Critical Criminology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-021-09556-2 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal Construction of Whiteness Thomas Taylor1 Accepted: 28 January 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract Recognizing the monolithic role that neoliberalism has occupied in the United States (US) in the second half of the twentieth century (Harvey 2005) and building on the notions of racial formation and racial projects posited by Omi and Winant (2014), Jeong-eun Rhee (2013) conceptualizes what she calls the “neoliberal racial project” (or the “NRP”). While Rhee (2013) applies the idea of the NRP to understandings of Asian-American identity in the US, this article first seeks to broaden the application of the NRP to include White- ness. After establishing how the NRP functions to reinforce notions of Whiteness, I argue that independent schools—a subset of private schools in the US—function as fundamen- tally neoliberal organizations and, as such, perpetuate the ongoing recreation of White- ness. This is achieved, in particular, through an explicitly market-based approach to educa- tional choice in both language and action. An analysis of a recent report conducted by the National Association of Independent Schools serves as evidence for this claim. The article concludes with some initial suggestions of strategies schools might adopt to combat their tendency to reify Whiteness in those spaces. Introduction School choice—the question of whether and how families can choose to opt out of their state’s public school system—is a hotly contested topic in American education. Free, uni- versal public education has been an ideal in the United States (US) since first advocated by Horace Mann in the 1830s in New England (Kane 2009). Yet almost immediately follow- ing the implementation of Mann’s “common school,” educators and parents sought alterna- tives to the single “common” option (see, for example, Diane Ravitch’s The Great School Wars (2000) for an account of this process in New York City). While some advocate for choice as a mechanism for the improvement of all schools (Chubb and Moe 1990), others posit that school choice (which is often conflated with privatization trends in education) will damage the entire system of public schools in the country (Ravitch 2013). Much of this debate has centered around policy initiatives and funding practices of charter schools and voucher programs. Many of the concerns about such programs focus on the transfer * Thomas Taylor thomasetaylor@gmail.com 1 Riverdale Country School, Bronx, NY, USA 13 Vol.:(0123456789) T. Taylor of publicly-allocated tax dollars into privately run organizations and the corresponding corrosive effects on democracy (Brown 2017; Edelman and Weingarten 2017; Ladd 2002; Ravitch 2018). Despite the significant literature on the topic of school choice (see, e.g., Berkman 2009; Chubb and Moe 1990; Deal 1991; Edelman and Weingarten 2017; Honig 1992; Kane 2009; Ladd 2002; Landis 2019; Neves 2018; Peshkin 2001; Ravitch 2000, 2013, 2018), little has been written specifically about how private schools enter into the landscape of choice outside the realm of voucher programs (Wilson and Scarbrough 2018). And yet, as Wilson and Scarbrough (2018) highlight, any attempt to understand educational access and equity in the US must include an examination of the privileges and advantages conferred on those that attend private and independent schools. According to the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), private schools—an umbrella category for any non-public schools—comprise about 25% of the schools in the US, educating just under 10% of the school-age population (NAIS 2019a, c). Of these private schools, an even smaller portion of schools consider themselves “independent,” belonging to NAIS. While most private schools generally do not receive state funds (though some states’ voucher programs do amount to state support of private schools), independent schools are further distinguished in that they are not tied to a diocese or overseen by a religious body (like Catholic or parochial schools). Rather, all independ- ent schools are governed by independent boards and funded through tuition and charitable donations. Of the roughly 33,000 private schools (representing almost 5.3 million students) in the US, only 1541 are NAIS members. NAIS member schools enroll 671,000 students nationwide, representing a mere 1.2% of the school-age population. The median day school tuition at these schools is over US$22,000 per year, though in certain parts of the country, tuition can top US$50,000. It is clear, then, that independent schools are quite literally edu- cating the “one-percent.” Given this, it is not surprising that some view private schools as fundamentally problematic entities in the educational landscape in this country (Malone 2019). Despite these concerns, NAIS claims to value equity as a core principle, proclaiming that “[t]he independent school community has a long-standing commitment to the prin- ciples of equity and justice” (NAIS 2019b). Indeed, much has been written and published within the independent school community regarding school-level efforts to increase diver- sity and to improve their attempts at equity and inclusion (Balaven 2018; McAdoo 2018; Tannous and Moore 2012). These efforts notwithstanding, students of color make up only 28.7% of student enrollment in independent schools compared to comprising 50.2% of the school-age population (NAIS 2019a, c). In addition, a number of scholars have explored the experiences of students of color and other minoritized groups in this type of school (Cookson and Persell 1991; DeCuir- Gunby 2007; Horvat and Antonio 1999; Kuriloff and Reichert 2003), examining how elite schools function as spaces of exclusion for minoritized populations. They also document the cost—specifically, as it pertains to the development of racial identity—that many stu- dents of color pay in largely White1 spaces, questioning whether the advantages conferred by elite schools are worth it. 1 In this article, I have chosen to capitalize words that indicate racialized identities like Black, White, and Brown. This is in keeping with the work of Nell I. Painter (2020) and others who indicate that capitaliz- ing “White,” in particular, is an important step toward recognizing Whiteness as a racialized identity. Two exceptions: (1) in direct quotations, the original capitalization has been preserved; and (2) with the term, “white supremacy,” this article follows Critical Criminology: An International Journal’s decision to use lowercase for the word “white” so as to distance itself from the typographical convention adopted long ago by racist hate groups. 13 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal… What has been published though, both as it pertains to efforts toward inclusion and equity and in terms of examining the lived experiences of students, has generally been focused primarily at the micro-level, looking at individual schools and the experiences of students within them. Little research has been undertaken to examine the role that inde- pendent schools play on a larger, systemic level. Yet, given that independent schools claim to strive to be more equitable and just organizations, and given that schools are sites of cultural reproduction in a variety of forms (Bourdieu 1984; Willis and Willis 1981), it is important to bring a critical lens to the ways in which independent schools reproduce ineq- uity in society, not just at the level of the individual school, but also, more broadly, as a segment of the American education landscape that is focused on educating a powerful minority of the country’s children. In this article, I will argue that independent schools, particularly as organized and supported by NAIS, function to reproduce the construction of Whiteness in America through a fundamentally neoliberal approach to education. Neoliberalism as a Racial Project Despite its name, neoliberalism is neither new, nor is it grounded in the classic principles of liberalism (Chomsky 1997). What is more, it appears that in application, neoliberalism means a great many things to a great many people. There does not seem to be one overarch- ing, clear definition of the term, how it is best used, or what its scope ought to be (Cahill et al. 2018). In broad strokes, however, neoliberalism is characterized by a rigid adherence to the principles of the “free market,” a fierce allegiance to notions of individualism, and the privatization of formerly public endeavors. Imprecise definitions and understandings notwithstanding, it does appear clear that neoliberalism has been on the rise, in the US and around the world, since at least the mid 1960s (Bockman 2013; Cahill et al. 2018). As it pertains to the ongoing and continual invention and reinvention of race in the US, Omi and Winant (2014) position neoliberalism as a parallel, yet interrelated and interde- pendent structure alongside the emergence of colorblindness as the primary racial ideology in the US. They argue that “neoliberalism both overlapped with and required colorblind- ness” (Omi and Winant 2014: 256) and highlight how the two interact in the post-World War II era to replace the more explicitly racist racial projects of both Jim Crow and chattel slavery. Despite this—and despite their assertion that neoliberalism “is as much a racial project as a class project” (Omi and Winant 2014: 221)—Omi and Winant stop short of describing neoliberalism in purely racial terms. Rather, they allow neoliberalism to remain, for the most part, in the realm of market theory and economic policy, eschewing an explo- ration of its power to function as a mechanism for ongoing racial projects. Recognizing both the limited working definitions of neoliberalism in the scholarship on racism in the US—and observing the opportunity present in Omi and Winant’s (2014) notion of racial projects—Jeong-eun Rhee (2013: 562) deepens both conceptualizations by articulating “ways in which neoliberalism itself is a process of racial formation and rac- ism.” She calls this process the “neoliberal racial project” (or the “NRP”). Rhee distin- guishes the NRP from earlier forms of racism (e.g., colonial racial projects) that would be characterized by explicit use of both discursive and material violence, such as Jim Crow or chattel slavery, as noted above. Rhee’s (2013: 580) conceptualization of the NRP is powerful in that it recognizes how “neoliberalism builds silently on the structural conditions of racism while disabling 13 T. Taylor the very categories that would make this racism recognizable.” In other words, the NRP manages to build racist structures and systems continuously while hiding and denying that very work. As such, neoliberalism and the NRP have silently become the governing logic of the US, operating as a complex web of mythologies about what it means to be American, what is (and is not) possible in the US, how the US was founded, and how race operates in this country. In particular, the “gospel of the free market” (Chomsky 1997), the positioning of the individual as the primary locus of control for all public and private decision-making (Bockman 2013; Rhee 2013), and the all-too-common trope of America-as-meritocracy all represent interwoven threads in this web of mythology. In her application of the NRP, Rhee focuses on both the perception and performance of what it means to be an Asian-American mother, foregrounding Amy Chua’s book, The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (2011). The conceptualization of the NRP, how- ever, is flexible and can be a useful tool for critical examination of other ongoing pro- cesses of racial formation in the US, specifically that of Whiteness. Granting the premise that race is, as Omi and Winant (2014) posit, the key organ- izing construct of the US, it is imperative that the construction of race be examined closely. Race is, however, not a stable construct, but a constantly evolving formulation governed by, inter alia, changing language, media, populations, public policy and social norms (Omi and Winant 2014). While there has been much scholarly work in the area of the construction of the racial identities of minoritized or colonized peoples, much has also been written about how Whiteness is continually constructed and reconstructed in the US and how this constant reformation of the White racial identity serves to further codify the racial status quo in this country (Baldridge 2017; Bonilla-Silva 2017; Irby 2014; Lensmire 2014; Lipsitz 1995; Omi and Winant 2014; Picower 2009; Rhee 2013; Wynter 1979; Yancy 2019). In examining the various means through which Whiteness is rebuilt time and again, the NRP becomes an effective structure through which to unify these various theoretical approaches to White racial construction. The mythology of neoliberalism represents a pow- erful governing force that supports the ongoing fortification of white supremacy, grounded in notions of what it means to be White. Given Omi and Winant’s (2014) claim that neoliberalism and a colorblind racial identity are closely intertwined, a deeper examination of both the historical roots and current mani- festation of this colorblindness is in order. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2017) uses data from interviews with White subjects to examine colorblindness as an organizing racial ideology in the US. While he does not name neoliberalism, specifically, its fingerprints are evident in the data he collects. He cites, for example, the fact that “Whites believe that minorities have the opportunities to succeed and that if they do not, it is because they do not try hard” (Bonilla-Silva 2017: 242). In this, the neoliberal notions of individualism (as opposed to societal or structural inequity) and personal success are highlighted as governing principles in the US. Bonilla-Silva (2017) also notes the tendency of Whites to highlight equality over equity, echoing yet another neoliberal ideal. By erasing (or at least minimizing) the relevance of race, colorblindness represents a discursive investment in the perpetuation of Whiteness. By claiming that race is “no longer an issue” or that “I don’t see color,” Whites negate the social implications of race, elevat- ing the individual (consistent with neoliberalism). They simultaneously posit Whiteness as the absence of race, reinforcing the very divide they claim does not exist. George Lipsitz (1995) contends that this discursive investment leads, ultimately, to a material investment in Whiteness as embodied by huge streams of capital flowing from public to private (and largely White) hands. 13 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal… Lipsitz (1995) continues to assert that this transfer of capital serves only to further fuel racist discourse, refocusing the White gaze away from broad societal inequities to deficits perceived to exist at the individual level. “As long as we define social life as the sum total of conscious and deliberate individual activities,” he writes, “the only individual manifes- tations of personal prejudice and hostility will be seen as racist. Systemic, collective, and coordinated behavior disappears from sight” (Lipsitz 1995: 381 (emphasis in the original)). The focus on the individual at the cost of the collective, in other words, allows racism to appear to Whites to be “solved,” contributing to the notion of a colorblind society. Like Bonilla-Silva, Lipsitz (1995) stops short of naming neoliberalism in these trends, but the intersection of privatization and individualism are consistent with its major themes. Building on Bonilla-Silva’s work on colorblind racial ideology, Timothy Lensmire (2014) submits that White racial identity is constructed through the stories that Whites tell themselves about “racial others.” These stories constitute a mythology grounded firmly in the founding of this country. Citing Ralph Ellison’s Going to the Territory (1986), Lens- mire (2014: 9) notes, “[f]or Ellison, then, what White people cannot live with is their social role as White people in the American drama, given that playing this role demands the betrayal of the sacred principle of equality. Wanting to believe in America, freedom, and equality, but confronted with the hard work and uncertainty of democracy, as well as massive inequality all around us, we scapegoat and stereotype people of color.” Lensmire’s (2014) reading of Ellison (1986) seems to frame the construction of White identity in con- trast or opposition to “other” racial identities as being grounded in the founding mythology of America. Insofar as neoliberalism is a foundational element of our current American mythology (Chomsky (1997) even refers at one point to the “gospel” of the free market— gospel and mythology go hand-in-hand), the NRP thus informs the construction of White identity in this way as well. Sylvia Wynter (1979) takes Lensmire’s (2014) reading of Ellison (1986) even further, arguing that the stories that White people tell about the roles that Black bodies are allowed to play (and thus about the very nature of Whiteness) are stereotypes born out of the inher- ent irony of America’s founding. The White creation of specific roles and stereotypes for Black bodies is a direct response, she notes, “to the need of the dual psyche of the white— as settler and as bearer of the egalitarian creed—to resolve the contradiction” (Wynter 1979:150). Once again, the foundational myths of America, and its internal contradictions, establish the rules and mechanisms by which Whiteness is created. These foundational myths, if not wholly one and the same, are certainly closely entwined with those of neolib- eralism, as each continually informs the evolution of the other. Interestingly, Wynter (1979), Lensmire (2014), and Ellison (1986) all highlight the essential American contradiction—the intentional creation of race-based inequities within the context of a rhetoric of universal equality. These American tropes are replicated in cur- rent manifestations of neoliberalism as well. As Chomsky (1997) points out, “free markets” are not really free from restriction, but rather free to do what those in power want. Simi- larly, colorblindness is anything but post-racial, despite its claims to the contrary (Bonilla- Silva 2017; Omi and Winant 2014). In this way, the myths of neoliberalism function not only as the actual mechanism for the constant reproduction of Whiteness (and thus white supremacy), but also as a metaphor—its own internal contradictions mirrored in so many other instances of racial formation in this country. Bonilla-Silva (2017), Lipsitz (1995), Lensmire (2014), and Wynter (1979) all explore the various mechanisms of construction of Whiteness. While this is, of course, critical to a deeper understanding of racism, it is also useful to interrogate the sites of that construc- tion as well. Bianca Baldridge (2017), Decoteau Irby (2014), and Bree Picower (2009) all 13 T. Taylor examine specifically how schools, in particular, function to recreate and reinforce notions of Whiteness and white supremacy, as well as how this is achieved primarily through either direct or indirect neoliberal means. Baldridge (2017) examines both how American neolib- eral tropes inform the narratives constructed about Black bodies in schools, while also pos- iting today’s schools as neoliberal sites of social reproduction. Specifically, the segregation manifested in most American schooling today is the consequence of both the discursive and material impacts of the wholesale adoption of the neoliberal mindset by the populace. Irby (2014) explores the ways stereotypes about race inform how Black male bodies are categorically policed, surveilled, and separated from White bodies, specifically White female bodies. His analysis, while not relying explicitly on neoliberalism, can be traced to the roots established by scholars, such as Wynter (1979) and Lensmire (2014). Similarly, Picower (2009) identifies various “tools of whiteness” used by teachers to further reinforce racial stereotypes and structures of white supremacy. These “tools,” she notes, represent the active ways in which Whiteness is reconstructed, and the imprint of neoliberal mythol- ogy (references to the “American Dream,” individualized deficit ideology, and colorblind- ness) can be found throughout her data. The work of both Irby (2014) and Picower (2009) highlights how even when not explicitly called out, neoliberalism serves as an effective lens for understanding the mechanisms by which Whiteness is constructed in schools. White supremacy is the building block of modern life in the US. As such, any attempt at interrupting its impact requires a framework for understanding how Whiteness (and thus white supremacy) is made and remade. Much like the rigid cells that make up the trunk of a tree, these structures of inequality are self-replicating—the blueprints for duplication self-contained within their DNA. Just as DNA defines what makes a tree cell a tree cell, so too, do the structures of white supremacy define what it means to White in the US. And just as enzymes and proteins function as critical mechanisms to support this continual rep- lication, neoliberalism provides both the material and discursive means for the continuing construction of Whiteness. In addition, given that neoliberalism functions, not as a narrowly defined set of prin- ciples, but as a tangled knot of mythological tropes and (mis)understandings about how America operates (Bockman 2013; Cahill et al. 2018), it stands to reason that an organiza- tion’s engagement with any single element of neoliberal ideology (an adherence to blind trust in market forces, for example) will, in turn, invoke its other co-located elements as well. In this way, it would appear that any application of neoliberal ideology becomes, quite simply, another layer deposited in America’s continually growing hegemony of Whiteness. The NRP in Independent Schools Insofar as neoliberalism has been an oft-used tool for the analysis and critique of school choice programs (Buras and Apple 2005), it is appropriate to apply this lens to the small, yet powerfully situated segment of the educational landscape that independent schools rep- resent. Recognizing the changing nature of the education landscape, the increase in choices for families, and the ever-increasing cost of independent schools, NAIS recently con- ducted a study to examine the underlying reasons behind why families choose independent schools (Torres 2019). In completing this study, NAIS employed a methodology known as the “Jobs-to-Be-Done” framework (or “JTBD”). Using this approach, researchers at NAIS conducted interviews with a number of families who recently made enrollment deci- sions that involved independent schools. This methodology was imported from the busi- ness world where it is employed by companies as they attempt to gain a greater sense of 13 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal… their customers’ desires as they select products or services (Bettencourt and Ulwick 2008; Christensen et al. 2016). According to NAIS, “[o]ne of the key aspects of the JTBD meth- odology is the belief that parents do not buy school products and brands, but rather they ‘hire’ and ‘fire’ schools to perform a ‘job’ for them” (Torres 2019). After conducting almost fifty interviews with families either currently enrolled in, or having recently left, independent schools, NAIS coded and organized the results in a pro- cess consistent with the JTBD framework. NAIS’s research revealed four “jobs” for which parents “hire” independent schools. These “jobs,” quoted below from Torres’s (2019) arti- cle, are imagined from the vantage point of a perspective parent, unsatisfied with their child’s current school setting, seeking “help” with a new school placement: • Job 1: When a school is failing my child, either academically or by not providing a safe learning environment, help me find a school that will address those obstacles so I can ensure that my child will not fall further behind and will eventually thrive in school. • Job 2: When I have a child who is intelligent and emotionally mature, help me find a school that will ensure my child’s continued growth so he or she will fulfill his or her potential, mature, and be prepared for college. • Job 3: When a school is focused almost solely on test scores and academic cur- riculum, help me find a school that will focus on my child’s social and emotional development, so I can be sure that my child will be a well-rounded and productive member of society. • Job 4: When my child has talents that must be cultivated and I have a select set of acceptable colleges, help me find a school with an excellent academic program and outstanding reputation so I can ensure that my child gets into one of the select set of schools and fulfills his or her potential. Accompanying the description of each job in the report is a series of other considerations designed to offer greater insight into how each job might be applied better understand the school’s place in the market. At the outset, NAIS’s mere selection of this framework as a tool for analyzing its data reveals an embedded assumption that parents who select independent schools are, first and foremost, customers. This key, un-named belief of NAIS is framed by Christopher Tien- ken (2013) as “educational consumerism.” According to Tienken (2013: 304), “[e]ducation consumerism proponents allude that parents should be able to select their child’s educa- tion delivery model as they see fit, regardless of the potential unintended consequences to democracy such as economic and racial balkanization or segregation.” Thus, even before analyzing the data it collected, NAIS has, through their particular selection of analytical framework, made clear its stance regarding school choice, highlighting its investment in the neoliberal structures that support independent schools. While the selection of a market-based framework to analyze qualitative data certainly points to embedded neoliberal assumptions, a closer examination of the four specific “jobs” that emerge in the NAIS findings (along with their accompanying descriptions) reveals an even deeper reliance on the rhetoric, imagery, and mythology of neoliberalism. One theme that emerges clearly in each of the four “jobs” is that of individual meri- tocracy. Embedded in these descriptions is language that implies that students need only work hard in the right setting in order to succeed. In particular, Job 4 utilizes rhetoric that centers the “Talented Child” and positions the school as a tool to be used for personal gain through hard work. Even when the language of the “jobs” does highlight the challenges faced by students, those challenges tend to be articulated at the individual level, rather than 13 T. Taylor at a more macro level. By ignoring the system-level barriers to achievement (specifically, institutional racism and hegemonic white supremacy), these “jobs” center the accomplish- ments of individual students as the key determining factor of a family’s decision about school. The implication is that all that matters is an individual student’s achievement and that school choice will hinge on the organization’s ability to support that achievement. This focus, though likely unintentional, reinforces and reifies the neoliberal logic govern- ing much of the country today. The deliberate shift of focus away from systemic barriers to individual achievement also reinforces a colorblind racial ideology that is so often co- located with neoliberalism and erases the significance of race, thus reinforcing the power of Whiteness (Bonilla-Silva 2017). This meritocratic and credential-focused language rests alongside examples of a fiercely individualistic stance that tends to devalue a socially- or communally-defined ethic in favor of individuals. Certainly, parents who choose an independent school are exercising choice in support of their own family, withdrawing their financial and social capital from the commu- nity-based public school system. But in making that choice, they also reinforce language and rhetoric that positions schools as mechanisms designed to support individuals, not communi- ties. One example of this language is, “[s]ome parents view the school as simply a means to an end, and that end is getting the child into the absolute best college” (Torres 2019). In addition, phrases such as, “[m]y child can have the attention he or she needs,” or “my child can thrive in a school that will cater to his or her unique learning needs,” or “my child is intelligent and well-rounded,” highlight the focus on individual rather than community needs (Torres 2019). In fact, of the four “jobs” described in this report, only one, Job 3, refers at all to any interaction with the community. Even this reference to encouraging “interaction with the local community,” however, is framed in the self-serving terms of neoliberalism. In that vein, Job 3 reflects the belief that “[d]iversity of people, thought, and culture is more important than academic reputation” and “parents are willing to travel farther or invest time or money” (Torres 2019). This framing of diversity and community engage- ment as commodities to be purchased to improve the experience of the largely White stu- dent population is fundamentally neoliberal in nature. The fact that families are willing to invest more time and money in order to achieve this end only further exemplifies what Lipsitz (2018) refers to as the “investment in whiteness.” By opting for the market and by framing education primarily as the conferring of individual advantage, families are opting to invest in a neoliberal construct, and thus in the ongoing construction of Whiteness. While this analysis focuses on how the JTBD language can be viewed through the lens of neoliberalism and the NRP, it is also worth noting that the NAIS report highlights another element of why parents choose independent schools. As Yosso (2005) posits, while schools do reproduce cultural capital, they do so in only a narrow, largely Eurocentric man- ner. These findings reveal, in fact, that parents are often actively searching for precisely this narrow version of cultural capital, seeking “a community with like-minded students and families” (Torres 2019). Thus, though it is largely unexamined by the organization, NAIS celebrates its own continual reproduction of Whiteness as evidenced by the cultural capital it upholds as a commodity to be purchased. Moreover, the organization’s stance on choice and educational consumerism (and thus the NRP) was also made manifest when, in 2013, it named John Chubb, formerly of Edison Learning, as its president. Chubb had been a fellow at the Brookings Institution prior to his appointment to NAIS and during that time, he co-authored a book touting the merits of school choice, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (Chubb and Moe 1990). In their discussion of private schools as a segment of the American educational landscape, Chubb and Moe (1990: 27) point out: 13 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal… All schools in the private sector, however, have two important institutional features in common: society does not control them directly through democratic politics, and society does control them—indirectly—through the marketplace. This is what makes the private sector distinctively different from the public sector as an institutional set- ting for schools. It seems evident that in describing the very nature of independent schools, the then-future president of NAIS espouses an ideology that diminishes the popular voice while simultane- ously elevating the power of the market. The rhetoric exemplified in the above quotation is not only representative of the line of argumentation present in the entire book, but is also entirely consistent with that of neoliberalism, again further solidifying the ways in which neoliberal doctrine imbues the very existence of independent schools. Another phenomenon that emerges in examining the language used by NAIS is a persis- tent contradiction between rhetoric and practice. As noted above, the independent school community writes often about valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion in its schools, exam- ining how to increase the numbers of students and faculty of color in their buildings, and how best to create inclusive school environments (Balaven 2018; McAdoo 2018; Tan- nous and Moore 2012). These claims notwithstanding, the persistent neoliberal tone that emerges in this report reveals the degree to which NAIS has not grappled, at a fundamental level, with its own role in the construction of Whiteness and the perpetuation of racial hegemony. This contradiction is inherent in Rhee’s (2013: 580) conceptualization of the NRP, as she recognizes how “neoliberalism builds silently on the structural conditions of racism while disabling the very categories that would make this racism recognizable.” Wil- son and Scarbrough (2018) examine precisely this neoliberal contradiction as it pertains to two specific schools. It seems clear, however, that this phenomenon exists at the national level as well. Conclusion: What is the Path Forward? In light of the deeply embedded and largely unexamined neoliberal ideologies in the foun- dation of NAIS (and thus in independent schools as a broadly constructed segment of the education landscape), it would appear that such schools are fundamentally problematic spaces. Neoliberalism and its attendant beliefs about the market, individual control, and meritocracy are existential elements of independent schools and, thus, any attempt at con- structing an inclusive space or decolonizing community will face immediate challenges. These barriers notwithstanding, independent schools are, in some ways, uniquely posi- tioned to become culturally responsive (Ladson-Billings 1995) or even culturally sustain- ing (Ladson-Billings 2014; Paris 2012) spaces. Unfettered by external curricular, fund- ing, or enrollment mandates, independent schools are free to create time for and allocate resources to the deliberate creation of equitable and just communities. The first step in this process is for school leaders to engage in what Khalifa (2018) refers to as “critical self-reflection.” According to Khalifa (2018: 60), “[b]ecause schools automatically reproduce oppressive structures unless challenged, it is important for us to look at how culturally responsive leaders initiate the processes of critical self- reflection for the entire school.” In order for schools to progress, they and their leaders must be willing to hold the mirror up to themselves and engage critically with the prob- lematic elements of their existence. All schools carry forward institutional racism and 13 T. Taylor structures of white supremacy in their own ways. For independent schools, this is done, at least in part, through an unquestioned reliance on neoliberal ideology, which in turn allows for White racial identity to continually be upheld and reconstructed. One area that should serve as the focus of this self-reflection for independent schools is the question of Whiteness itself and what Zeus Leonardo (2009: 107) refers to as “the myth of white ignorance.” For Leonardo (2009: 107),“[a] critical reading of whiteness means that white ignorance must be problematized, not in order to expose whites as simply racist but to increase knowledge about their full participation in race relations. It also means that the racial formation must be read into the practices and texts that stu- dents and teachers negotiate with each other.” In other words, educators have an obliga- tion to question racial hegemony and its ongoing formation in schools. As Leonardo (2009) points out, an examination of pedagogy and curriculum is also needed. As schools grapple with their existence as perpetuators of hegemonic racial ide- ology, they must examine their internal practices with an eye toward questioning whose culture carries weight, is valued, or is devalued (Ladson-Billings 2000, 2014; Yosso 2005). Doing this effectively requires meaningful engagement with the larger com- munity outside of the schools. As Khalifa (2018: 161) contends, “[f]or teachers to be able to recognize the cultural assets and capital that minoritized students possess, they must turn to the community; they cannot fully learn this cultural knowledge from books, university professors, or principals.” Schools must partner with parents, community, and students themselves as they examine and reconstruct their teaching materials and practices. Here, though, is an area in which independent schools may have an advantage. As Leonardo (2009: 153) points out, “[s]ome schools, particularly charter schools, have made attempts to create culturally responsive curricula that value and engage the cul- tures of the student body… this has been one strategy to bridge the cultural divide between schools and students of color....” What Leonardo (2009) claims as true for charter schools is also true for independent schools. The curricular freedom such schools have positions them well for crafting an educational environment that explicitly responds to these needs. This approach is not without challenges, however. As has been evident in recent years, schools and districts that have attempted such deliberate interruption and inter- rogation of white supremacy have faced fierce parental backlash (Kersten 2017). Here, again, independent schools have an advantage. As Buras and Apple (2005) point out, while neoliberal ideology would lead one to expect that private schools must be more responsive to parental demands (“paying customers are always right”), in fact, the oppo- site is true. They conclude that “although private schools have no obligation to edu- cate children whose parents seem overly interventionist, public schools do have an obli- gation....” (Buras and Apple 2005: 554–555). Thus, private schools who find parents unwilling to accept moves toward culturally- responsive schooling are free to draw a line in the sand, so to speak, and assert firmly and positively a philosophy of education that is explicitly anti-racist, decolonizing, and cultur- ally affirming. In light of the problematic elements of neoliberal ideology evident in the structures of independent schools, it is not merely a freedom they have to construct their environment in this way, but in fact an obligation. 13 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal… References Balaven, K. (2018). Measuring inclusion: A dashboard approach. Independent School Magazine, Fall. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/fall-2018/measu ring-inclusion-a-dashboard-approach/. Baldridge, B. J. (2017). “It’s like this Myth of the Supernegro”: resisting narratives of damage and struggle in the neoliberal educational policy context. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(6), 781-795. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248819. Berkman, J. S. (2009). Mann’s democratic vision and school choice. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(2), 251-256. Bettencourt, L. A., & Ulwick, A. W. (2008). The customer-centered innovation map. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 109. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from http://www.iimagineservicedesign.com/wp-conte nt/uploads/2015/09/Customer-Centred-Innovation-Map.pdf. Bockman, J. (2013). Neoliberalism. Contexts, 12(3), 14-15. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2017). Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Ine- quality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, E. (2017). Key Democratic senator outlines a case against school vouchers. The Washington Post, March 22. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/key- democratic-senator-outlines-a-case-against-school-vouchers/2017/03/21/12e894de-0e68-11e7-9d5a- a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.948587b65260. Buras, K. L., & Apple, M. W. (2005). School Choice, Neoliberal Promises, and Unpromising Evidence. Educational Policy, 19(3), 550-564. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276146. Cahill, D., Cooper, M., Konings, M., & Primrose, D. (2018). Introduction: Approaches to Neoliberalism. In D. Cahill, M. Cooper, M. Konings & D. Primrose (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Neoliberalism (pp. xxviii-xxxiii). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416001.n1 Chomsky, N. (1997). Neoliberalism & The Global Order. Retrieved on April 15, 2019, from https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=jnc1Ay6X1bg. Christensen, C. M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Know your customers’ jobs to be done. Harvard Business Review, 94(9), 54–62. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from https://blogs.baruch.cuny. edu/ibmwatson2019/files/2019/02/Know-your-customer-Jobs-to-be-done-Chrstensen.pdf. Chua, A. (2011). Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: Penguin. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Cookson, P. W., & Persell, C. H. (1991). Race and Class in America’s Elite Preparatory Boarding Schools: African Americans as the “Outsiders Within.” The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 219. doi:https:// doi.org/10.2307/2295612. Deal, T. E. (1991). Private Schools: Bridging Mr. Chips and My Captain. Teachers College Record, 92(3), 415–424. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2007). Negotiating Identity in a Bubble: A Critical Race Analysis of African Ameri- can High School Students’ Experiences in an Elite, Independent School. Equity & Excellence in Edu- cation, 40(1), 26–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680601093507. Edelman, J., & Weingarten, R. (2017). School vouchers don’t just undermine public schools, the undermine our democracy. Los Angeles Times, May 31. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from https://www.latimes.com/ opinion/op-ed/la-oe-edelman-weingarten-school-vouchers-20170531-story.html. Ellison, R. (1986). Going to the Territory. New York: Vintage. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Honig, B. (1992). Why privatizing public education is a bad idea. In P. R. Kane (Ed.), Independent schools, independent thinkers (pp. 358–368). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Horvat, E. M., & Antonio, A. L. (1999). “Hey, those shoes are out of uniform”: African American girls in an elite high school and the importance of habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(3), 317–342. Irby, D. J. (2014). Revealing Racial Purity Ideology. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 783–795. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x14549958 Kane, P. R. (2009). Privatization and school choice: Introduction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(2), 241–242. Kersten, K. (2017). Racial identity politics are ruining Edina’s fabled schools. Star Tribune, October 9. Retrieved on May 1, 2019, from http://www.startribune.com/racial-identity-policies-are-ruining-edina -s-fabled-schools/449825893/. 13 T. Taylor Khalifa, M. (2018). Culturally Responsive School Leadership (Race and Education). Cambridge, MA: Har- vard Education Press. Kuriloff, P., & Reichert, M. C. (2003). Boys of class, boys of color: Negotiating the academic and social geography of an elite independent school. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 751–769. Ladd, H. F. (2002). School vouchers: A critical view. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 3–24. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized Discourses and Ethnic Epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 257–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Landis, K. (2019). Does School Choice Increase Diversity at Independent Schools? The Verdict Is Still Out. Diversity IS, Summer (May 2), 50–53. Retrieved on January 21, 2021, from https://diversityis.com/ does-school-choice-increase-diversity-at-independent-schools-the-verdict-is-still-out. Lensmire, T. J. (2014). White Men’s Racial Others. Teachers College Record, 116(3), n3. Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. New York: Routledge. Lipsitz, G. (1995). The possessive investment in whiteness: Racialized social democracy and the ‘white’problem in American studies. American Quarterly, 47(3), 369–387. Lipsitz, G. (2018). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Malone, C. (2019). Political Confessional: I Think Private Schools Should Be Banned. FiveThirtyEight, April 29. Retrieved on April 29, 2019, from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/political-confessional- i-think-private-schools-should-be-banned/amp/. McAdoo, P. (2018). Online Exclusive: What Does It Take To Be Truly Inclusive? Independent School Mag- azine, Fall. Retrieved on April 29, 2019, from https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/fall- 2018/online-exclusive-what-does-it-take-to-truly-be-inclusive/. NAIS. (2019a). About NAIS. Retrieved on May 5, 2019, from https://www.nais.org/about/about-nais/. NAIS. (2019b). NAIS: Vision & Values. Retrieved on May 5, 2019, from https://www.nais.org/about/visio n-and-values/. NAIS. (2019c). School Data Survey, [Data File]. Retrieved on May 5, 2019, from https://dasl.nais.org. Neves, V. (2018). Choice and competition in education. Análise Social, 53(227), 260–279. Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014). Racial Formation in the United States (third ed.). New York: Routledge. Painter, N. I. (2020). Why ‘White” should be capitalized, too. The Washington Post, July 22 . Retrieved on July 26, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/22/why-white-should-be-capit alized/. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189x12441244. Peshkin, A. (2001). Permissible advantage?: The moral consequences of elite schooling. New York: Routledge. Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: how White teachers maintain and enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215. doi:https://doi. org/10.1080/13613320902995475. Ravitch, D. (2000). The Great School Wars. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. New York: Vintage. Ravitch, D. (2018). Charter Schools damage public education. The Washington Post, June 22. Retrieved on April 29, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charter-schools-are-leading-to-an- unhealthy-divide-in-american-education/2018/06/22/73430df8-7016-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story .html?utm_term=.c2da63d5f67e. Rhee, J. E. (2013). The neoliberal racial project: The tiger mother and governmentality. Educational Theory, 63(6), 561–580. Tannous, J., & Moore, S. (2012). Organizing Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives at Private Institutions (Cus- tom Research Brief). Washington, DC: Education Advisory Board. Retrieved on November 8, 2018, from www.educationadvisoryboard.com. Tienken, C. H. (2013). Neoliberalism, Social Darwinism, and Consumerism Masquerading as School Reform. Interchange, 43(4), 295–316. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-013-9178-y. Torres, A. (2019). Research Insights: Why Parents Choose Independent Schools. Independent School Maga- zine, Winter. Retrieved on March 19, 2019, from https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/ winter-2019/research-insights-why-parents-choose-independent-schools/#.XJAw119hCT8.email. 13 Independent School Rhetoric and its Role in the Neoliberal… Willis, P. E., & Willis, P. P. (1981). Learning to Labor. New York: Columbia University Press. Wilson, M. A. F., & Scarbrough, B. (2018). Neoliberal contradictions in two private niches of educa- tional ‘choice’. Critical Studies in Education, 59(1), 74–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17508 487.2016.1167756 Wynter, S. (1979). Sambos and minstrels. Social Text, 1, 149–156. Yancy, G. (2019). Why White People Need Blackface. The New York Times, March 4. Retrieved on March 5, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/blackface-racism.html. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/136133205200034 1006. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 13
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-