Teach Out Summaries

In “Colorblindness is the New Racism,” Armstrong and Wildman argue that the idea of being colorblind does not eliminate racism but instead helps maintain it. They explain that ignoring race overlooks the real and ongoing experiences of people of color and prevents meaningful conversations about inequality. By treating whiteness as an unspoken norm, colorblindness allows systems of privilege to continue without being challenged. The authors emphasize that legal and educational institutions often reinforce this issue by avoiding deeper discussions about power and race. They propose “color insight” as a more effective approach, encouraging people to recognize racial differences, examine structural inequalities, and actively work toward equity.

In her TED Talk “Color Blind or Color Brave?”, Mellody Hobson argues that avoiding conversations about race does more harm than good. She explains that while talking about race can feel uncomfortable, that discomfort is necessary in order to address inequality. Through personal stories and examples, she shows that racial bias continues to shape everyday interactions and opportunities. Hobson challenges the idea that not seeing race leads to fairness, instead arguing that it hides disparities in areas like employment and leadership. She encourages people to become “color brave” by openly acknowledging race, seeking diverse perspectives, and taking intentional steps to create more inclusive environments.

Simplified Versions:

In “Colorblindness is the New Racism,” the authors say that pretending we do not see people’s skin color does not make unfair treatment go away. When we ignore differences, we miss the ways some people are treated unfairly every day. Saying we do not see race can make it harder to fix these problems and keeps some people in charge just because of how they look. The authors suggest that instead of ignoring differences, we should notice them, understand how unfair rules or systems can hurt people, and try to make things fair for everyone.

In her TED Talk “Color Blind or Color Brave?”, Mellody Hobson says that avoiding talking about race can actually make problems worse. She explains that it can feel a little uncomfortable to talk about differences, but it is important if we want everyone to be treated fairly. She shares stories about times when people were treated differently because of how they look. She says that saying we do not see race does not make things fair and can hide unfairness. Instead, we should be “color brave” by noticing differences, listening to people who have different experiences, and taking action to make sure everyone feels included and respected.

Teach Out Reflection

For my teach-out presentation, I chose to explore the idea of colorblindness and how it relates to race by having a small group conversation with two seven-year-old girls, Ryan and Nala. This project was based on the article “Colorblindness is the New Racism” by Armstrong and Wildman and Mellody Hobson’s TED Talk, “Colorblind or Color Brave?” Both sources challenge the idea that ignoring race helps create equality. Instead, they argue that we need to recognize and talk about race in order to build understanding and fairness. I wanted to take these ideas and see what it would look like to talk about them with young children in a way that felt natural and appropriate for their age.

I chose this project because I think it is really important to start these conversations early. Kids notice differences whether adults talk about them or not. They see differences in skin color, families, and experiences, and they try to make sense of those things on their own. From what I learned in this course, avoiding conversations about race does not actually help. It can lead to confusion or reinforce unfair ideas. I wanted to create a space where kids could talk openly about differences and think about them in a positive way. Ryan and Nala were a great pair for this conversation because they come from different backgrounds but are the same age. Nala is an African American girl who goes to public school and lives with her mom and her mom’s girlfriend. Ryan is a white girl who goes to Moses Brown and lives with her mom, dad, and older brother. Their different experiences gave me a chance to see how kids think about identity and difference, while still being able to relate to each other as peers.

To do this teach-out, I set up a casual conversation while the girls colored. I wanted the setting to feel relaxed and not like a formal lesson. Coloring gave them something to do with their hands and made it easier for them to talk freely. This connects to what we learned in class about working with young children. They tend to open up more when they are comfortable and engaged in an activity. I asked simple, open-ended questions to guide the conversation. I started with questions about fairness and differences, like asking if they think everyone is treated the same and what makes people different. When I asked about differences and similarities, both girls clearly showed that they notice both. They pointed out things like hair color and texture, skin color, and height. Nala was the one who directly named skin color, which stood out to me. At the same time, they also talked about similarities, like how they both like to play, laugh, have fun, and get picked up by their parents at the end of the day. This showed that they are already balancing ideas of difference and connection in a very natural way.

I asked whether they thought it was better to ignore differences or talk about them. Both girls said it is better to notice differences and talk about them in a nice way. Ryan explained that being kind is important for making friends and that it is good to be friends with people who are different from you. This response really connected to the idea of being “color brave.” Even at a young age, she was able to express that differences do not have to be a barrier to connection. This difference in how the girls talked about race connected to the ideas from the article and the TED Talk. The idea of being colorblind often shows up as avoiding talking about race. Ryan sometimes spoke more generally, while Nala was more direct in naming race. This made me think about how their different experiences may shape how comfortable they feel discussing these topics.

I also asked the girls if they had ever seen someone being left out. Both said yes. Nala shared that she sometimes gets left out during recess because some boys do not want to play with girls. She said this makes her feel sad and that it is not fair because girls are good at games like tag too. This moment was especially important because it showed how early children begin to experience unfairness and exclusion. It also connected to larger ideas about equity and who gets included or excluded in different spaces. When I asked what they would do if they saw someone being left out, both girls had thoughtful responses. Ryan said she would invite the person to play with her. Nala said she would encourage the group to make sure everyone gets a turn. These responses showed that they are already thinking about fairness and inclusion in active ways, not just as ideas but as actions.

We also talked about times when someone had been kind to them. Ryan shared that someone once let her use their colored pencils when she did not have any. Nala talked about how someone invited her to sit at their lunch table when she first moved to a new school. These examples highlighted how small acts of inclusion can have a big impact, especially for children. It reinforced the idea that building community often starts with simple, everyday choices. Another idea that came up in our conversation was learning from others. One of the girls said that people might know things that we do not, and that we can learn new things from each other. This idea felt especially meaningful because it reflects the value of diversity in a very clear and simple way. Instead of seeing differences as something to ignore, they began to see them as something that can add to their own understanding.

One thing that stood out to me was how open and honest the girls were. They did not seem uncomfortable talking about differences. They were curious and willing to share their thoughts. This made me realize that a lot of the discomfort around talking about race comes from adults, not children. Kids are often ready to have these conversations if we give them the chance.

This project was strongly influenced by what I learned in this course. One of the biggest takeaways for me was the importance of not avoiding difficult topics. Talking about race can feel uncomfortable, but it is necessary if we want to create more understanding and fairness. I also learned that teaching for equity is not just about big lessons. It can happen in small, everyday conversations like this one. Another important idea from the course is that identity has many parts. While this project focused mostly on race, the girls also brought different family experiences into the conversation. Nala’s family looks different from Ryan’s, and that added another layer to how they think about differences. It helped show that diversity is not just about race, but about many aspects of people’s lives.

Looking back, I think this project went well. The girls were engaged, and the conversation felt natural. I was able to introduce important ideas in a way that made sense to them. At the same time, I think I could improve by planning a few more specific prompts or doing more than one session. Having more time might allow for deeper conversations and help me see how their thinking changes over time.

Overall, this experience showed me that it is possible to talk about race with young children in a meaningful way. They are capable of understanding more than we sometimes expect. By creating a space where they feel comfortable, we can help them think about differences in a positive and thoughtful way. 

One Size Fits None: Neurodiversity in Education

Neurodiversity is one of those terms I keep hearing more and more, especially from kids and teens who are trying to make sense of how they think and learn. The more I sit with it, the more it makes sense to me. At its core, it’s the idea that there isn’t just one “right” way for a brain to work. Differences like ADHD, autism, or dyslexia aren’t just problems that need to be fixed. They’re part of normal human variation. When I connect that to what Lisa Delpit talks about, along with Renkly and Bertolini in Shifting the Paradigm, it feels like part of a much bigger shift in how we think about education as a whole.

The concept itself came from Judy Singer, who was trying to challenge the stigma around autism and other neurological differences. That stood out to me because it completely reframes the conversation. Instead of asking “what’s wrong with this student,” it pushes us to ask what’s going on in the environment around them. That shift feels important. If a classroom is rigid, loud, or doesn’t allow for flexibility, it’s not going to work for a lot of students, not just ones who identify as neurodivergent.

That idea lines up a lot with what Shifting the Paradigm is getting at. Schools tend to have a narrow definition of what success looks like, and if you don’t fit into that, you’re automatically seen as struggling. That never sat right with me. Neurodiversity pushes back on that by pointing out that those same students often have real strengths, like creativity, deep focus, or just thinking about things in a different way. That connects to Delpit’s argument about valuing what students bring with them instead of focusing only on what they lack.

At the same time, I don’t think it’s as simple as just saying “everyone’s different” and leaving it there. Delpit’s idea of the “codes of power” still matters. Students are still expected to function in systems that weren’t designed with them in mind. That tension feels real to me. On one hand, students should be supported for who they are. On the other, they still need tools to navigate the systems they’re in, whether those systems are fair or not.

A lot of this comes down to environment. The more I think about it, the more it feels like many of the challenges students face aren’t about ability, but about how classrooms are set up. Strict schedules, one way of completing assignments, or even just overwhelming physical spaces can make learning harder than it needs to be. Shifting the Paradigm really pushes educators to look at those barriers and rethink them instead of expecting students to just adjust.

Another piece that stands out to me is how more students are starting to describe themselves as “neurodivergent.” I can see why that would matter. Having language to explain your experiences can make a big difference, especially when things have felt confusing or isolating. At the same time, I also recognize that formal diagnoses still play an important role when it comes to accessing support, so there’s a balance there that can’t be ignored.

Overall, neurodiversity doesn’t feel like a passing trend to me. It feels like a shift in perspective that actually challenges how we define learning and success. When I think about it alongside Delpit and Shifting the Paradigm, it really comes down to rethinking who our systems are built for and what it would look like to create classrooms that work for more students, not just the ones who already fit the mold.

Cooking as Care: Shared Plates, Shared Power

One of the most striking things about “Recipes for Resistance: Students, Families, and Teachers Confront ICE Through Community” is how it presents resistance in a way I had not really considered before. When I first started reading, I expected it to be heavy, and it is, because the reality these families are living in is incredibly serious. However, what surprised me most was how much of the response to that fear was rooted in connection, care, and even joy. That contrast is what made the article so emotional for me.

What stood out right away was the way the community chose to come together instead of pulling apart. In situations where fear is so present, it would make sense for people to isolate themselves or stay quiet. Instead, families, students, and teachers created spaces where people could gather, share food, and support one another. The idea of using recipes as a form of resistance really stayed with me. Food is not just something people eat. It carries culture, memory, and identity. When these families shared recipes, they were also sharing pieces of themselves, which felt like a powerful way of refusing to be reduced to fear.

This connects closely to Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” Delpit discusses how schools often fail to truly listen to the voices of families of color, especially when those voices do not align with dominant expectations of communication or knowledge. Reading this article, I kept thinking about how different this situation felt. Instead of being ignored or spoken for, families were actively shaping what was happening in their school community. Their knowledge and experiences were not treated as secondary, which is something Delpit argues is often the case. I also connected this to a short article posted on the site Edutopia. The school written about in Recipes for Resistance put multiple strategies from Edutopia in practice. Of the five strategies listed, the DC elementary skill utilized makinc communication accessible for all families, making efforts to lear about families' culture and identities, making it easy for families to participate in events, and helping students and families see themselves reflected in the school community.

Another idea that stood out to me was the role of teachers in the article. Delpit emphasizes how important it is for educators to actually listen to students and families rather than assuming they already know what is best. In this case, teachers were not trying to take control or position themselves as the sole authority. They were part of the community, supporting and participating in ways that felt collaborative rather than hierarchical. This felt important because it showed what it looks like when educators step back and make space for others to lead.

I was also really struck by the presence of joy throughout the article. Given the topic, I expected the focus to be almost entirely on fear and uncertainty. While those elements are definitely there, they are not the only thing present. There are moments of laughter, sharing, and warmth that feel just as important. This surprised me because it challenged my assumption that resistance in situations like this has to be serious and somber at all times. Instead, joy becomes part of the resistance itself. It shows that even in difficult circumstances, people can still create spaces where they feel connected and supported.

Delpit’s work also helped me think about this idea more deeply. She writes about how harmful it is when students are expected to leave parts of their identity behind in order to succeed in school. In this article, the opposite is happening. Families and students are bringing their full identities into the space, and those identities are being valued rather than suppressed. This creates a very different kind of environment, one where people are not just reacting to fear but actively building something meaningful together.

Overall, what made this article so impactful for me was not just the situation it described, but the way people responded to it. It showed that resistance does not always have to look like confrontation or protest in the traditional sense. It can also look like community, shared experiences, and making space for voices that are often ignored. That is what made it feel so powerful and, honestly, what made it so emotional to read.

Reading, Writing, and... Resistance?

In 1867, right after the Civil War, an editorial in Harper’s Weekly said that “the alphabet is abolitionist.” At the time, that wasn’t just a catchy line. Teaching formerly enslaved people to read and write was directly tied to freedom. Literacy meant access to power, knowledge, and participation in society. It was a big deal.

Reading “Right-Wing Legislators Are Trying to Stop Us from Teaching for Racial Justice. We Refuse.” by the Editors of Rethinking Schools, it’s hard not to think about how that idea still applies today. No one is trying to ban reading anymore, but there are real efforts to control what students are allowed to learn about history and society. It’s less about the alphabet now and more about what students are encouraged, or allowed, to understand about the world.

The article talks about laws popping up in different states that limit how teachers can discuss race, gender, and inequality. On the surface, these laws are framed as keeping classrooms fair and unbiased. That sounds fine at first. But the authors argue that the language in these laws is so vague that it ends up discouraging teachers from talking about anything meaningful at all. If you cannot say whether systems or institutions can be racist, then how do you explain why inequality exists?

Students definitely notice that inequality. They see differences in wealth, healthcare, education, and the criminal justice system. They ask questions, which is the whole point of school. But according to the article, these laws can make it risky for teachers to answer honestly. So instead of encouraging curiosity and critical thinking, the system starts to push toward silence or oversimplified answers.

What I found interesting is how the article connects this to bigger political patterns. The authors are basically saying this is not just about classrooms. It is tied to things like voter suppression and the underfunding of public schools. The idea is that limiting what students learn can shape how they think and participate later on. If people are not encouraged to question systems, those systems are less likely to change.

At the same time, the article is not all negative. It actually points out that this backlash might be happening because things are already shifting. After the racial justice protests in 2020, a lot of teachers started rethinking their lessons and including more about systemic racism and social movements. More students were engaging with these topics too. So in a way, these laws might be a response to that momentum.

The article highlights educators who are choosing to push back, even when there are risks involved. Some have signed pledges saying they will keep teaching the truth no matter what. Others have spoken out publicly. It shows that for a lot of teachers, this is not just about following rules. It is about doing what they believe is right for their students.

All of this brings up a bigger question about what education is supposed to be. Is it about keeping things comfortable and avoiding controversy, or is it about helping students think critically and understand complicated realities? The article clearly argues for the second option. Avoiding these topics does not protect students. It just leaves them less prepared to make sense of the world.

That original idea that “the alphabet is abolitionist” packs quite a punch. Education has always been connected to power. Now the issue is not whether students can read, but whether they are encouraged to think deeply about what they are reading and how it connects to real life. Teaching for racial justice, the way the article frames it, is really just part of helping students understand the world honestly. And a lot of educators are not willing to give that up.

Teach Out Preparation

CHOOSE A TEXT: Review your whole blog to remind yourself about what we have read so far in class. What texts have stayed with you so far? What articles inspire you?  What topic matters most to you in terms of your own work? Are there any of these texts that you would like to share with others in your life?  The text I want to share is the video “Colorblind or Colorbrave?” by Mellody Hobson and the article “Colorblindness is the New Racism” by Armstrong and Wildman

WHO DO YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH? Are there people in your life with whom you would really like to talk about these texts? Colleagues? Students? Family members? Friends? Children? I really enjoy discussing human differences with children. They are so innately curious, and they have the purity of seeking social interaction without ulterior motives. They are also in a period of intense discovery and I feel like kids ages 3-10 are the perfect group to hold this discussion with as a preventative measure. I also have some friends I feel need a reminder that pretending to be color blind is unhelpful to communities.

WHAT FORMAT MIGHT WORK FOR YOU? Individual interview? Small group discussion? Art activity? Professional development workshop? Poster for your office? Pamphlet to share? Lesson plan? Etc? I prefer small group discussion as it allows people to share their feelings in real time and fosters a sense of community. If I were to have a one on one discussion, I fear participants would feel singled out and judged. My goal is to create a safe space where vulnerable and honest conversation can be had.

The Illusion of Inclusion

One thing that stood out in both the Rhode Island Department of Education guidance and the Providence Public School Department guidelines is how much they emphasize nondiscrimination and equal access. On the surface, that sounds like a strong starting point because it sets a clear expectation that all students should be treated fairly. But it also made me wonder what “fair” actually looks like in practice, and whether just saying everyone has equal access is enough to actually make students feel safe and supported.

Both policies focus a lot on names, pronouns, and privacy. Respecting a student’s identity in everyday interactions is framed as essential, which makes sense, but it also feels like a pretty basic level of support. The Providence guidelines go further by requiring things like student support teams, but even that feels more like a system of procedures than real change. Just having a team or a plan does not necessarily mean students will actually experience school differently on a daily basis.

The focus on training and school climate connects to Queering Our Schools, which argues that schools should actively challenge heteronormativity. That comparison really highlights what is missing from the Rhode Island and Providence guidelines. They are mostly about preventing harm and making sure schools follow rules, but they do not really push schools to rethink the deeper assumptions about gender and identity that shape everyday experiences. Because of that, they can end up protecting students in theory without fully changing the environment those students are in.

The Editors of Rethinking Schools argue that schools must move beyond basic inclusion policies and actively challenge traditional norms around gender and sexuality in order to create truly equitable and transformative educational environments.

These texts connect to the idea of institutional power, especially how schools shape student experiences through rules, language, and expectations. The Rhode Island and Providence policies show how institutions can set minimum standards, but they also show the limits of that approach. Without bigger changes to curriculum, classroom conversations, and overall school culture, these policies risk being more about checking boxes than creating real change. There is also a clear connection to heteronormativity, which is the assumption that being straight and cisgender is the default. The policies try to make that system less harmful, but they do not really challenge it.

This also connects to broader civil rights issues. Policies like these are important, but history shows that just having rules in place does not automatically fix inequality. There can still be gaps in how they are enforced, and not every school will apply them the same way. Overall, these readings made me think about the difference between making schools less harmful and actually making them more inclusive in a meaningful way. Right now, these guidelines feel more like a starting point than something that will truly move the needle.