URGENT ASSIGNMENT NEED IN 12 HOURS

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cree20

Race Ethnicity and Education

ISSN: 1361-3324 (Print) 1470-109X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cree20

Standin’ tall: criminalization and acts of resistance among elementary school boys of color

Vincent Basile

To cite this article: Vincent Basile (2020) Standin’�tall: criminalization and acts of resistance among elementary school boys of color, Race Ethnicity and Education, 23:1, 94-112, DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2018.1497964

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1497964

Published online: 20 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 170

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Standin’ tall: criminalization and acts of resistance among elementary school boys of color Vincent Basile

School of Education, Associate Faculty, Ethnic Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

ABSTRACT Unjust racial disparities persist in the United States criminal justice system fueled by a school to prison pipeline which, through criminalizing processes, disproportionately and unjustly targets boys of color in our schools. This criminalization and the ways in which boys of color resist, remains largely under-researched on the elementary school level. This study utilizes data from multiple qualitative sources collected from three elementary school STEM programs during a year and a half time period to examine acts of resistance in which boys of color engaged, and ways in which educators and school staff responded. Findings indicate that crim- inalization and resistance were normaland ordinary parts of the daily experiences of boys of color; and the acts of resistance themselves were regularly hyper-criminalized, creating cycles of escalation. These findings support a counternarrative that boys of color engage in resistance as a normal and healthy response to oppressive measures.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 October 2017 Accepted 12 May 2018

KEYWORDS Resistance; criminalization; punishment; school to prison pipeline; elementary school; African American boys; Latino boys

Introduction

The United States incarcerates significantly more of its own citizens than any other country in history, by disproportionately and unjustly targeting men and boys of color through multiple sophisticated mechanisms, including the now well-established school to prison pipeline (Alexander 2012). By naming and identifying the embedded, normalized, and prevalent process by which boys of color are funneled into this pipeline, we can view criminalization as an oppressive and discriminatory set of school practices and beliefs that boys of color should resist (Hirschfield 2008). Despite this, resistance by boys and youth of color in school settings have largely been mislabeled and mistreated, often identified as oppositional, defiant, and dis- respectful instead of a healthy response to an oppressive system (Freeman 2015). While some critical researchers have worked to bring a racial lens to youth resistance theory in high school (Factor, Kawachi, and Williams 2011; Lindsay 2005) and university settings (Twyman Hoff 2016), little work has been done on the elementary level to understand and further theorize resistance in boys of color. By closely and specifically researching and thus better understanding the ways boys of color resist criminalizing practices and how that resistance is perceived and treated, we can then

CONTACT Vincent Basile [email protected];

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 2020, VOL. 23, NO. 1, 94–112 https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1497964

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

begin to identify teaching practices and perspectives which work to disrupt both the criminalization fueling the school to prison pipeline and the ways in which student resistance is further criminalized.

To begin to better understand these sometimes complex processes, I spent a year and a half on-site at three elementary schools participating in a STEM after-school and summer program. By observing, participating, conducting formal and informal inter- views with students and staff members, and collecting their stories, I focused this longitudinal study specifically on the lived experiences of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade boys of color. Over time, patterns in the staff’s interactions with the boys, and their subsequent responses emerged. Using criminalization and resistance analytic frame- works to better understand these patterns, I found that (1) boys of color engaged in acts of resistance as ordinary and normal means of liberation against criminalization and oppression; and (2) acts of resistance were themselves hyper-criminalized, which in turn incited more resistance, forming escalation cycles.

Theoretical frameworks and relevant literature

Criminalization

Criminalization is the collective processes by which a criminal identity is prescribed to an individual or group of individuals through discourse; demeanor and modes of punishment; monitoring; and control (Boduszek and Hyland 2011; Costelloe, Chiricos, and Gertz 2009). The criminalization of men of color in our society serves specific economic hegemonic purposes by way of a prison industry complex, which, through a collective mode of targeted racialized and gendered incarceration via a privatized, for-profit corporate conglomerate (Donziger 1996), works directly to the economic benefit of the ruling class (Justice Policy Institute 2011; Ogbar 2007). These now very normalized practices and concepts such as racial profiling (Cole 1999), gang databases (Alexander 2012), and racially targeted actuarial methods (Harcourt 2008), among others, have spread beyond the criminal justice system and into our society at large, including our school systems. All of these mechanisms have worked to create and maintain, through notions of fear and blame, a dominant social view that men of color are by nature criminals and as such, need to be controlled and punished (Aldama 2003; Costelloe, Chiricos, and Gertz 2009).

These enduring views are projected not just to the adult man of color, but to the boy of color as well, which has led to the marked and continued increase in the incarcera- tion rates of juvenile boys of color in recent years. The Sentencing Project (2017) reported that in the United States, African American boys are five times more likely to be detained and incarcerated than their White counterparts, and this disparity has increased since 2001 when African American boys were four times more likely to be incarcerated than their White counterparts. Rios (2006), and Rios and Rodriguez (2012) detailed the lived experiences of working class Black and Latino youth in west coast urban settings with an expressed focus on the ways the criminal justice system and law enforcement hyper-police and criminalize the boys. Among other criminalizing experi- ences, he described how boys of color routinely experienced police “stop and frisk”

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 95

interrogations, sometimes handcuffed on a curb or bus stop for 45 min or more for no apparent or justifiable reason.

As we see boys of color subjected to these criminalizing processes in public spaces (Rios 2011) and in the generational reproduction of criminal identities (MacLeod 2009), it is no surprise school settings have become a significant vehicle through which the criminalization of boys of color is mechanized (Flores-Gonzalez 2005; Leonard et al. 2010; Winn and Behizadeh 2011). Garland (2012) identifies it as a natural progression. Wacquant (2001) described this kind of criminalization as a symbiosis wherein schools in low-income neighborhoods have now taken on the same processes, apparatus and treatments as prisons including guards, property and body searches, video surveillance, strict dress codes, bars on doors and windows, et. al. (Nolan 2011).

Boys of color bear the brunt of this criminalization in schools. By 4th and 5th grades, many boys of color are already labeled as criminals by teachers and administrators (Ferguson 2010). In teacher discourse, elementary school boys of color are described with direct language indicating incarcerated futures. They are scolded, sent to backs of rooms, sent out of rooms, sent home, isolated in the classroom and often not permitted to speak even when White peers are allowed (Langhout 2005). “[Students of color] are disciplined and suspended more frequently than White students for subjective behaviors like disrespect, excessive noise, threats, and loitering (Meiners, 2007, 33)” (Winn and Behizadeh 2011, 153). Although boys of color are criminalized in school and disproportio- nately punished, policed, and incarcerated, they do not engage in violent behaviors or drug use any more than their more affluent White peers (Thompson 2011; Winn and Behizadeh 2011). Teachers and administrators have come to expect and accept this disparity as acceptable, normal, and ordinary, producing a culture of normality with regard to the school–prison nexus (Brown 2009; Hirschfield 2008; Wacquant 2001).

Acts of resistance

In a broad sociological sense, resistance theorists examine the ways in which humans engage in defiance, the affordances and consequences of those conscious and subcon- scious decisions, and how defiance affects identity and other outcomes. In education research, resistance theorists have focused on youth resistance, with an emphasis on socio-economic class and opposition (Bourdieu 2000; DeMarrais and LeCompte 1999; Giroux 1981, 1983). This literature has largely made the call to view acts of resistance from students as moral and political acts of an oppressed working class (Abowitz 2000). Freire (2000) saw resistance as a process by which an individual first comes to under- stand the reality of one’s oppression, and then engages that oppressive reality in transformative ways.

With a significant focus on socio-economic class, resistance theory has largely ignored issues of race (Akom 2003), and in some cases has even openly dismissed race as a significant issue pertaining to resistance in the classroom. According to Solórzano and Bernal (2001), “. . .the majority of resistance studies provide information about how youth [of color] participate in oppositional behavior that reinforces social inequality instead of offering examples of how oppositional behavior may be an impetus toward social justice” (p. 310). Rios (2006, 2011) identified resistance as a measured and often strategic way for boys of color to maintain some level of freedom and

96 V. BASILE

independence of their own bodies in minds in an oppressive environment built to exert constant surveillance and control over them. Among the general themes that emerge from the scholars who have researched resistance among youth of color, the notion that acts of resistance from boys of color are, as a collective, acts of rebellion against an oppressive regime of punishment and marginalization is central.

Acts of resistance in STEM education research

Akom, Scott, and Shah (2013) theorized resistance in STEM education using an approach “. . .based in critical education, ethnic studies, science, technology, engineer- ing, math, environmental studies, sociology, history, law, and public policy- to better understand the social and material conditions impacting Black working-class youth in STEM fields and how to transform these conditions” (p.164). With this approach, they critiqued the dominant body of academic work on resistance theory and particularly in STEM education as largely remaining silent on issues of race. They argued resistance theory in STEM education has failed to address the deficit frameworks used explain Black STEM educational underachievement nor the deficit paradigms which have served the interests of Whiteness, making the power, privilege, and self-interest of dominant groups invisible.

Akom, Scott, and Shah called for the creation of counternarratives to hegemonic resistance theory, and claimed that in order to challenge oppressive structures and systemic racism, youth of color engaging in structural resistance is necessary and healthy. While they did link race and the accompanying socio-economic issues to power-privilege structures, dominant ideologies, and oppressive practices in STEM education, they did not specifically consider the role of criminalization and the school-to-prison pipeline which significantly impacts youth of color.

Other critical STEM education scholars have identified and referenced acts of resistance of boys of color in their research, but have not made it a focal point in their data collection or interpretations. Martin (2006, 2007, 2009, 2013) has consistently used iterative approaches to coding which reference acts of resistance in ways that may suggest it was an emergent pattern in his findings. Similar references or connections to acts of resistance appear in the works of R. Gutiérrez (2010), Gutstein (2006), Leonard et al. (2010), and Stinson (2006, 2008).

Resistance in elementary school youth

While the research above has focused entirely on high school aged boys or students of color and their critical understandings and strategic uses of acts of resistance, elemen- tary school students have gone largely under-researched in this area. According to Duncombe (2002), youth may engage in acts that serve the purposes of resistance without having resistance in mind when engaging in those acts. Youth, particularly those with emerging critical understandings such as those in intermediate grades, may engage in acts of resistance without fully understanding it as serving that purpose.

Langhout (2005) set a precedent of researching acts of resistance of elementary school students of color by examine the ways in which students of color resist control. She identified multiple categories of resistance and theorized acts of resistance from

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 97

boys of color in ways congruent with broader social analyses. In doing so she has provided both the space and context for examining resistance in boys of color in elementary schools: “Examining resistance in children allows us to see how the resis- tance is manifested for those who are developing and may not yet have the cognitive complexity and language skills to fully name their oppression, yet know that something is amiss” (Langhout 2005, 152).

Categorizing acts of resistance

One significant challenge in researching resistance in youth of color lies in distinguish- ing it from other forms of oppositional behavior. To address this challenge, researchers have used a categorical analytic approach to distinguish and delineate acts of resistance. Foundational to this approach, Solórzano and Bernal (2001), in their work examining Chicana/Chicano student resistance, identified and defined five categories of opposi- tional behavior—three of which they define as acts of resistance.

The five categories of opposition are neither discrete nor static, and may vary particularly between girls and boys. Derived from Giroux’s (1983, 1981) work on resistance theory, Solórzano and Bernal (2001) identified reactionary behavior and self-defeating resistance as oppositional but not resistance behavior. They identified conformist resistance, transformational resistance; and resilient resistance as categories of acts of resistance.

Solórzano and Bernal describe reactionary behavior as non-resistive behavior which is disruptive to the school environment without any connection to social conditions or awareness of oppressive practices, and may result from things like student boredom. They describe self-defeating resistance as the traditional notion of resistance. This is behavior which indicates an awareness of social conditions on the part of the student but bears no orientation in social justice, creating social change or creating tensions with possibilities of positive outcomes. An example of this is a boy of color quietly dropping out of high school because of racially differential treatment he continually receives from the school system. While these first two categories represent oppositional behavior but not acts of resistance, the next three categories represent acts of resistance.

Conformist resistance is motivated by or works toward social justice, but without much awareness of or challenge to the systems of oppression. These acts of resistance operate within the system. Social change is a possible but unlikely result from these acts. Students engaging in these acts often blame themselves for oppression. An example of this is a student persistently and repeatedly asking for more food during school- provided breakfast despite being continually denied and dismissed. The student cites the fact that he is very hungry and cannot concentrate during school, but still blames himself and his family for not having food. Transformational resistance is an act of resistance which demonstrates some level of awareness of systemic oppressions and a desire for social justice. An example of this could be a student who assists another student with his math homework to help him improve his grades and math abilities, even though the school-day teachers frown on and sometimes discipline the behavior. The student is aware of the social justice nature of his actions and that the rules of working alone disproportionately negatively affect many boys of color like himself.

98 V. BASILE

The fifth category—resilient resistance—are responses beyond full compliance by the student to direct microaggressive and oppressive treatments, with the intention of surviving and/or succeeding through the microaggression. The student chooses a resilient resistance act with some level of awareness of the oppression being levied. An example of this is a student who is suddenly asked to leave the room by a teacher for no discernible serious infraction does so quickly without objection only to quietly return without permission a few minutes later when the classroom activity changes. These five categories of opposition and resistance provide and inform not only initial coding schemes for my own analytic approaches to my data, but also a means by which to discern acts of resistance from other forms of opposition which may be observed.

In addition to the five categories Solórzano and Bernal put forth, Rios (2011) – and along with co-author Rodriguez (Rios and Rodriguez 2012)—add a type of resistance called dignity work:

Dignity work involved acts of resistance that often placed the boys at risk of punishment. The delinquent boys calculated that it was worth taking the risk of losing their freedom in order to gain some dignity from the system. The non-delinquent boys worked at fighting for their freedom by evading situations in which they might encounter school discipline, police contact, or targeting for criminalization. These boys found creative ways to avoid criminalization. . .even when they followed the rules, authority figures still criminalized the boys. . .Even if the boys attempted to adapt to school or police norms and codes, they were still treated with the suspicion that they might commit a crime. . .(Ch. 7, paragraph 7)

Here Rios described the contradictory nature of criminalization in schools: regardless of whether or not boys of color conform, they are still treated and thought of as criminals by the school system and police. Thus, for youth of color dignity work becomes a functional and understandable modality of resistance.

Acts of resistance can be categorized and organized in several ways (see Table 1) but in practice exist as a continuum rather than categorical. Acts of resistance are oppositional in nature, but not all oppositional actions are acts of resistance. Acts of resistance can be overt or covert (Solórzano and Villalpando 1998); verbal or non-verbal (Langhout 2005); and direct or indirect responses to oppression. Acts of resistance can occur as an immediate or delayed response to direct instances of targeted oppression and also as an unpredicted response to longitudinal and continued oppressive practices. They can take multiple forms of social justice orientation and can be on behalf of the student or of his peers (Yosso 2005). According to Bernal (2001), acts of resistance should be viewed as a positive means by which boys of color resist panoptic control of their bodies and minds. To that end Solórzano and Villalpando (1998) expressly called for research “that identifies and analyzes how individuals and groups use different and often unrecognized forms of resistance in response to domination” (p. 215).

Methods

This manuscript represents one of several research inquiries which emerged from a longitudinal mixed methods study which began with a goal of better understanding some of the experiences and characteristics of a district-supported after-school and summer STEM program which serviced multiple low-income urban elementary schools. The program was interwoven into each of the schools it serviced and had

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 99

been going on for over a decade. It had a reputation throughout the district and the region as being particularly impactful for boys of color. While the study as a whole contained data from multiple quantitative and qualitative sources, this inquiry into criminalization and resistance draws from my fieldnotes, formal and informal inter- views, and stories I collected during the year and a half I spent researching the program. Drawing from Critical Race Methodology (Solórzano and Yosso 2001, 2002), my research foregrounds the ways in which race and ethnicity, as they intersect with gender, impact the lived experiences of the participants in this study.

Research sites

I conducted this research across a year and a half period at three different elementary schools in an urban school district in Colorado. Throughout the year and a half time period, I visited each of the three schools, one to two times per week on average. While the participants in this study were fully aware of my role as a researcher, while on-site I was welcomed as an active participant in what was going on, often assisting students with activities and learning, and teachers with lesson ideas and development.

Participants

Each site may have serviced up to 100 students in a given school year, but at any given time may have as few as 35 students on the current roster and a daily attendance sometimes as low as 20–25 students, and as high as 40–45 students. Students in the program were almost entirely from various Latino/a and African American backgrounds. On any given day, boys comprised half to three quarters of the attendees. Students did not appear to sub-group themselves according to any discernible racial or ethnic category or sub-category. I report this information with the caveat however that the demographic data on file with each school was in line with US Census Bureau practices and as such offered only a male-female gender binary option for identification, and utilized narrow means of identifying race and ethnicity. As such, throughout the rest of this manuscript I use the term “boys of color” to refer to a collective of students who in practice chose a variety of terms of to refer to their marginalized racial and/or ethnic identities including but not limited to Black, African American, Afro-Caribbean, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Chicano, Latin, Latino, and Hispanic. In addition, multiple participants expressed various and sometimes complex iterations of a multi-racial/ethnic identity.

Each school employed 5–7 staff members for the STEM program, including certified teachers and other education-oriented personnel. In addition to the regular program staff, other teachers in the building would at times pass through the physical spaces of the program, often interacting with the students when they did so. The adults involved in the program predominantly identified as female and White. Some of them either lived or grew up in the school’s neighborhoods and often leveraged their community knowledge to help bridge racial and gender distance between themselves and their students.

100 V. BASILE

Data collection and analysis

Fieldnotes

In my field notes, I focused on high quality capture of interpersonal relationships by closely examining individual voices, personal experiences, engagements with others (Goodall 2000). I interacted with students and staff during my visits not only as a researcher but also as a member of the community. In doing so, I attempted to “hear in” to the interactions and relationships the boys of color had with other staff, teachers, and other students. I conducted informal and formal interviews of staff and boys of color regularly across the year and a half of research as well, often including forms of participant validation to better understand specific interactions I had previously observed or patterns of interaction. I used an iterative open coding approach to the initial analysis, looking and refining emerging themes (Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2013) and then a second series of coding rounds using a resistance coding scheme assembled from previous scholar’s research (see Table 1 for an overview). Comparing the results of the two approaches produced congruent and complimentary findings, allowing each approach to further inform the other.

Stories

Stories and storytelling were a common and embedded practice in the program and the local communities. Because of the level of reverence participants placed on this practice,

Table 1. Categories of acts of resistance described by critical scholars. Category Description/example Scholar

Overt Acts which are external and visible to others Solórzano and Villalpando (1998) Covert Acts which are either internal (deciding to

act the way requested but with oppositional compliance) or subversive in nature (deciding not attend a history class with racist undertones under the guise of being sick)

Solórzano and Villalpando (1998)

Verbal Resistance situated in discourse or vocalization

Langhout (2005)

Non-verbal Resistance situated in actions and body positioning (deliberately not moving when told to do so)

Langhout (2005)

Symbolic Not turning in homework for credit even though it is completed correctly

Langhout (2005)

Dignity work Defying demeaning teacher demands such as “put your head down on your desk while the rest of us learn”

Rios and Rodriguez (2012)

Conformist Following rules or orders while still resisting the spirit of the rule or order, often through minimal compliance (walking only slightly faster when ordered to hurry up)

Solórzano and Bernal (2001)

Transformational In a classroom that bans collaborative work, helping another student learn a difficult math concept

Solórzano and Bernal (2001)

Academic Resilience Quietly returning to class without permission after being kicked out to complete an assignment

Yosso (2005)

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 101

I collected stories, particularly from the staff, through multiple modalities including writing them up shortly after hearing them, transcribing them alongside of a storyteller in real time as an iteration of a formal interview, and retrieving them from an online repository which was started as part of the program’s professional development. All stories were participant validated/member checked both for accuracy and later to validate the ways in which I, along with a small group of staff members, interpreted the stories.

The invisible boys

As stated in the introduction, not every boy of color regularly engaged in resistance. Across the three research sites, about a quarter of the boys of color appeared to consistently exist in a stage of complacent lethargy, completing any tasks asked of the class as a whole, but rarely leaving their seats and almost never speaking, even on the very rare occasions that teachers interacted with them. They were, from the staff’s perspective, effectively invisible.

This pattern of delineation in which some members of an oppressed group accept their position and their oppression as normal and out of their control, while others engage in regular and active resistance to oppressive measures, has been identified by community psychology researchers in multiple intersectional minority groups in var- ious settings (McDonald, Keys, and Balcazar 2007). These “invisible” boys did not appear to directly impact the cycles of criminalization and resistance, and as such, were not a focus of this manuscript. They nonetheless make up an important compo- nent of understanding resistance and criminalization, and as such I name them here to honor their experiences; make them visible in this framework; and call for more research into better understanding their unique lived experiences and responses to oppression.

Trustworthiness

To increase and maintain a high level of trustworthiness, I operationalized frameworks put forth by Merriam and Tisdell (2016); Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011); and Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2013). To increase research credibility and internal validity, I engaged in data and investigator triangulation; longitudinal engagement; and partici- pant validation (of the stories, in particular). To increase consistency throughout the study, I engaged in a series of peer/external researcher examinations of data analyses; maintained an audit trail of data collection and analysis across the year and half; and incorporated reflexivity into my field notes and analyses through the use of separate, discrete comments recording my thoughts, emotions, and self-connections to what I was observing, from my position as a trained researcher and as a man of color (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 2011; Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2013). I employed what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) call “rich, thick description” in all of my recordings. This coupled with the consistency of findings across three different research sites served to increase the transferability of the findings of this study.

102 V. BASILE

Findings

I identified two major findings from my analysis: (1) boys of color engaged in acts of resistance as ordinary and normal means of liberation against criminalization and oppression; and (2) acts of resistance were hyper-criminalized, which in turn incited more resistance, forming cycles of escalation. I provide details, variations, and typical examples of these findings below.

Ordinary and normal iterations of resistance

At each of the three sites, acts of resistance were common. During every site visit I made, I observed multiple and regular acts of resistance from boys of color. The acts of resistance I witnessed were twice as often overt than covert. All other categories of resistance occurred with some degree of regularity. Most frequently, boys of color appeared to operational acts of resistance as a means of maintaining or regaining control of their bodies using two sets of resistances: (a) dignity work and academic resilience; and (b) symbolic and conformist resistances.

Dignity work and academic resilience

Boys of color often engaged in acts of resistance to regain or maintain control of their bodies with academic resilience and dignity work. These types of resistance were usually brief, sometimes occurring in less than a minute, but several went on for extended periods of time – in a few cases an entire class (30–40 min), and typically occurred when students were in small groups, but engaged in individual or worksheet-based activities such as homework sheets or extension problems. This example demonstrates what an ordinary iteration of this style of resistance looked like. In this example Tyrell, a 4th grade boy of color, was uncharacteristically sitting with three girls and they were all working together on similar homework. At the start of this excerpt students were working together in small groups to help each other with their math homework. I could not discern anything Tyrell was doing that was different from everyone else in the class, and his group appeared to be working well together, with Tyrell showing his group how to solve a particular math problem:

. . .[a teacher] suddenly walked up and told Tyrell to move to a table by himself because he could not behave. Tyrell shook his head and refused to move. He said, ‘Why? I’m working hard and I’m helping my friends with their homework like we’re supposed to.’ [The teacher] said while tensing her body and pointing, ‘I asked you to move. Now move your body to that empty table!’ Tyrell again refused to move saying he’ll stop talking to the girls and get his work done but that he wasn’t going to move. . .the staff member exhaled loudly and left. Tyrell immediately continued to complete his homework and help the girls with their work.

In episodes like this Tyrell, although potentially lacking the full recognition that he was likely being singled out because of his race and gender, recognized that something was unfair and amiss. By engaging in an act of resistance—refusing to move—he maintained control of his body, resisting the criminalization of the adult. He acknowledged and expressed that he was engaging in academic discourse and doing nothing wrong. This is

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 103

particularly salient in a mathematics setting such as this wherein students are engaging in academic discursive practices, which The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2013) has identified as a best practice and a vital component to student’s development of mathematical problem solving skills. Stated another way, Tyrell appeared to have reached some level of mastery in the particular mathematical task, and by teaching it to his peers he was not only acting in the benefit of them but also strengthening his own understanding of the way(s) to solve the problems and the mathematical concepts underlying the problems. The dominant social narrative about Tyrell, from which the instructor appeared to be operating from, would instead suggest that Tyrell was engaging in deviance by sitting and engaging in discourse with students who were not part of his gender-race intersectional subgroup, and thus violating a form of social-academic hierarchy.

Further, moving to an empty table in a room when all other students are working in groups would single him out and indicate that he was being punished unfairly (i.e. criminalized). As a form of resistance to this, by leveraging the fact that he would continue working but would not move, Tyrell demonstrated academic resilience by continuing his learning and school work despite the criminalization. Thus, by refusing to move Tyrell used resistance to (a) maintain control of his body; (b) maintain some amount of dignity; and (c) continue academic learning.

In another example, demonstrating a more acute version of dignity work, Antwon refused to show a staff member his completed math work:

. . .[a teacher] approached Antwon and asked if he finished his math work. Antwon said, ‘Yeah’ without looking up and continued to pick out colored markers for a math-oriented extension project he had started. The staff member said she wanted to see it. Antwon said, ‘I did it,’ without looking up. She said, ‘Ok good, then let me see it because I think you’re lying.’ [While it is common for teachers and staff to check over student’s math work to look for mistakes or places to help the students, I have not previously seen it done under the premise that a student was lying] Antwon said, ‘Ask Juan, he saw me do it. Why aren’t you asking to see everyone’s homework?’ Antwon never looked up or stopped working. She ordered him again, ‘Look at me. Get the sheet out and show me. I know you didn’t do it. I don’t care what Juan says.’ Antwon said, ‘Nope’ and remained seated, not having looked at her at all. The teacher stood very close to him standing over him not saying anything. Eventually, and only once Antwon completed the coloring portion of his extension worksheet, he pulled his book bag over with his foot, took his homework out and held it up, first to Juan, then to the teacher – he never looked at the teacher the entire time. Antwon’s homework was complete and correct. The teacher walked away without saying anything to him.

This episode is a representative sample of what was a common and ordinary pattern wherein a boy of color recognized disparate and criminalizing treatment, and engaged in acts of resistance centered on attempting to maintain control of his body. In this example, Antwon only revealed his completed homework when he was ready to do so (and showing it to Juan before the instructor), thus to some degree maintaining control of his body and some amount of dignity against what became a public display of attempted hyper-control and degradation of Antwon.

104 V. BASILE

Symbolic and conformist resistance

Another common way in which boys of color maintained control of their bodies often occurred through conformist and symbolic resistance. Conformist resistance typically took forms such as how students located themselves in the classroom, such as sitting in a chair in the corner of the room when ordered to sit down; and how students complied with orders that compromised their dignity such as picking up the very smallest bits of paper next to their feet when ordered to clean the floor. Symbolic resistance took form in the ways boys completed academic tasks, for example one boy, in response to being blamed for something he didn’t do, immediately drew a large animal face on simple machine he built which he had frequently and openly described as being an animal that hated mean teachers.

In one particularly salient example of these types of resistance, several boys of color engaged in a symbolic act of resistance in response to a culturally and racially insensi- tive action of a teacher trying to enforce control over his students, who were all standing and working in small groups on engineering tasks:

. . .the teacher said, ‘Kids, I need your attention for a moment. Everyone stop what you are doing.’ When very few, if any, students complied, he then said louder and more sternly, ‘Everyone put your hands on your head!’ Most students immediately did so. Julio, followed by two other boys of color in the room, crossed his arms across his chest and sat upright, appearing tense in his whole body, staring straight forward. Julio then shook his head left and right, in a ‘no’ motion. The teacher seemed to notice the three boys had done this, but did not react directly to it. He gave the class a new task, which included sitting down. The three boys did not sit down immediately even when all others in the class had done so and begun writing. After about a minute of maintaining their upright stance, one at a time, they each sat down and began the writing task. . .

In this example, the three boys engage in symbolic resistance in refusing to put their hands on their heads. While it is unclear as to the intent of the teacher’s command for everyone in the class to put their hands on their heads, it was nonetheless levied toward a group of students who reside in a community with a high police presence. According to many of the staff in the program, many of the boys of color at all three sites had themselves already had multiple run-ins with the police or had family members significantly impacted by unjust police practices. For these three boys, the command to put their hands on their heads incited the need to resist this culturally and racially insensitive attempt by the teacher to exert control over their bodies.

The examples above represent the iterations of the very normal and ordinary resistance which occurred during every site visit I made across the year and a half timeframe. While the examples above demonstrate reactions from teachers and staff that terminate with teachers ignoring or walking away from the resistance, with varying frequency (possibly dependent upon the teacher’s changes in disposition from day to day), acts of resistance were met with increased oppressive measures, both in intensity and severity.

Escalating cycles of criminalization and resistance

I frequently observed the escalation of criminalization inciting acts of resistance, which then led to more intense criminalization. The initial or inciting criminalization was

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 105

sometimes directed at the whole class, systemic, or otherwise more diffuse with regard to the direct impact to an individual student. More often the criminalization was directed toward the individual student. Whether diffuse or directed, when a marked boy of color engaged in an act of resistance, it was frequently met with much more intense and direct criminalization such as hyper-interrogation, hyper-controlling the body, labeling, disparate punishments, etc. At times in a single episode of interaction involved multiple repetitions of acts of resistance leading to hyper-criminalization leading to more acts of resistance leading to more hyper-criminalization and so on. Other times the pattern ran through one cycle terminating with severe and disparate punishment.

In one example of this type of escalation cycle terminating in severe and disparate punishment, a boy of color was exploring and experimenting with reading lenses to see how they interact with light:

Orlando took one of the lenses outside [the back door of the room was propped open and students were moving freely in and out to have more room to work]. He put the lens in the sunlight and noticed a small circle of concentrated light at his feet. He crouched down to look at it closer and seemed surprised that it changed size. [Most students reported never have touch a lens before and very few students in the program had glasses, despite many needing them]. He moved the lens up and down noticing the size of the concentrated circle of light changing. . .a teacher came outside moving quicker than normal and in a loud and stern voice said, ‘Orlando, what are you doing? Stop that! You’re supposed to be figuring out how the lens helps you see. Not screwing around! Get back inside.’ The staff member suddenly shifted her attention to another student. . .Orlando stood up slowly with his hand holding the lens discreetly by his side, watching the circle of light change size. While the staff member was still looking the other way, Orlando tilted the lens so the circle of light moved onto the foot of the staff member and wiggled it around. The staff member looked down at the light on the staff member’s foot and yelled, ‘I thought I told you to get inside and knock off all this screwing around. This is constantly happening with you. You never listen or do what I tell you to do. That’s the worst part! Give me the lens. You’ve lost the privilege to use it since you can’t use it appropriately. No get inside and sit down quietly. You’re done for the day!’. . .Orlando went inside, sat down, discreetly took out his science notebook and under the table began drawing a picture of the lens and his own version of a scientific ray diagram of the light going through the lens and getting smaller.

In this example, the initial criminalization from the teacher worked to stop Orlando from engaging in experimentation. Orlando responded through non-verbal conformist resistance, standing up and facing the teacher as commanded but still manipulating light through the lens. The teacher then hyper-criminalized this resistance by labeling Orlando a perpetual deviant and removing Orlando from learning altogether. Orlando then resisted this hyper-criminalization, while still conforming, through academic resilience going back inside and covertly diagraming what he thought was happening through the lens in his science notebook.

Orlando’s actions demonstrate typical types of resistance involved in the escalation of criminalization-acts of resistance-criminalization pathways. Showing a notable amount of academic resilience during this entire episode, even during the escalation pathway, Orlando was learning through tinkering (Schwartz, DiGiacomo, and Gutiérrez 2015) and in a very sophisticated and academically meaningful way, was doing what he was supposed to be doing: actively learning. Having the lens in hand, experimenting

106 V. BASILE

and instantly implementing his new knowledge are quintessential examples of inquiry- based, hands-on learning espoused as highly effective by the National Science Teachers Association (2004), the National Research Council (2000), and the Next Generation Science Standards (National Research Council 2013).

These cycles of criminalization-resistance-criminalization escalation, which occurred on a daily basis and were treated as normal and ordinary, illustrate the significant and detrimental impacts the hyper-criminalization of resistance can have in denying boys of color the opportunities to engage in learning, particularly in STEM content areas where experiential and inquiry-based approaches are vital to building knowledge. Not only was Orlando overtly denied the opportunity to continue engaging in the learning activity, but also through the initial interaction with his teacher, he was also denied the opportunity to demonstrate to her and thus validate his discovery that the eyeglass lens, in an interesting and important way, adjusted sunlight.

Discussion

In the United States, we live in a racialized prison state, fueled in part by the school to prison pipeline. This longitudinal study makes a needed contribution to better under- standing acts of resistance from elementary school boys of color as a response to criminalization, and the ways in which resistance is subsequently hyper-criminalized. Understanding these cycles of escalation as ordinary and normal parts of the lived experiences of boys of color in elementary schools may now allow us to begin to disrupt these cycles in positive and uplifting ways, and to see acts of resistance from boys of color as a natural and healthy response to oppression.

Resistance theory has framed certain of types of resistance as self-defeating, and this notion has been historically infused into a dominant narrative surrounding students of color in education (Akom, Scott, and Shah 2013; Solórzano and Bernal 2001). The dominant narrative would have us see resistance from students of color as detrimental and without value. Some research has expressly named this as fact (McFarland 2001), while others have recognized problematic tensions in labeling resistance in boys of color as self-defeating, calling for more research to better understand the phenomenon (Hand 2010). Critical research has and continues to challenging this frame, demonstrating that resistance in youth and boys of color serves liberatory and meaningful purposes. The findings of this study continue our evolution of understanding acts of resistance from boys of color, suggesting that acts of resistance in which boys of color engage are complex and functional responses to oppressive environments, systems, and actions.

The findings of this study add a dimension to the ways we understand acts of resistance, how they may serve boys of color, and ways in which the education system continues to choose to respond to them. Boys of color appeared to be purposeful in many of their actions. One of the educators on site proposed a hypothesis to me: ‘Ya know, everybody thinks them boys sit far away from teachers so they can get away from learning and to get away with more mischief. The more I talk to “em, I’m pretty sure they sit back there to try and reduce the volume of all that policing. Shit, if I was getting hit with all that crap, I’d sit as far away from it as I could too.” Likewise, staff members described situations where boys of color would not turn in completed math homework for weeks at a time even though they completed them all correctly. Another educator on

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 107

site identified this kind of symbolic act of resistance as a powerful statement of “what is important to our boys”. They do the work, engage the learning, but refuse to turn it in even when they know it is done correctly—an act of resistance that an outsider with a deficit view may label as self-defeating, while the framework of this study would allow us to see as empowering, liberatory, and healthy; and worthy of our celebration.

In examining youth in other social contexts, scholars have described resistance as a normal response to oppression (Abowitz 2000; Bourdieu 2000; Giroux 1981, 1983). Rios (2011) saw dignity work as a healthy response to criminalization, and one of the few modes of resistance consistently available to boys of color who are heavily criminalized in all aspects of their lives. It is therefore reasonable to see resistance from boys of color in educational settings as a normal and healthy human response to oppressive mea- sures. In this study, boys of color operationalized resistance to retain control of their bodies and their dignity in an environment which consistently worked to unjustly remove that control and dignity. Thus, the findings of this study lead to a counter- narrative of celebration: that it is a good, normal, and healthy thing many of our boys of color are resisting oppression and have not yet given in to the criminalization our education system continues to levy upon them.

A counternarrative of celebration

At the foundation of this celebration are the basic premises that oppression is unjust, resistance to oppression is healthy, and as a society we want any student in our public school system to be healthy. In this way we can position acts of resistance from the boys of color in this study as a healthy thing—a thing that we want. In viewing resistance from this perspective, as educators and stakeholders in our education system, we can then rethink our approach to how we choose to respond to resistance. Of the many ways we may conceptualize responding to acts of resistance using this celebratory lens, further criminalizing them is undeniably unjust and cruel. Further and beyond the foundation of this counternarrative of celebration, we may also find celebration in some of the types of resistance the boys in this study enacted.

In the face of consistent, normalized and often escalating criminalization and oppres- sion, the boys regularly engaged in academic resilience. That is, they often positioned themselves to overtly or covertly find ways of resisting while maintaining active engage- ment with their learning. The boys who were the most heavily and most often criminalized often found the most innovative ways of being academically resilient. When kicked out of class, they would position themselves to be out of the view of the teacher but still be able to see demonstrations, activities, or videos; while being verbally berated they would continue to complete practice math problems correctly and efficiently; when told to put their heads down on their desks they would continue to write in their science notebooks in their laps; and when send out of class in groups or subsequently would team up and continue group work in the hallway. These and other examples demonstrate the ways in which boys of color resisted without compromising their desire to learn.

This suggests that many boys of color want to learn and engage in meaningful and interesting academic STEM activities despite the criminalization and oppression levied upon them. As a staff member told me during one of my site visits, ‘They aren’t like that with reading and writing. They really like doing math probably “cause they’re good at it. And

108 V. BASILE

they LOVE science. They love building all that stuff and solving all those problems. They brag about what they know.” As this staff member indicated, STEM learning is important to the boys.

Seeing many of our boys of color as responding in healthy and sophisticated ways to an oppressive system differs from the view that our educational system spins. It also creates a moral dilemma. If we accept this counternarrative of celebration, we must also own the fact that the ways in which our educational system treats our boys of color is acceptable—and even encouraged—in the eyes of dominant society. Many of the staff members at the research sites seemed to genuinely think of and often describe the boys as “good kids” that were unfairly treated by society, the school, and teachers and administrators. Some staff openly acknowledged that they themselves routinely targeted and criminalized the boys in ways they knew were unfair and unjust, and even irregularly engaged in emerging decrimi- nalizing practices (Basile 2018), but cited things like job expectations and lack of support for reasons they didn’t regularly implement more just and empowering ways of interacting with the boys. The questions which emerged from this are oriented around understanding what we must do to change this culture of criminalization on the local, ground level—perhaps even one school at a time—to begin to provide the training and support necessary for educators who want to disrupt these cycles of escalation in criminalization and resistance.

And of course, our boys of color are not helpless. Rather, many of them are empowered in ways their higher socio-economic White peers are not. They regularly resist their oppression in powerful ways. The findings presented here and many other of the observations made during the year and a half I spent among the boys in this study, along with my own lived experiences, have guided me to believe that many boys in color in fact have far more awareness of the complexities of their oppressive surround- ings, the ways in which they resist them, and the affordances and constraints of resistance, than previous research and popular discourse in education has given them credit. One educator described the resistance of boys of color as “badass” and the boys themselves as “the strong kids”. Based on these findings, I add to this educator’s statement that the boys of color in this study are also brilliant, dignified and academi- cally resilient. As an education collective, it is imperative that we foreground these aspects of the lived experiences of our boys of color in ways that work to simultaneously deconstruct criminalizing processes and to honor and respect the ways in which our boys resist them, both in our research and in our classroom practices.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Vincent Basile http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0672-5312

References

Abowitz, K. K. 2000. “A pragmatist revisioning of resistance theory.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (4): 877–907. doi:10.3102/00028312037004877.

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 109

Akom, A. 2003. “Reexamining resistance as oppositional behavior: The nation of Islam and the creation of a black achievement ideology.” Sociology of Education 76 (4): 305–325. doi:10.2307/1519868.

Akom, A., A. Scott, and A. Shah. 2013. “Rethinking resistance theory through stem education: How working-class kids get world-class careers.” In Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change, edited by E. Tuck and K. W. Yang, 153–165. New York: Routledge.

Aldama, A. J. 2003. “Violence, bodies, and the color of fear: An introduction.” In Violence and the Body: Race, Gender, and the State, ed A. J. Aldama, 1–18. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Alexander, M. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press.

Basile, V. 2018. “Cause he’s always on point: Decriminalizing boys of color in elementary school STEM education.” Paper Presented at the annual meeting of Science Education for Equity, Diversity and Social Justice. Davis, CA, January 12–14.

Bernal, D. D. 2001. “Learning and living pedagogies of the home: The Mestiza consciousness of Chicana students.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 14 (5): 623–639. doi:10.1080/09518390110059838.

Boduszek, D., and P. Hyland. 2011. “The theoretical model of criminal social identity: Psycho- social perspective.” International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory 4 (1): 604– 614.

Bourdieu, P. 2000. Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brown, M. 2009. The Culture of Punishment: Prison, Society, and Spectacle. New York: NYU Press.

Cole, D. 1999. No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System. New York: New Press.

Costelloe, M. T., T. Chiricos, and M. Gertz. 2009. “Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Exploring the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity.” Punishment & Society 11 (1): 25–49. doi:10.1177/1462474508098131.

DeMarrais, B., and M. LeCompte. 1999. The Way Schools Work: A Sociological Analysis of Education. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Donziger, S. 1996. The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission. New York: Harper Perennial.

Duncombe, S. 2002. Cultural Resistance Reader. New York: Verso. Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd ed.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Factor, R., I. Kawachi, and D. Williams. 2011. “Understanding high-risk behavior among non-

dominant minorities: A social resistance framework.” Social Science & Medicine 73 (9): 1292– 1301. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.027.

Ferguson, A. A. 2010. Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Flores-Gonzalez, N. 2005. “Popularity versus respect: School structure, peer groups, and Latino academic achievement.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18 (5): 625– 642. doi:10.1080/09518390500224945.

Freeman, A. 2015. “Classrooms, “crimes,” color, and the power of community resistance.” In The Race Controversy in American Education, edited by L. Drakeford, 93–120. Vol. 1.Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NJ: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Garland, D. 2012. Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giroux, H. A. 1981. “Hegemony, resistance, and the paradox of educational reform.” Interchange 12 (2–3): 3–26. doi:10.1007/BF01192105.

110 V. BASILE

Giroux, H. A. 1983. “Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis.” Harvard Educational Review 53 (3): 257–293. doi:10.17763/haer.53.3. a67x4u33g7682734.

Goodall, H. L. 2000. Writing the New Ethnography. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gutiérrez, R. 2010. “The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education.” Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education 44 (1): 37–68. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037. Gutstein, E. 2006. Reading and Writing the World with Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for

Social Justice. New York: Taylor & Francis. Hand, V. M. 2010. “The co-construction of opposition in a low-track mathematics classroom.”

American Educational Research Journal 47 (1): 97–132. doi:10.3102/0002831209344216. Harcourt, B. E. 2008. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hirschfield, P. J. 2008. “Preparing for prison?: The criminalization of school discipline in the

usa.” Theoretical Criminology 12 (1): 79–101. doi:10.1177/1362480607085795. Justice Policy Institute. 2011. Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison

Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies. Justice Policy Institute. www.justicepolicy.org. Langhout, R. D. 2005. “Acts of resistance: Student (in)visibility.” Culture & Psychology 11 (2):

123–158. doi:10.1177/1354067X05052348. Leonard, J., W. Brooks, J. Barnes-Johnson, and R. Q. Berry. 2010. “The nuances and complexities

of teaching mathematics for cultural relevance and social justice.” Journal of Teacher Education 61 (3): 261–270. doi:10.1177/0022487109359927.

Lindsay, V. C. 2005. “They schools ain’t teachin’ us”: Black males, resistance, and education at Uhuru high school. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.

MacLeod, J. 2009. Ain’t No Makin’ It. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Martin, D. B. 2006. “Mathematics learning and participation as racialized forms of experience:

African American parents speak on the struggle for mathematics literacy.” Mathematical Thinking and Learning 8 (3): 197–229. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_2.

Martin, D. B. 2007. “Mathematics learning and participation in the African American context: The co-construction of identity in two intersecting realms of experience.” In Improving Access to Mathematics: Diversity and Equity in the Classroom, ed P. Cobb and N. S. Nasir, 146–158. New York: Teachers College Press.

Martin, D. B. 2009. “Researching race in mathematics education.” Teachers College Record 111 (2): 295–338.

Martin, D. B. 2013. “Race, racial projects, and mathematics education.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 44 (1): 316–333. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0316.

McDonald, K. E., C. B. Keys, and F. E. Balcazar. 2007. “Disability, race/ethnicity and gender: Themes of cultural oppression, acts of individual resistance.” American Journal of Community Psychology 39 (1–2): 145–161. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9094-3.

McFarland, D. A. 2001. “Student resistance: How the formal and informal organization of classrooms facilitate everyday forms of student defiance.” American Journal of Sociology 107 (3): 612–678. doi:10.1086/338779.

Meiners, E. R. 2007. Right to Be Hostile: Schools, Prisons, and The Making of Public Enemies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B., and E. J. Tisdell. 2016. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. New York: Sage.

National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council . 2013. “Next Generation Science Standards: for States, by States.”Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18290.

National Science Teachers Association. 2004. NSTA Position Statement: Scientific Inquiry. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 111

Nolan, K. 2011. Police in the Hallways: Discipline in an Urban High School. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ogbar, J. 2007. Hip-Hop Revolution: The Culture and Politics of Rap. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rios, V. M. 2006. “The hyper-criminalization of Black and Latino male youth in the era of mass incarceration.” Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society 8 (2): 40–54. doi:10.1080/10999940600680457.

Rios, V. M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: NYU Press. Rios, V. M., and C. Rodriguez. 2012. “Incarcerable subjects: Working-class Black and Latino

male youths in two California cities.” In Young Men in Uncertain Times, ed V. Amit and N. Dyck, 241–264. New York: Berghahn Books.

Schwartz, L. H., D. DiGiacomo, and K. D. Gutiérrez. 2015. “Designing “contexts for tinker- ability” with undergraduates and children within the el pueblo mágico social design experi- ment.” IJREE-International Journal for Research on Extended Education 3: 1.

Solórzano, D. G., and O. Villalpando. 1998. “Critical race theory, marginality, and the experience of students of color in higher education.” In Sociology of Education: Emerging Perspectives, ed C. A. Torres and T. R. Mitchell, 211–224. New York: SUNY Press.

Solórzano, D. G., and D. D. Bernal. 2001. “Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and Latcrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context.” Urban Education 36 (3): 308–342. doi:10.1177/0042085901363002.

Solórzano, D. G., and T. J. Yosso. 2001. “Critical race and Latcrit theory and method: Counter- storytelling.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 14 (4): 471–495. doi:10.1080/09518390110063365.

Solórzano, D. G., and T. J. Yosso. 2002. “Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research.” Qualitative Inquiry 8 (1): 23–44. doi:10.1177/ 107780040200800103.

Stinson, D. W. 2006. “African American male adolescents, schooling (and mathematics): Deficiency, rejection, and achievement.” Review of Educational Research 76 (4): 477–506. doi:10.3102/00346543076004477.

Stinson, D. W. 2008. “Negotiating sociocultural discourses: The counter-storytelling of acade- mically (and mathematically) successful African American male students.” American Educational Research Journal 45 (4): 975–1010. doi:10.3102/0002831208319723.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2013. Principles to Actions: Executive Summary. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

The Sentencing Project. 2017. Black Disparities in Youth Incarceration. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project. www.sentencingproject.org.

Thompson, H. A. 2011. “Criminalizing kids: The overlooked reason for failing schools.” Dissent 58 (4): 23–27. doi:10.1353/dss.2011.0083.

Twyman Hoff, P. 2016. ““Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”: African American students’ reclamation of smartness as resistance.” Race Ethnicity and Education 19 (6): 1200–1208. doi:10.1080/13613324.2016.1168542.

Wacquant, L. 2001. “Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh.” Punishment & Society 3 (1): 95–133. doi:10.1177/14624740122228276.

Winn, M. T., and N. Behizadeh. 2011. “The right to be literate: Literacy, education, and the school-to-prison pipeline.” Review of Research in Education 35 (2011): 147–173. doi:10.3102/ 0091732X10387395.

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:10.1080/ 1361332052000341006.

112 V. BASILE