Introduction

To the casual observer, the questions posed by the teachers in the foregoing scenarios are harmless. However, we posit that when viewed in the broader context, including the consultants’ and teachers’ races, the schools’ demographic makeup, and the organizational culture of the schools, these teachers’ questions are emblematic of a phenomenon that commonly affects one’s ability to be effective in the workplace: implicit racial bias.

The narratives shared in this chapter are true accounts of events experienced by the authors and their Black instructional coach colleagues, five Black female educational consultants who work with K–12 educators in schools located in large metropolitan areas of the United States. These narratives illustrate how Black instructional coaches often experience implicit racial bias in their client schools and internalize it. Our aim in sharing them is threefold: we want first to illuminate the struggles faced by Black instructional coaches hired to provide effective professional development; second, we endeavor to help the reader understand how existing research on the sociocultural foundations of teaching and learning informs the narratives of the consultants we meet in this chapter; and third, we seek to make the case for greater research into understanding how implicit racial bias affects Black instructional coaches’ ability to help educators improve student achievement.

Using critical race theory (CRT), as conceptualized by Bell (2004) and Crenshaw (1995), as the lens through which we view these coaches’ experiences, we explore the notion of cultural mismatch driven by implicit racial bias, which is pervasive within the K–12 community (Delpit, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995). We propose that the implicit racial biases educators hold against their students may transfer to their behaviors during teacher-coach interactions with Black instructional coaches, negatively affecting a coach’s ability to be effective.

Understanding the effects of implicit racial bias on the work of Black instructional coaches is critical to helping Black coaches and those who organize professional learning for educators ensure that professional learning leads to improved learning outcomes for children, regardless of who delivers that professional learning. We end this chapter with recommendations for future research and practice aimed at understanding (1) how educators perceive Black coaches and how these perceptions impact their professional learning, and (2) how Black instructional coaches use self-care to improve their effectiveness.

Background

Today, Blacks form an estimated 13.4 percent of the total US population (US Census Bureau, n.d.), with Black women representing a little over half of that population (US Census Bureau, 2017). Yet during the 2015–2016 school year, Black women—approximately 6.5 percent of the total US population—earned 11.8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, 15.2 percent of all master’s degrees, and 10.3 percent of all doctorates conferred by US postsecondary institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Over the past nearly four decades, Black women have consistently pursued and earned an increasing share of all college degrees conferred and in numbers that surpass their representation. Despite these facts, they are often not shown appropriate professional respect by their White colleagues and are generally not respected in their careers as being highly qualified or knowledgeable enough to serve in leadership roles. In their study of women in leadership conducted for the American Association of University Women, Hill, Miller, Benson, and Handley (2016) found that Black women make up only 8 percent of people who hold private-sector jobs and less than 2 percent of those who serve in leadership roles. There is clearly a misalignment between Black women’s educational attainment and their representation in the private sector and in leadership roles.

We and the Black instructional coaches with whom we network provide strategic planning and professional development support to school leaders and instructional coaching to teachers for the purpose of improving literacy learning outcomes for students. Our effectiveness is evaluated annually through a variety of measures, including standardized state and benchmark reading assessment scores, client school and satisfaction survey data, and superintendent evaluations. We know we have been successful when teachers and school leaders have improved their practice in the areas in which we coached them and student achievement increases as a result. Therefore, our success hinges on teachers’ ability to improve their practice by working with us.

Rising Tide: Humanize Them

As Shonta stood in the hallway, a nearby classroom door quickly swung open. Two students of color skipped out of the classroom and down the hall, chattering loudly. Their teacher dashed into the hallway, fussing,“Walk quietly! I’m gonna make you both come back here and try that again if you don’t slow down!!!” The exasperated teacher, a White veteran teacher near retirement, glanced at Shonta and shook her head in frustrated disbelief. “It’s hard to get anything done with these kids. We have to humanize them before we can get anything done.” The words hurt, but Shonta tried not to show her pain as she stared at the teacher with a neutral expression.

High Tide: Eyes Forward, Hands at Your Sides

Renee sat in the assistant principal’s office, located three doors down from an experienced first-grade teacher. Suddenly, she and the administrator heard this teacher yelling irately at the same two Black male students the teacher regularly admonished.

When Renee raised her concern about these instances of repeated verbal abuse, the administrator acknowledged that she knew about the teacher’s chronic, aggressive behavior. She added that there was nothing she or the principal could do. Based on the administrator’s response, Renee doubted the teacher would ever receive the help she needed.

Cultural Mismatch in Schools

The students in the schools in which we and our colleagues work come from a wide variety of cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The demographic breakdown of students in this school system during the 2017–2018 school year was 16 percent Asian, 26 percent Black, 40.5 percent Hispanic, 2.5 percent multirace not specified, and 15 percent White. Approximately 20 percent of students had disabilities, 13.5 percent were English-language learners, and 74 percent lived in poverty. Despite the profound diversity of this school system’s student body, approximately 76 percent of all teachers in this system were female, and approximately 58.6 percent of all teachers were White (Anonymous Metropolitan School System, 2018).

A vast body of literature on the sociocultural foundations of education (Anyon, 1980; Carter, 2007; Delpit, 1988, 2006; Gay & Howard, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2001, 2009; Noguera, 2009) points to this overrepresentation in chronically underperforming schools and identifies cultural mismatch between students and teachers as a major cause of inequitable education. Gay and Howard (2000) describe cultural mismatch as a “demographic divide” between White teachers and the students they teach, resulting in unequal and inadequate education for students of color. Similarly, Delpit (1988) describes how the culture of power plays out in the classroom, leading to tensions between teachers and those students who possess cultural and linguistic backgrounds different from their own. This power dynamic almost always leads to disappointing outcomes for children of color and students in poverty, including high disciplinary referral rates, anemic academic performance, and underrepresentation in gifted education programs among children of color, Black and Latinx male students in particular (Bonner, 2000; Delpit, 1988; Lewis, Butler, Bonner, & Joubert, 2010; Noguera, 2009; Schott Foundation for Public Education, 2015). We suggest that mindset and implicit racial bias are at the heart of these issues and use CRT to support why and how they work.

Critical Race Theory, Implicit Bias, and Teacher Mindset

It is difficult to say that the resistance exhibited by many of the teachers with whom we work is purely coincidental when we consider the research on CRT (Bell, 2004; Crenshaw, 1995), implicit bias (Desai, 2016; Kang, 2005), and teacher mindset (Dweck & Legget, 1988; Plaks, Levy, & Dweck, 2009). CRT posits that mainstream American society systematically uses the socially constructed notion of race to maintain power over “minority” groups in ways that are pervasive, often unrecognizable, and normalized (Taylor, Gillborn, & Ladson-Billings, 2009). As a result of this normalization, most oppression does not appear as oppression to the perpetrating group. For instance, the White teacher’s comment about humanizing students may appear on the surface to be a demonstration of that teacher’s frustration, but it is rooted in racism—yet another example of the historical stereotype that people of color are animals, inhumane, and therefore unable to be taught.

Implicit biases, which are underlying, subconscious thoughts and beliefs about other people’s “goodness” or “badness,” influence the way we see the world and move through life. Kang (2005) argues that most of us have implicit biases that have real-world consequences for our social interactions (Desai, 2016). Well-respected scholars (Anyon, 1980; Carter, 2007; Delpit, 1988, 2006; Dweck, 2006; Gay & Howard, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2001, 2009; Noguera, 2009) argue that many educators act in ways that produce inequitable outcomes for their students. Even well-intentioned educators who profess egalitarian intentions and attempt to treat all individuals fairly still unknowingly act in ways that reflect their implicit—rather than explicit—biases (Staats, 2016).

Based on our coaching experiences with a variety of teachers, we can conclude that many of the teachers in our client schools engage in thinking about students based on alleged genetic, cultural, cognitive, and motivational deficits (Howard, 2010; Nieto, 2000). Johnson (1994) defines deficit thinking as the labeling of poor students of color and their families as disadvantaged, at risk, and uninvolved—a mindset that causes educators to fault students and their families when students do not perform well academically, citing a student’s lack of readiness to learn in the classroom, parents’ lack of interest in their child’s education, and a family’s overall lifestyle as reasons for academic underperformance (Walker, 2011). If a teacher does not believe in his or her students, then he or she is highly likely to either dumb down instruction to make it easier for students or hold off on teaching a particular skill or concept because he or she believes the students are not ready to receive that instruction. For some educators, this may even mean holding off on teaching of any kind until they can teach the students how to behave, as Shonta learned.

Low Expectations for Other People’s Children

We see firsthand in our daily work how cultural mismatches driven by implicit racial bias contribute to low expectations of students of color and students in low-performing schools, affecting children in profound and lasting ways (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2001, 2009; Nieto & Bode, 2008; Noguera, 2009). We and our colleagues have collectively worked in approximately fifty different schools within this K–12 school system and nearly one hundred schools in other districts across the nation. We have all heard countless educators openly express a deficit mindset about their students of color and set low expectations for them, a phenomenon referred to by Noguera (2009) as the “normalization of failure.” In addition, we have all witnessed teachers freely yelling at young children out of frustration when they do not walk in a straight line or sit with their hands folded during storytime. Sadly, we have all seen school leaders turn a blind eye to these oppressive teacher behaviors toward children from historically marginalized groups. As Delpit (2006) suggests, these teachers treat their students like “other people’s children,” rather than protecting and cultivating them as they would protect and cultivate their own.

We hypothesize that these same poor perceptions of historically underserved students drive aggressive behaviors rooted in historical racism and influence the way educators interact with instructional coaches of the same race, culture, and heritage as the students they subconsciously hold in low regard. In other words, this same deficit mindset driven by implicit racial bias transfers over to educators’ interactions with Black instructional coaches, causing them to question our ability to coach them effectively, as Vera experienced.

Undercurrent and Crashing Waves: Make This Project Work

Vera worked in an elementary school in an affluent district where the teachers and the vast majority of the students were White. During her first meeting with teachers, Vera knew that she was not welcome in the school. One teacher angrily expressed the belief that Vera had nothing to bring to their school, then proceeded to yell expletives at her throughout the rest of the session.

By the time Vera met with the principal at the end of the day, the teacher had already spoken to the principal. When Vera described the teacher’s unprofessional behavior, the principal told her that she did not feel comfortable addressing the teacher because she was her friend and, “quite frankly, one of the best teachers in the school.”

Knowing she would have to proceed without the principal’s full support, Vera emailed her supervisor to express her extreme discomfort working in this school. Her supervisor replied that her colleague, a White male, would support her during her next visit to the school. When he arrived, Vera told him why she was uncomfortable working in the school. He responded, “You—not the school—are the problem. Get over yourself. Just figure out what we need to do to make this project work.” A week later, the principal requested that Vera be replaced by her White male colleague.

Teacher Mindset Affecting Instructional Coaching

Instructional coaching is teacher-centered and inquiry-based learning aimed at helping teachers find ways to address gaps in teacher practice and student learning. It is one high-leverage professional development practice that can yield excellent results (Knight, 2007, 2017; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992). It is multifaceted and requires a responsive touch due to the nuances and complex challenges surrounding it.

Desimone and Pak (2017) found that effective coaches provide coaching that (1) is content focused, (2) involves active learning, (3) takes place consistently over a period of time, (4) involves collective participation, and (5) provides coherence to teachers. Further, the first principles of adult learning hold that the process of building professional knowledge is deeply rooted in trust and relationship building, both of which are influenced by mindset. For teachers to learn with and from an instructional coach, not only must they believe in the validity of professional learning, they must also view the instructional coach as a trustworthy, more knowledgeable professional who is capable of teaching them something that will help them improve their practice.

Sadly, some Black instructional coaches never get the opportunity to affect teacher practice in a positive way because educators resist our efforts before we can even get started. In some cases, teachers openly express disbelief that a Black coach is the one leading their team’s professional learning efforts, as Tiffany experienced. Staff also sometimes question their coach’s qualifications to make observation- and data-based recommendations about how to improve their instructional practice, as we saw with Leah. In Vera’s case, her attempts to develop a relationship with teachers were thwarted by one teacher who prevented her from sharing her ideas with the team. When implicit racial bias prevents teachers and coaches from learning together, it is exceptionally difficult to attain goals of improved teacher-student relationships and improved student learning. This difficulty is exacerbated when Black instructional coaches stretch themselves mentally—and sometimes physically—in an effort to overcome such obstacles.

Internal Struggles

As each of us encountered resistance in different forms in our client schools, we experienced a persistent, nagging feeling in our gut when preparing to return to a school where educators resisted our support in both overt and covert, but clearly oppositional, ways. Educator resistance driven by implicit bias tends to wear on us, causing us to engage in an internal struggle that manifests itself in many ways. In the face of challenge, one’s natural inclination may be to hunker down and brace for the storm ahead, as Vera did. Such resistance also caused us to internalize aspects of imposter syndrome (Dancy & Brown, 2011), ranging from experiencing negative emotions about the people with whom we were trying to connect and the work we were trying to accomplish, to doubting ourselves.

Negative emotions and self-doubt caused us to engage in hyperperfectionism, which is particularly ironic because we possess the experience and education required for the position, including track records for influencing teacher development and student achievement. Yet we felt an overwhelming need to prove to resistant educators that we are not just qualified for the job but highly qualified to lead them in improving their practice and, in turn, student achievement. We dreaded the thought of facing these and other specific, observable behaviors that sent a clear message to us that the professional learning we were offering was of little or no value to them.

Survey Data Revelations

One question we asked ourselves as we wrote this chapter was, What do we know about the interactions between Black instructional coaches and Black and Latinx educators? We thought it was important to examine Black educators’ satisfaction with their Black instructional coach. To explore this question, we looked at evaluation survey data submitted by a range of educators over a three-year period for one of the coaches featured in this chapter. Table 11-1 summarizes the survey responses.

In an interview with the coach who received these ratings, we learned more about the context surrounding the poor ratings from four teachers, all of whom were White. Two were novice teachers who worked with thoughtful, detail-oriented, highly effective colleagues who carried the bulk of the responsibilities for their teams. Both openly exhibited a fixed mindset about teaching and learning through their interactions with students and their planning for instruction. The other two were seasoned teachers who, although smart, organized, and knowledgeable, exhibited oppositional behaviors toward the coach on numerous occasions, including by galvanizing their colleagues in a silent protest against the program the coach was trying to implement in their schools. Interestingly, one of these teachers worked with a Black coteacher who was equally organized and experienced but far more adept at delivering clear, culturally responsive instruction. This teacher was consistently rated “highly effective” by her administrators. She also implemented the feedback offered by the Black coach into her teaching and participated fully in the professional learning sessions with this coach.

We could not help but wonder whether race played a role in these educators’ responses to us. After all, we were all in positions of power as experts hired to help struggling teachers improve their practice, which takes us back to Bell’s (2004) and Crenshaw’s (1995) work on CRT and Delpit’s (1988, 2006) work regarding power in K–12 school settings. Additionally, our Black colleagues reported that they had tried to work silently through these feelings because the culture of the schools in which they worked was not collegial toward them. We all deliberate whether to let the offensive events slide or share them with school leaders and other colleagues.

Implications for Research and Practice

As subject-matter experts hired to help school leaders and teacher teams design and implement strategic plans for school improvement, we have an obligation to break down barriers that prevent educators from effectively teaching children. Fortunately for us practitioners, there is a robust body of research on and recommendations for using instructional coaching as a form of teacher professional development to improve student achievement (Calo, Sturtevant, & Kopfman, 2015; Desimone & Pak, 2017; Knight, 2007, 2017; Kowal & Steiner, 2007; L’Allier, Elish-Piper, & Bean, 2010). However, insights from Black instructional coaches are sorely absent from the literature.

In conducting our own literature review for this chapter, we searched for empirical studies examining the experiences and effectiveness of Black instructional coaches working with K–12 educators who were, by simple demographics, predominantly White. We looked for such studies in an effort to help ourselves better understand the challenges and nuances of “coaching while Black.” While the studies we found identified teacher perception and building relationships as core competencies of effective instructional coaches, the literature did not explore how educators respond to Black instructional coaches and how Blackness affects an instructional coach’s effectiveness in schools. The literature also did not treat the impact of implicit racial bias on a coach’s ability to be effective.

Without a research base for Black instructional coaches, we could only look to existing research-based theoretical frameworks on two topics: literacy coaching and CRT as it relates to the sociocultural foundations of K–12 education. We urge social scientists to examine how Blackness influences educational consultants’ effectiveness in schools. Research efforts in this area will help practitioners—organizations and school leaders responsible for organizing the work of Black instructional coaches in K–12 schools and Black instructional coaches themselves—better understand how implicit racial bias affects their ability to effectively engage teachers in professional learning.

Possible research questions include the following: What are the similarities and differences between the experiences of Black and non-Black instructional coaches? How do school leaders and teachers perceive Black coaches, and how do their perceptions impact their interactions with these coaches? We make the following specific recommendations for future research aimed at filling this gap:

• Compile statistics on Black instructional coaches.
• Conduct a national survey of Black instructional coaches.
• Conduct a national survey of educators receiving support from a Black instructional coach.
• Perform a double-blind randomized study of educators’ perceptions of highly qualified Black instructional coaches and how these perceptions may affect educator growth and coach effectiveness.

Findings from empirical studies can be used to develop frameworks for engaging educators and coaches in cross-cultural professional learning. These same findings can also inform the design of models for enhancing perceptions and relationships between Black instructional coaches and the educators they guide.

Our recommendations for practice include two regarding self-care and scholarship. First, we encourage Black instructional coaches to find, create, and engage in self-care opportunities (widely defined). This means creating safe communities where we can openly share our narratives, unpack our professional experiences, and learn how to change the narrative from one of oppression and resistance to one of collegial professional learning. Second, we encourage Black instructional coaches to conduct research on themselves and others in their field as a part of the self-care we recommend.

Conclusion

Each story we heard from our colleagues reminded us that systemic, institutional racism is an oppressive tool wielded by educators who feel protective of their territory and vulnerable in the presence of an outsider offering guidance. As we continue to think about the most salient aspects of how our Blackness has influenced our own effectiveness, we realize that there is much to uncover about the lived experiences of Black instructional coaches. Data on what it means to “coach while Black” will help future Black instructional coaches in their work. This data will also help non-Black education practitioners begin to reconcile their feelings about taking direction from Black coaches and learn how to create conditions that foster an environment in which they can work with Black coaches instead of against them. Until then, we and other Black coaches will continue to navigate the rough waters of resistance from educators on our own.

REFERENCES

Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(2), 67–92.

Bell, D. A. (2004). Race, racism, and American law. New York, NY: Aspen.

Bonner, F. A. (2000). African American giftedness: Our nation’s deferred dream. Journal of Black Studies, 30(5), 643–663.

Calo, K. M., Sturtevant, E. G., & Kopfman, K. M. (2015). Literacy coaches’ perspectives of themselves as literacy leaders: Results from a national study on K–12 literacy coaching and leadership. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54, 1–18.

Carter, P. L. (2007). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond Black and White. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York, NY: New Press.

Dancy, T. E., & Brown, M. C. (2011). The mentoring and induction of educators of color: Addressing the imposter syndrome in academe. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 607–634.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299.

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.

Desai, S. R. (2016). Humanizing Trayvon Martin: Racial profiling, implicit biases, and teacher education. Urban Education, 1–27. First published online. doi:10.1177/0042085916646609

Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.

Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1–16.

Hill, C., Miller, K., Benson, K., & Handley, G. (2016). Barriers and bias: The status of women in leadership. American Association of University Women. Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/resource/barriers-and-bias/

Howard, T.C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Johnson, G. M. (1994). An ecological framework for conceptualizing educational risk. Urban Education, 29(1), 34–49.

Kang, J. (2005). Trojan horses of race. Harvard Law Review, 118, 1490–2005.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Knight, J. (2017). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvements in teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Kowal, J., & Steiner, L. (2007). Instructional coaching (Issue brief). Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. Jossey-Bass Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. M. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching? Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 544–554.

Lewis, C. W., Butler, B. R., Bonner, F. A., III, & Joubert, M. (2010). African American male discipline patterns and school district responses resulting impact on academic achievement: Implications for urban educators and policy makers. Journal of African American Males in Education, 1(1), 7–25.

Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447–475.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). Bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976–77 through 2015–16. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_322.20.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). Doctor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976–77 through 2015–16. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_324.20.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017c). Master’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976–77 through 2015–16. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_323.20.asp

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187.

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York, NY: Pearson.

Noguera, P. A. (2009). The trouble with Black boys: And other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Plaks, J. E., Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of meaning in social cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1069–1081.

Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2015). Black lives matter: The Schott 50 state report on public education and Black males. Cambridge, MA: Schott Foundation for Public Education.

Staats, C. (2016). Understanding implicit bias: What educators should know. Education Digest, 82(1), 29–38.

Taylor, E., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

US Census Bureau. (n.d.). Quick Facts United States: Black or African American alone, percent. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI225217

US Census Bureau. (2017). American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk#

Walker, K. L. (2011). Deficit thinking and the effective teacher. Education and Urban Society, 43(5), 576–597.