficient in each area and must be able to move seamlessly between each dimension.  If a phenomenon is not explained entirely by one dimension, the expert should be able to shift to the subsequent-sight for a salient hypothesis.   The reason we are stuck where we are is that we have experts who can operate in only one dimension or the other and maintain that the answer is found in the only dimension they understand and have commerce with.  This is the reason why we don’t have the luxury of only having scholars collaborating with scholars of the same discipline and practitioners working in isolation in school districts rejecting any meaningful collaboration with scholars.  To construct this approach, we are going to have to create a dynamic partnership across disciplines and between scholars and practitioners.

            This broader concept of Cultural Prism requires:

1.      First-sight:  an understanding of African and African American history, oppression and culture as a context for behavior. 

2.      Second-sight:  an understanding of the socioeconomic exigencies of African American life.

3.      Third-sight:  an understanding of African American child development, learning, cultural and behavioral styles.

4.      Fourth-sight:  an analysis of statistics related to achievement patterns of African American children.

5.      Fifth-sight:  an ability to identify discrepancies in educational practice that affect African American children which constitute malpractice.  These discrepancies apply to instructional practices in addition to administrative decisions.

Specifically:

First-sight:  an understanding of African and African American history and culture as a context for behavior.  While this dimension does not include race as a biological factor, it includes an understanding of racism.  Any scholar who seeks to interpret the educational profile of African American children must be grounded in the history and culture of African and African American people.  There can be no valid oppression-blind analysis applied to the situation of African American children.  All of the ramifications of racism are included in this category.   

Second-sight:  an understanding of the socioeconomic exigencies of African American life.

This dimension incorporates social class considerations in interpreting the achievement patterns of African American children.  This dimension is essential because of the extent to which the largest numbers African American people have emerged from and been relegated to the lower social class in America.  This dimension also encompasses the need to create the science to accurately assess social class as it relates to school achievement for African American families

Third-sight:  an understanding of African American child development, learning, behavioral and cultural styles.   This involves a grounding in empirical research related to African American child development that is not included in mainstream texts.  Black Children was a stab at trying to pull together elements of African American child development that pertain to learning.  A comprehensive volume on all aspects of African American child development is clearly called for.  “How to teach Black children” manuals and “How to parent Black Children” books do not fulfill this category.  It is difficult to achieve a grounding in African American child development from reading bits and pieces of empirical studies distributed over an infinite number of publications.  There should also be course offerings in the academy that offer a comprehensive overview of African American child development and pedagogy.

Fourth-sight:  an analysis of statistics related to achievement patterns of African American children.    Every educational entity has data.  These data are trotted out by everyone.  However, there seems to be a limitation in the ability of school districts and advocacy organizations to apply a Cultural Prism to the interpretation of these data.  When there is no culturally appropriate interpretation of the achievement data and patterns, there is no subsequent creation of remedies and interventions – only hand wringing. 

           

Fifth-sight:  an ability to identify discrepancies in educational practice that affect African American children.    These discrepancies apply to instructional practices in addition to administrative decisions.   This dimension stems from identifying educational malpractice that is perpetrated against African American children.  It is essential that educators are made aware of micro and macro expressions of such malpractice.  In Hale (2001) I gave examples of micro malpractice in the episodes I reported in the treatment of my son in an elite private school.  In my forthcoming book, Education in Black, I will present in detail a report I prepared as a consultant for a Texas school district that gives examples of the macro expressions of such malpractice in the treatment of African American children.  In some cases, the malpractice is not intended, it is defacto, but malpractice, nonetheless.

            For this column, I have transcribed the presentation of Erika D. Taylor, Evaluation Specialist, Research and Evaluation Department, Prince Georges’ County Public Schools, Upper Marlboro, Maryland.  Dr. Taylor is an ISAAC Senior Fellow who will serve as Co-Editor with Dr. Marisha Humphries of the Conference on Research Directions (CORD) Conference Proceedings in 2013.  Every presentation at the Think Tank was excellent.  Four are available on the Think Tank in their entirety.  They are also available on YouTube.  Readers of this column are encouraged to review them all as well as Dr. Taylor’s presentation.  The points she makes are even more poignant in a live presentation.

            Dr. Taylor’s participation in ISAAC is a reflection of where we intend to go, moving forward.  She is what I am calling a scholar practitioner.  She is employed by a school district in a research and evaluation capacity.  It is our intent to create a reciprocal relationship between her and ISAAC.  It is our intent to stimulate her thinking through a discussion of the 4^th sight of the Cultural Prism and inform her work.  Likewise, she is an informant who has helped us give substance to this dimension as a professional who struggles with these issues every day.

            Academics are given credit and the flexibility of schedule to produce publications.  That time is not built into a scholar practitioner’s schedule.  The transcription of her presentation is a step toward the facilitation of putting her insights into print.  I want to encourage readers of this column to use this post on the Afro-Cognition blog as a repository for your ideas and comments.  This will enable us to create a Progressive Chat wherein readers can discuss an issue or register an insight for discussion.  You can be assured that you will be given credit for your ideas and insights in print.

            Also, if you have any ideas to contribute to the Cultural Prism, please comment on this Afro-Cognition blog or send me an email containing your email address to:  janiceehale@cs.com.  We are going to send out questionnaires for a survey to solicit ideas in the coming months.  We don’t want to miss you when we create our sample.

Creating Educational Excellence for African American Children

The Culturally Appropriate Pedagogy Model for school reform is outlined in Learning While Black.  A critique is offered of existng initiatives for improving the education of African American children.  The current focus of school reform movements -- teacher testing, child testing, child retention and "one-size-fits-all" models of parent involvement -- amount to the same old, same old.

The solution to creating educational excellence for African American children is found in the classroom in the activity between the teacher and the child.  The key to effectively teaching children lies in the instructional leadership provided by principals.  And meeting the needs of diverse learners in urban and rural classrooms involves the school becoming the coordinator of support services such as tutoring and mentoring provided by concerned citizens, service clubs, churches and fraternal organizations.

In Learning While Black, educators are called on to give up their belief that the educational limitations of African American children are the reasons for the achievement gap.  Principals and teachers are called upon to work with community members to monitor the educational performance and extracurricular activities for each child at the classroom level, making sure that all children are performing at or above grade level and are involved in meaningful cultural enrichment programs.  There is a need for all to create the "Beloved Community" conceptualized by American philosopher Josiah Royce and evoked by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  within the Culturally Appropriate Pedagogy Model, strategies are outlined redefining the school as the Family and the broader community as the Village in which each child is too precious to be left behind.

This model places the school instead of the parents at the center of the effort to achieve upward mobility for African American children.  School is the appropriate focal point because everyone is required to go to school.  Everyone does not have a functional family, everyone is not required to attend church, but everyone is required to go to school.

One of the debates that rages among educators is the issue of how much blame should be assigned to parents for the failure of their children.  In my opinion, the resolution of this debate holds the key for closing the achievement gap for African American children.  The answer is that the state has a fiduciary responsibility to educate children.  Parents are required by law to send their children to school.  Parents have no legal obligation to impart kindergarten through 12 grade education to their children.  Not only are parents not legally required to educate their children, but most do not have the training, skills, or materials to do so.  Schools are accredited.  Teachers are certified.  There is no accreditation for families.  There is no certification for parents.

We will only achieve educational excellence when schools accept the responsibility for achieving grade level performance for each and every child.  This point has been the subject of heated debate.  However, in Detroit, for example, 42% of the adults are illiterate.  So, how can they be held responsible for preparing their children to read in school?  How can they be held responsible for reading to their children every day, as has been suggested by experts.

It is the opinion of this writer that the focus of school reform to benefit African American children must focus on building an infrastructure that promotes success within the school.  The components of that infrastructure are described in Learning While Black.  Blaming the parents deflects energy away from the construction of creative strategies for success on the part of teachers and school administrators.  Blaming the parents creates an intentional divide between the haves and the have nots in the African American community.