The Bigotry of Low Expectations

Eliminating magnet schools and abolishing standards hurts Black students

Education

THE BIGOTRY OF LOW EXPECTATIONS

Eliminating magnet schools and abolishing standards hurts Black students

Brandy Shufutinsky

Until about 160 years ago Black American labor was used to benefit the few, especially a small group of privileged white landowners. Today, we are still being used. Progressive academics, activists, and political leaders are constantly exploiting Black Americans as living, breathing excuses for policies that benefit progressives and their constituents but fail Black people. 

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has set his sights on eliminating high-achieving magnet schools in the name of equity. Currently, academically gifted students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are able to compete for entrance into high-achieving schools. One need not guess why some Black parents welcome this opportunity for their children. After all, only 17% of Black students are proficient in reading and even fewer (7%) demonstrate proficiency in math. Moreover, in 2022, fewer than 10% of Black third-grade students and just under 11% of low-income third-grade students could read at grade level. These dismal figures entail that a great many talented Black students in Chicago must suffer through classes geared not to them but to their illiterate and innumerate peers. Magnet schools offer these talented students a way out. One would think that policy makers committed to providing access to quality education for all students, not just the ones whose parents were able to send them to private schools, would increase the number of high-achieving schools, rather than eliminate them. 

So, why would Mayor Johnson want to eliminate one of the few opportunities for gifted but economically disadvantaged students to access quality education? Well, according to Chicago Public Schools Board CEO, Pedro Martinez, allowing gifted students access to quality education causes “stratification and inequity in Chicago Public Schools.” One has to wonder whether this excuse (as incoherent as it is) is sincere or whether it reflects instead a cynical push to discard selective schools that have proven to be top-tier nationally because these schools compete directly with the union-led public school system. 

In Portland, Oregon education leaders are planning to roll out a system of equitable grading that calls for teachers to consider “non-academic factors” when grading student work. Portland Public School Chief Academic Officer Kimberlee Armstrong, a supporter of the policy, argues that in order to address “biases” educators must, wait for it, engage in bias themselves, by “considering the diverse backgrounds and needs of students.” Just how does considering background rather than correct answers and knowledge acquisition reduce bias? 

Oregon’s student literacy rates are slightly better than Chicago’s but still fewer than half of students read at grade level, with Black student literacy hovering around 26%. Yet rather than provide students with the necessary resources to achieve basic literacy, Oregon policymakers are simply eliminating any method of measuring student achievement. 

We must ask ourselves, who gets lost in educational politicking? Students who desire a quality education are being sacrificed at the altar of progressive policies that do them more harm than good. When I was in the third grade my teacher suggested I be tested for the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program. I was attending an under-resourced, high-poverty school where the majority of students qualified for the free-lunch program, including me. My GATE score allowed me access to all of the resources that I would otherwise have missed because my socioeconomic circumstance did not allow for tutors or extracurricular activities, let alone private school tuition. Fast-forward a few decades and instead of providing support for students who find themselves in a situation similar to mine, policy makers are relegating them to mediocrity. 

Who benefits from policies that disenfranchise the most vulnerable students? Many organizations that claim to work to improve student achievement by using equity-based practices have sprouted up over recent years. They offer services to school districts, providing teacher training and curricular materials with a stated goal not of teaching students the knowledge and skills they need to succeed but of “building social justice starting in the classroom.” These organizations are very successful in using our public schools to build their client base and sell their obviously political goals of equity and social justice. When it comes to improving student achievement, however, their results are dismal. Policies that eliminate access to quality education, lower standards and reframe what knowledge is will not help Black students, it will harm them. Politicizing education by lowering expectations is a racist endeavor that denies Black Americans the credit they rightly deserve for overcoming obstacles and reaching the highest levels of success. It’s the bigotry of low expectations.

---

Brandy Shufutinsky is a social worker, writer, researcher, and advocate. She holds her Doctorate in International and Multicultural Education from the University of San Francisco, her MSW from the University of Southern California, and her MA in International Relations from the University of San Diego. Dr. Shufutinsky has worked towards advancing the rights of victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault through practice, education, and research, and is now focusing her advocacy on developing intercultural and academic opportunities to enhance liberal democratic ideals as the director of education and community engagement with the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values. Follow her on Twitter.