What is wrong with the VDOE guidance: a scientific, ethical, and public policy discussion
In summary the VDOE guidance
Fails to provide sound scientific foundations for its proposals
Fails to provide sound legal and public policy foundations for its proposals
Fails to provide sound ethical foundations for it proposals
Fails to provide protections for students’ safety, parents/guardians’ rights, and other dimensions of accountability, responsibility and public trust
Clearly the guidance needs thoroughgoing rewriting. Necessary scientific, legal and ethical citations and discussion must be included. Attention to likely and possible harms, and means of accountability, responsibility and reparations for harms, must be incorporated. Guidance regarding ‘diversity’ that fails to recognize and provide for the Commonwealth’s great diversity of school districts’ needs and interests in cultural competency mis-understands what diversity actually means. Finally, an unfunded state mandate – and particularly a mandate that is this vacuous – announces that the ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’.
Questions explored:
Are Constitutional issues at stake in the vacuous way the guidance discusses diversity? It appears that public trust certainly is at stake.
Does the vacuous way the guidance discusses diversity advise likely harms? Harms do appear likely across the Commonwealth.
Are scientific foundations and ethical foundations for the guidance transparently provided and defended? No
Does scientific evidence support VDOE’s vacuous approach to guidance? No
Is public trust achieved by the guidance? No
Full text of comments:
Are Constitutional issues at stake in the vacuous way the guidance discusses diversity? It appears that public trust certainly is at stake.
We must first observe that the law, and the proposed VDOE guidance, privileges only ‘African-American history’ and thereby negates other histories and cultures. VDOE may argue that they were told by the law to focus on African-American history. That is true. But, VDOE has failed to provide sufficiently direct, clear, and effective guidance about how cultural competency is to be performed by schools. And within this encompassing failure has utterly failed to discuss how the manifestly vast and complex diversity of societies in which public schools function is to be accurately represented.
Native American/Aboriginal histories and cultures have had impacts on Virginia since ancient times, much longer than African-American history in the area we now call the Commonwealth of Virginia, but these histories and cultures are negated, treated as nothing important. African Americans have contributed to the history of the Commonwealth since about 1619 while Native American/Aboriginal Peoples have contributed to the history of the Commonwealth from as long ago as 15,000 years ago (https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/historic-registers/091-5026/). Why is a more recent colonizing history privileged over a much more ancient, aboriginal history? If Virginia owes reparative education regarding African American history does it also owe reparative education regarding Native American/Aboriginal history?
Other histories are also negated, including Latinx cultures, South Asian and East Asian cultures, the cultures of deaf communities, the cultures of communities with varieties of disabilities, diverse language cultures (including Amish/Pennsylvania Dutch speaking communities, Spanish speaking communities, etc). Data from the 2020 Census report that Virginians who identify as more than one race nearly tripled to over 8% of the Commonwealth’s population ( https://www.vpap.org/visuals/visual/increase-multiracial-identity/): these are distinctive histories that are negated. How will this phrase in the guidance account and provide for learning about all these many and diverse components of Virginia’s histories and cultures?
It is arguably contrary to sound public education interested in the growth of students into mature thinkers able to contribute to the enrichment of civil discourse and democratic values to negate some cultures by privileging one culture by government regulation. Is there scientific evidence that government regulation that privileges one history and culture - as this guidance does – provides better outcomes of student achievement?
Before creating regulations VDOE must answer if any Constitutional issues are stake. VDOE has not answered this in the proposed guidance.
Does the vacuous way the guidance discusses diversity advise likely harms? Harms do appear likely across the Commonwealth.
The public has heard too many stories of school districts and/or school teachers performing cultural competency in bizarre, morally unsound, and traumatizing ways:
Separating children by race (e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/elite-nyc-private-school-ends-separating-students-race-n888656;https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/parent-files-complaint-against-atlanta-elementary-school-alleges-its-segregating-classes/2PNTBQDPQRCM7CXJTESRXUTMJE/, etc)
Asking children to research and act out ‘slave games’ (https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/nation-world/national/article229253729.html)
Having children re-enact slave and master roles (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24563752.html;https://fox8.com/news/kids-used-to-re-enact-slavery-on-field-trip/;https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4900294/California-school-fire-8th-grade-slavery-class.html; etc)
Asking children to act out aspects of the Nazi Holocaust (https://news.yahoo.com/d-c-third-graders-reportedly-065927995.html) and other forms of anti-Semitism in public schools (https://thehill.com/opinion/education/434163-anti-semitism-is-creeping-back-into-our-schools-what-should-we-do-about-it; https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-introduces-radical-anti-semitic-high-school-curriculum/)
These are a few examples. VDOE has done nothing in its guidance to define how NOT to perform cultural competency. VDOE has done nothing in its guidance to define PROTECTIONS for students, families, and communities from such horrible performances of cultural competency. VDOE has done nothing in its guidance to ENSURE avenues for raising concerns, making complaint, formally grieving, halting, and/or seeking recompense from harms done - which appear like – from unethical and/or immoral, and/or un-Constitutional - or otherwise INCOMPETENT - performances of cultural competency.
Are scientific foundations and ethical foundations for the guidance transparently provided and defended? No
VDOE’s guidance states that the intention, purpose, and expected outcomes of this guidance will be
“to use dimensions of diversity to foster academic achievement, growth, and empowerment for all students”
but the guidance does not disclose scientific data to support that their regulations will actually produce these worthwhile outcomes. So, the VDOE not only FAILS to protect students from harms it also FAILS to ensure that performances of cultural competency in public schools follow sound scientific and ethical foundations. It is as if VDOE cares more about their policy partisanship than about the safety, human dignity, and achievement of students. The VDOE guidance uses the language of ‘achievement, growth, and empowerment’ but provides no sound scientific or sound ethical framework that is required to ensure achievement, growth and empowerment’. As the old story teaches: The Emperor Has No Clothes!
In contrast we note that in other guidance regarding important and sensitive issues, in the past, VDOE provided guidance instructive of the law, Constitutional and other rights of students and parents/guardians: Religious Activity in the Public Schools, Adopted June 22 1995, Virginia State Board of Education[ https://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/guidance/support/religious_activity.pdf]
Why, and how, has VDOE devolved from founding guidance in complex presentation and discussion of law, rights, and science and instead deployed guidance in such shabbily incomplete, incoherent and risky, even dangerous, ways?
VDOE must provide in the guidance thorough scientific rationale, and where important and necessary, legal foundations and guarantees, for the public to know that the guidance is a valid, accurate, specific, and accountable tool for purpose stated: “to use dimensions of diversity to foster academic achievement, growth, and empowerment for all students”. As it is, the guidance is not a properly valid, accurate, specific or accountable tool for achievement of educational outcomes.
The guidance cites a single academic foundation, that is, apparently
Mayfield, V. (2020). Cultural competence now: 56 exercises to help educators understand and challenge bias, racism, and privilege. ASCD.
The publisher’s own statements of the content and purpose of this book reveals that it is not satisfactory as a sole-source for cultural competency pedagogy:
“What will it take to create equitable educational opportunities for all students? According to veteran educator Vernita Mayfield, teachers and school leaders need to learn how to recognize culturally embedded narratives about racial hierarchy and dismantle the systems of privilege and the institutions that perpetuate them with knowledge, action, and advocacy. … Cultural Competence Now provides a structure to begin meaningful conversations about race, culture, bias, privilege, and power … the 56 exercises include activities, discussions, and reading … [to ]
[ toward ] setting goals for cultural competency, overcoming resistance, reviewing school data and the school's vision and mission through the lens of race and culture, and strategically managing what can be a transformative yet uncomfortable change process.”
First, we see that training regarding culture and cultural competency in Mayfield (2020) purposefully regards analyses of power and sources of power in society, discomfiting social relationships through these analyses (e.g. discerning racial hierarchies, calling out privilege and those considered to be privileged), disrupting professional relationships (among teachers, teacher with parents, school with community, etc) that are categorized in these theoretical power analyses to be bad (e.g. overcoming resistance, etc).
Did legislators intend that VDOE create and impose guidance that intends to train school personnel to
Because it is reasonable to expect sometimes, or frequent, confusion or dissonance among students and colleagues, concern or anger among parents/guardians, and alarm among taxpayers – all of whom are apparently categorized as ‘resisters’ in the Mayfield (2020) theoretical design (theoretical only, not scientifically validated) how does VDOE intend to manage potential harms from dissonance, anxiety, alarm and anger? Is the “academic achievement, growth, and empowerment for all students” measured by how well students can interrogate their parents, the school system and their community about power and power relationships? Who defines power? How able students are to discomfit one another and particularly those they regard to be privileged? Who defines privilege? When harms are done from discomfiting, destabilizing, and categorizing/segregating - because discomfiting, destabilizing and categorizing/segregating can easily, and/or quickly, become prejudicial shaming and blaming, bullying, and traumatizing – who is held accountable and sanctioned, and who is held responsible for reparations?
Are these the intentions of legislators? Is this the intention of VDOE? Are these outcomes that support student academic achievement?
Does scientific evidence support VDOE’s vacuous approach to guidance? No
The scientific, ethical and legal silences in the VDOE guidance tell the public that they VDOE cares little about students’ safety, cares little about parents’ rights, and care little about well evaluated, and effective training in order to improve “academic achievement, growth, and empowerment for all students” .
Systematic reviews of the current state of scientific knowledge about cultural competency training will not improve public confidence. There are many training models (such as Mayfield) but few are properly scientifically or ethically validated: See some citations below:
Benuto, L. T., Casas, J., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2018). Training culturally competent psychologists: A systematic review of the training outcome literature. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 12(3), 125–134.
“Results revealed a wide variety of training procedures including lecture, discussion, utilization of case scenarios, cultural immersion, role-play, contact with diverse individuals, self-reflection of interactions with clients, journaling, and service learning … there is not sufficient information to suggest that specific curricular methods or content produce reliable outcomes
Truong, M., Paradies, Y. & Priest, N. Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Health Serv Res 14, 99 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-99
‘Cultural competency is a recognized and popular approach to improving the provision of health care to racial/ethnic minority groups in the community with the aim of reducing racial/ethnic health disparities. The aim of this systematic review of reviews is to gather and synthesize existing reviews of studies in the field to form a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence base that can guide future interventions and research in the area … Each review was critically appraised by two authors using a study appraisal tool and were given a quality assessment rating of weak, moderate or strong … This review of reviews indicates that there is some evidence that interventions to improve cultural competency can improve patient/client health outcomes. However, a lack of methodological rigor is common amongst the studies included in reviews and many of the studies rely on self-report, which is subject to a range of biases, while objective evidence of intervention effectiveness was rare. “
Sit, A., Mak, A. S., & Neill, J. T. (2017). Does cross-cultural training in tertiary education enhance cross-cultural adjustment? A systematic review. International journal of intercultural relations, 57, 1-18.
“increasing cultural diversity within tertiary education and workplace environments requires students and graduates to be knowledgeable and effective in cross-cultural adjustment and managing potential acculturative stress …We reviewed 35 CCT studies published post-1990 with control group design or pre-post training evaluation”
“While CCT encompassing behavioural modification skills training is particularly valuable, incorporation of cultural awareness and sensitivity training makes CCT comprehensive and holistic. Practitioners and researchers have begun to view CCT as a dynamic multi-method psychosocial intervention rather than a generic activity … Much further research is needed to investigate the optimal balance between cognitive and behavioural components”
Where are citations from VDOE regarding the scientific validity of the Mayfield (2020) model or, the adapted model that the VDOE guidance proposes?
Examples from the scientific literature cited above suggest that – at this point in time - cultural competency training models are still largely theoretical, without a firmly scientifically validated foundation for saying one model is better or best for this or that age of students, for this or that school setting, for this or that demographic mix of students, or for this or that local community with this or that unique set of performance and achievement issues, concerns, and problems. Examples from the scientific literature cited above suggest that still too many models of cultural competency training do not have scientifically validated constructs that have been and can be transparently and accurately evaluated and that cultural competency training models may harbor their own cognitive, cultural and other biases and prejudices, that may be unexamined, undisclosed or concealed. Example from the scientific literature cited above suggest that great care is needed before imposing a single model of cultural competency training.
Is public trust achieved by the guidance? No
With such important scientific, professional ethical, legal/Constitutional and community trust concerns left undisclosed how can the public trust VDOE’s claim that this guidance is what must be imposed across the Commonwealth? Interest in the public’s trust appears to be abandoned by the guidance.
Here is another example of how the guidance abandons public trust. The guidance states that
“This document provides consistent definitions and essential competencies that training or professional learning that meets local school board policy implementing the requirement should cover. Local school boards may expand beyond these minimum standards at their own discretion. “
But the requirement that this instruction may only proceed as ‘prescribed by the Board’ is manifestly in-consistent with the authority and accountability of local school boards in trustworthy relationships with students and parents/guardians, school personnel, and taxpayers. Minimally, ensuring public trust requires that
VDOE guidance - in the absence of the ability to claim that their singular model is scientifically valid – offer several optional models for local schools to use. As the scientific literature cited above shows there are many theoretical models or approaches, not a single, or singular, model or approach, for cultural competency training.
To be consistent – regarding diversity - in a thoroughgoing manner, with greatest clarity, and greatest cultural appropriateness, the local school board would be able to decide what training to offer. For example, regarding compliance with ‘instruction in African-American history’, might in some locales the most appropriate learning of African-American history be local African American histories, in some locales (perhaps with high concentration of recent immigrants) histories of immigrants who identify under ‘African-American’, etc. Some locales might focus on African-American families’ histories, while some locales might focus on religious, musical, arts, or other histories of African Americans. Perhaps some locales would use ‘Afrofuturism’ as their template. With the rapidly growing multiracial population in Virginia some counties may want to focus on these important historical, cultural, and social changes: multiracial population are growing most rapidly as a proportion of the county population in rural counties, while suburban counties have the highest multiracial populations overall. Why shouldn’t a local school board determine that its focus should be on these issues of history, culture, and society?
The apparent desire of VDOE to regulate learning - without fully funding local learning, and without ensuring equitable resources across every school district (which VDOE does NOT fund, and does not ensure!) - appears contrary to achievement of learning, and may appear to the public to be primarily a bureaucratic sleight of hand: to exert power without assuming responsibility and accepting accountability. This form of public policy is socially unjust; and may be experienced as overburdensome and counterproductive, at best, or predatory and destructive, at worst.
So, in summary, the VDOE guidance
Fails to provide sound scientific foundations for its proposals
Fails to provide sound legal foundations for its proposals
Fails to provide sound ethical foundations for it proposals
Fails to provide protections for students’ safety, parents/guardians’ rights, and other dimensions of accountability, responsibility and public trust
Clearly the guidance needs thoroughgoing rewriting. Necessary scientific, legal and ethical citations and discussion must be included. Attention to likely and possible harms, and means of accountability, responsibility and reparations for harms, must be incorporated. Guidance regarding ‘diversity’ that fails to recognize and provide for the Commonwealth’s great diversity of school districts’ needs and interests in cultural competency mis-understands what diversity actually means. Finally, an unfunded state mandate – and particularly a mandate that is this vacuous – announce the ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward Strickler
CommentID: 117387