Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves, Second Edition

Introduction: A Few Words About this Book

All children have the right to equitable learning opportunities that help them achieve their full potential as engaged learners and valued members of society. Thus, all early childhood educators have a professional obligation to advance equity. They can do this best when they are effectively supported by the early learning settings in which they work and when they and their wider communities embrace diversity and full inclusion as strengths, uphold fundamental principles of fairness and justice, and work to eliminate structural inequities that limit equitable learning opportunities.

—NAEYC, Advancing Equity in Early Childhood Education (position statement)

Since the publication of Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Young Children (Derman-Sparks & the A.B.C. Task Force 1989) and the subsequent first edition of Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves (Derman-Sparks & Edwards 2010), early childhood teachers across the United States and internationally have embraced anti-bias education (ABE) as a central part of their work. This third book about anti-bias—the second edition of Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves—builds on the first two books. Its underlying intentions remain the same: to support children’s full development in our world of great human diversity and to give them the tools to stand up to prejudice, stereotyping, bias, and eventually to institutional isms. To achieve this for children means that as educators it is not sufficient to be nonbiased (nor is it likely), and it is not sufficient to be an observer. Rather, educators are called upon to integrate the core goals of ABE in developmentally appropriate ways throughout children’s education.

What Is in this Book

This book has two major parts. Together they provide the information and strategies needed to integrate ABE into your work.

The first five chapters provide a foundation for understanding ABE. Chapter 1 describes the social and political landscape of the United States that makes ABE essential to high-quality early childhood education and explains the four core anti-bias goals. Chapter 2 discusses how young children and adults are shaped by the social and political landscape described in Chapter 1. This developmental information informs the work educators do with children and with themselves. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 present the basic tools of an anti-bias learning environment: materials and curriculum that make visible and honor diversity; clarifying and brave conversations with children; and collaborative relationships with staff and families.

Chapters 6–12 discuss social identities that fundamentally shape young children’s development and learning—cultural identities, racialized identities, gendered identities, economic class, abilities, and family structure. Each of these chapters offers a big picture to help you understand how societal ideas, attitudes, and biases affect young children’s development and provides a discussion of children’s thinking and feelings as they try to make sense of their experiences. The four anti-bias education goals are then applied to each of the social identities, accompanied by guidelines, strategies, and specific ideas to foster children’s healthy growth in a world where bias and discrimination are all too pervasive.

Being an anti-bias educator requires long-term commitment and persistence. In the final section, we offer some key strategies for keeping on keeping on. We hope these strategies answer an oft-asked question, What keeps you going? and help you begin or continue your own ABE journey.

To illuminate and bring alive the ideas and strategies in this book, the chapters are filled with true stories about children, families, and educators. The stories, some of which we have combined or compressed, are ones we have observed ourselves or collected from others in our decades of working with children and teachers. Each chapter also invites you to Stop & Think with a series of questions about your own life experiences. Self-discovery and heightened self-knowledge are essential to being an anti-bias educator. We encourage you to engage in self-reflection as you read each chapter and to share your insights with others and listen closely to their perspectives.

The Language of Equity and Diversity

Critical thinking and communicating about the forces that shape children’s identities and attitudes require having appropriate language. As for all authors, the terms we choose to use reflect our perspective, experience, and understanding of our book’s subject. As ideas change, people create new terms to describe them or use old terms in new ways. Additionally, people use a variety of names to describe themselves, even some that differ from those used by people in their same social identity groups. (See What’s in a Name? in Chapter 2.)

In the anecdotes and discussions throughout the book, we name children’s social identities when it is relevant to the topic being considered. We mostly refer to children or to the child rather than use the gendered terms girl or boy and she or he, except where it makes an anecdote clearer. We avoid pronouns where possible, and where necessary we alternate the use of he and she in the various examples and stories.

•  •  •

As you read, ponder, and implement the ideas in this book, we hope that you will add your experiences and knowledge to the ongoing work of creating early childhood programs that make it possible for all children to develop to their fullest potential.

Online at NAEYC.org/books/anti-bias you will find links to other resources to deepen your learning and provide new ideas and possibilities for your work with children.

It Takes a Village

Our most heartfelt thanks go to the many experienced social justice educators and activists who helped us make sure that this book says what it needs to say. They gave generously of their busy time to read through chapters at various points in the book’s development. Their feedback, reflecting each person’s own work with children and in social justice struggles, added important insights that we value greatly. In alphabetical order, deep thanks to Regina Chavez, Dana Cox, Robette Dias, Doralynn Folse, Jean Gallagher-Heil, Debbie LeeKeenan, Christina Lopez-Morgan, Mary Pat Martin, Deborah Menkart, Colette Murray, John Nimmo, Encian Pastel, Bill Sparks, Sean Sparks, Anne Stewart, Nadiyah Faquir Taylor, and Maureen Yates. In addition, we thank colleagues who wrote specific vignettes or contributed to specific chapters: Margie Brinkley, Nancy Brown, Carol Cole, Tarah Fleming, Doralynn Folse, Aimee Gelnaw, Luis Hernandez, Debbie LeeKeenan, Bryan Nelson, Laurie Olsen, Encian Pastel, Louise Rosenkrantz, and Nadiyah Faquir Taylor. We are also grateful to the many educators, named and unnamed, who shared the personal stories you read throughout the book.

We owe a debt of gratitude to NAEYC for the organization’s steadfast commitment to publishing a book about ABE since the first edition came out in 1989. NAEYC has held strong in the face of criticism and unfounded attacks. To our current editors—Kathy Charner and Holly Bohart—we give many thanks for their never-failing warmth, support, and discerning editing.

Finally, we send our love to the many people in our beloved communities who have been a part of our ABE journeys. They were there for us in times of discouragement, frustration, confusion, or exhaustion—and in times when we got it right and when it was time to celebrate.

I, Louise, hug my many colleagues from Pacific Oaks, Crossroads, DECET (the European diversity/equity trainers network), and the numerous early childhood teachers of children and adults with whom I’ve have spoken in the past 35 years. And, as always, I am able to do what I do because of Bill, Douglass, and Sean.

I, Julie, always hold in my mind and heart my early childhood colleagues from across the country, from Cabrillo College, and from my union, the California Federation of Teachers; the commitment of my beloved Rob, Rebekah, and Toby; and my amazing sisters, Kathie and Laurie, who always have my back.

And I, Catherine, am grateful to my wife, Linda; my parents, Jessie and Bud; Brian; my colleagues at PCOE; the Sierra College faculty and students; and the circle of women who surround me with love, wisdom, and support—Louise and Julie, my extraordinary mentors, and Randi, Linda L., and Joy. All of you are the wind beneath my wings.

Dedication

To the new generation of anti-bias educators who will expand, deepen, and carry on this work. And to our parents Tillie & Jack Olsen and Ann & Al Robbins. They lived and taught that respect, belief in justice, and the power of ordinary people, organized to act together, can change the world. Their work goes on.

CHAPTER 1

Anti-Bias Education and Why It Matters

We find these joys to be self-evident: That all children are created whole, endowed with innate intelligence, with dignity and wonder, worthy of respect. The embodiment of life, liberty and happiness, children are original blessings, here to learn their own song. Every [child] is entitled to love, to dream and belong to a loving village. And to pursue a life of purpose.

—Raffi Foundation for Child Honouring, A Covenant for Honouring Children

Equal rights, fair play, justice, are all like the air; we all have it, or none of us has it.

—Maya Angelou, Academy of Achievement interview

What Is Anti-Bias Education?

Anti-bias education (ABE) is an optimistic commitment to supporting children who live in a highly diverse and yet still inequitable world. Rather than a formula for a particular curriculum, it is an underpinning perspective and framework that permeates everything in early childhood education—including your interactions with children, families, and colleagues. ABE is based on the understanding that children are individuals with their own personalities and temperaments and with social group identities based on the families who birth and raise them and the way society views who they are. These identities are both externally applied by the world around them and internally constructed within the child.

ABE has four goals for children that have developed from the need to identify and prevent, as much as possible, the harmful emotional and psychological impacts on children from societal prejudice and bias. The goals are designed to strengthen children’s sense of self and family (identity, Goal 1); to support their joy in human diversity (diversity, Goal 2); to enable them to gain the cognitive and social and emotional tools to recognize hurtful behavior (justice, Goal 3); and to develop the confidence and skills to work with others to build inclusive, fairer ways of being in a community (activism, Goal 4). The four core goals of ABE are described in detail.

At the heart of anti-bias work is a vision of a world in which all children are able to blossom and each child’s abilities and gifts are able to flourish:

The Four Core Goals of Anti-Bias Education

Goal 1, Identity

•  Teachers will nurture each child’s construction of knowledgeable and confident personal and social identities.

•  Children will demonstrate self-awareness, confidence, family pride, and positive social identities.

Goal 2, Diversity

•  Teachers will promote each child’s comfortable, empathic interaction with people from diverse backgrounds.

•  Children will express comfort and joy with human diversity, use accurate language for human differences, and form deep, caring connections across all dimensions of human diversity.

Goal 3, Justice

•  Teachers will foster each child’s capacity to critically identify bias and will nurture each child’s empathy for the hurt bias causes.

•  Children will increasingly recognize unfairness (injustice), have language to describe unfairness, and understand that unfairness hurts.

Goal 4, Activism

•  Teachers will cultivate each child’s ability and confidence to stand up for oneself and for others in the face of bias.

•  Children will demonstrate a sense of empowerment and the skills to act, with others or alone, against prejudice and/or discriminatory actions.

•  All children and families have a sense of belonging and experience affirmation of their personal and social identities and their cultural ways of being.

•  All children have access to and participate in the education they need to become successful, contributing members of society.

•  All children are engaged in joyful learning that supports their cognitive, physical, creative, and social development.

•  Children and adults know how to respectfully and easily live, learn, and work together in diverse and inclusive environments. All families have the resources they need to fully nurture their children.

•  All children and families live in safe, peaceful, healthy, comfortable housing and neighborhoods.

This vision of ABE also reflects the basic human rights described in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN OHCHR 1989):

•  The right to survival

•  The right to develop to the fullest

•  The right to protection from harmful influences, abuse, and/or exploitation

•  The right to participate fully in family, cultural, and social life

In order for children to receive these rights, their society, their families, and those responsible for their care and education must work together to provide what each child needs to flourish. A worldwide community of anti-bias educators shares this vision. They adapt its goals and principles to their particular settings as they work with children and their families to bring these rights into being.

Stop & Think: Imagine

Because of social inequities, too many children still do not have access to basic human rights. Imagine a world of justice, equal opportunity, and safety for all.

•  What would that world look like for each of the children you work with?

•  What would the world look like for the program you work in?

•  What would you add to the vision of anti-bias education on this page?

Why Do We Need Anti-Bias Education?

Effective early childhood educators are committed to the principle that all children deserve to develop to their fullest potential. At the same time, the world is not yet a place where all children are equally responded to and have equal opportunity to become all they can be. Listen to the voices heard in early childhood programs:

A 10-month-old infant cries instead of eating when placed at a table with other classmates in his child care program. When the teacher talks with the infant’s mother about it, she learns that the family still feeds the infant because in their culture, children do not begin eating by themselves until they are a little older. The teacher says rather indignantly, Well, we do not have the staff to do that. You have to teach your child to feed himself.

•  •  •

A preschool teacher announces that the children will make cards for Father’s Day. I don’t want to! defiantly states a 4-year-old from a family with a single mom. The teacher shrugs and says, We’re making cards today. So, you make a card too.

•  •  •

A 4-year-old child newly arrived from Armenia starts his first day at a neighborhood preschool with an English-only policy. When he returns home, he tells his mother, My teacher couldn’t hear anything I said! The next day his mom asks the preschool director about this, and she suggests, Perhaps your son wasn’t paying attention.

•  •  •

This is supposed to be a happy painting. Why are you using all that black paint? observes a teacher to a young child at an easel.

•  •  •

You’re a baby, you can’t play with us, a group of preschoolers tell a classmate who uses a wheelchair and who wants to join their play. It’s fun being the baby, the teacher says cheerfully, hoping to encourage the children play together.

Damage is done when children do not see their families reflected and respected in their early childhood programs and when they experience confusing expectations and messages about how to act that contradict those they get at home. Children are injured when they receive messages about themselves that say they are not fully capable, intelligent, or worthwhile.

Teachers become anti-bias educators when they recognize that it hurts children’s development when adults do not actively support children’s family identities or when adults remain silent when children tease or reject others because of who they are. Children need to feel good about themselves without developing a false sense of superiority based on who they are. Messages and actions that both directly and indirectly reinforce harmful ideas and stereotypes about people undermine children’s sense of worth, especially when they come from someone as significant to them as a teacher. Lupe Cortes, a Head Start teacher, recalls,

I still remember that many adults put me down when I was a child, like saying, Oh, she is just a little Mexican girl. These comments really affected how I felt about myself, and I vowed I wouldn’t do the same to someone else. As a teacher, I wanted to break that cycle.

When teachers and families integrate the four ABE goals into teaching and childrearing and engage children in positive, informative conversations about human diversity, children develop the conviction that who they are is valued and important. When adults help children notice and address unfairness, even very young children are able to be strong and clear in standing up for themselves and others. Listen to the voices of children who have experienced ABE in their schools:

Several 3-year-olds (Asian, White, and Latinx) are at the art table playing with small mirrors while they paint on paper ovals. As they look at their eyes, Jesse starts crooning to himself, Oh, pretty eyes, pretty eyes. Lots of different eyes, pretty eyes, pretty eyes. Brown and blue, pointy, round. Pretty eyes, pretty eyes.

•  •  •

Some children are imitating the Native American characters they saw in a Peter Pan movie, running around the yard making whooping noises and pretending they have tomahawks. One of the children, Skyler, puts up her hand to stop them and says firmly, That’s not what Indians sound like. They have words. Real words. And you’ll hurt teacher Claudia’s feelings—’cause she’s Cherokee.

•  •  •

In a pre-K class where the teacher engages children in examining stereotypes and omissions in their classroom books, 5-year-old Walker writes in awkward printing, This book is irregular. It doesn’t have any women in it.

A Professional Responsibility to Advance Equity

In 2019 NAEYC released a groundbreaking position statement on advancing equity, which affirms that all early childhood educators have a professional obligation to advance equity … and work to eliminate structural inequities that limit equitable learning opportunities (NAEYC 2019, 1).

In addition, this position statement declares that advancing equity requires a dedication to self-reflection, a willingness to respectfully listen to others’ perspectives without interruption or defensiveness, and a commitment to continuous learning to improve practice (5). It calls on everyone involved in any aspect of early childhood education to take on the following actions, which are also foundational to using an ABE approach.

•  Build awareness and understanding of your culture, personal beliefs, values, and biases.

•  Recognize the power and benefits of diversity and inclusivity.

•  Take responsibility for biased actions, even if unintended, and actively work to repair the harm.

•  Acknowledge and seek to understand structural inequities and their impact over time.

•  View your commitment to cultural responsiveness as an ongoing process.

•  Recognize that the professional knowledge base is changing…. Be willing to challenge the use of outdated or narrowly defined approaches—for example, in curriculum, assessment policies and practices, or early learning standards. (6)

The Profession’s Code of Ethics

As do all professional organizations, NAEYC has a Code of Ethical Conduct that describes the central ideals and principles of the early childhood education field. Many of these also support the vision and goals of ABE. Here are some specific examples (NAEYC 2016):

P-1.2—We shall care for and educate children in positive emotional and social environments that are cognitively stimulating and that support each child’s culture, language, ethnicity, and family structure [emphasis added].

P-1.3—We shall not participate in practices that discriminate against children by denying benefits, giving special advantages, or excluding them from programs or activities on the basis of their sex, race, national origin, immigration status, preferred home language, religious beliefs, medical condition, disability, or the marital status/family structure, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs or other affiliations of their families.

I-4.3—[We shall] work through education, research, and advocacy toward an environmentally safe world in which all children receive health care, food, and shelter; are nurtured; and live free from violence in their home and their communities.

I-4.4—[We shall] work through education, research, and advocacy toward a society in which all young children have access to high-quality early care and education programs.

I-4.7—[We shall] support policies and laws that promote the well-being of children and families, and work to change those that impair their well-being. To participate in developing policies and laws that are needed, and to cooperate with families and other individuals and groups in these efforts. (9, 19)

Stop & Think: NAEYC’s Code of Ethical Conduct and You

•  Which specific parts of the Code listed above speak to you most right now? Why? (See NAEYC.org/resources/position-statements/ethical-conduct.)

•  Which parts, if any, are you not comfortable with? Why?

•  Which parts of the Code do you see practiced in the program where you work, send your child, or hope to work in someday?

Inequity Is Built into the System

Early childhood teachers welcome children and show respect for their families so children feel powerful, competent, and a sense of belonging. However, beyond individual teachers’ hopes, beliefs, and actions is a society that has built advantage and disadvantage into its institutions and systems. These dynamics of advantage and disadvantage are deeply rooted in history. They continue to shape the degree of access children have to education, health care, and security—the services necessary for children’s healthy development. These dynamics also greatly affect the early childhood education system, despite whatever values individual teachers may have.

As the NAEYC position statement on advancing equity (2019) explains,

Advancing equity in early childhood education requires understanding … the ways in which historical and current inequities have shaped the profession, as they have shaped our nation. The biases we refer to here are based in race, class, culture, gender, sexual orientation, ability and disability, language, national origin, indigenous heritage, religion, and other identities. They are rooted in our nation’s social, political, economic, and educational structures. Precisely because these biases are both individual and institutional, addressing structural inequities requires attention to both interpersonal dynamics—the day-to-day relationships and interactions at the core of early childhood education practice—and systemic influences—the uneven distribution of power and privilege ingrained in public and private systems nationwide, including in early childhood education. (4)

Teachers need to know how structural biases operate and affect their teaching and how these biases impact the development of children’s identities and attitudes. This means understanding societal isms and explicit and implicit bias.

What Are Isms?

Ableism, classism, nativism, racism, and sexism are examples of an ism, a set of social beliefs, policies, and actions designed to keep power and privilege in the hands of one group at the expense of another. Isms are reflected in a society’s institutions, such as education, health, housing, employment, and media. Institutional isms are often created through the laws or regulations of federal, state, and city governments and are expressed in organizational policies, regulations, cultural assumptions, and the thinking and actions of the people who carry out the policies (Rothstein 2017).

The structural advantages and disadvantages assigned to people based on isms depend on people’s membership, or perceived membership, in specific social identity groups, such as citizenship, race, ethnicity, economic class, physical ability, gender, or sexual orientation. The biases that accompany the isms shape children’s construction of their social identities and their attitudes toward others.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Isms

Many people equate the isms to blatant, easily identifiable ideas and actions—and sometimes isms do function directly and obviously. Historically, forbidding women to vote or own property was an example of direct sexism. So, too, were laws that created racial segregation in education (racism) or legally denied public education to children with disabilities (ableism). Laws prohibiting marriage to a same-sex partner, or prohibiting a same-sex partner from getting custody of a couple’s children if the biological parent dies, are also direct consequences of a structural ism (heterosexism). The number of direct laws or regulations creating advantage for some groups and disadvantage to others has decreased over US history, usually as a result of years of many people working to end these direct forms of isms. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, and the 2015 ruling of the US Supreme Court guaranteeing same-sex couples the freedom to marry are examples of structural changes that have resulted in greater equality.

However, while some forms of systemic inequality are eliminated or weakened, aspects of them may arise again (Kendi 2016). An example is the weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by congressional and Supreme Court actions in the 2000s. This has led to several states passing legislation restricting the right to vote, particularly hurting people of color, people with low income, students, and senior citizens. Another example, occurring during the writing of this book (2017–2019), is the action taken by the federal government and some state legislatures to pass new immigration regulations directed at restricting people—particularly those from majority Muslim countries and from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America—from coming to the United States. Yet another disturbing indicator is the data about hate groups and hate crimes. In the United States, the number of hate groups rose to a record high in 2018 (Beirich 2019b), and crimes against people of color, Jewish people, and LGBTQ people were the second highest in more than a decade (Levin & Nakashima 2019).

Economic statistics also illustrate the continuing impact of racism and classism. The percentage of African American (34 percent) and American Indian (34 percent) children living in poverty in the United States is almost three times the percentage of White children (12 percent). The percentage of Latino children (28 percent) living in poverty is twice that of White, non-Hispanic children (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2018; terms of race and origin used here are those used in the Casey report). There is also a growing body of research about the psychological and emotional effects of racism and other isms, including poverty, trauma, and stress (NAEYC 2019). For example, many Latinx children, whether they have been directly involved or not, experience trauma and psychological distress as a result of parental detention and deportations (Rojas-Flores et al. 2017).

Isms Impact the Early Childhood Profession Too

The early childhood profession exists as part of the larger society and is not immune to the biases that are built into its complex world. The field’s professional commitment to children and to families has laid a foundation for equitable treatment of all, yet the field often fails to address implicit biases and barriers that are explored in the chapters ahead. Consider the following:

•  One long-standing early childhood education principle requires that curriculum meet each child’s individual needs. However, individualizing frequently relies on a single cultural perspective of development and does not include understanding the cultural and social influences on children’s learning. This approach results in misunderstanding either the strengths or the learning needs of children who are not seen as members of the dominant culture. In addition, many teachers still do not receive preservice and in-service training on using children’s cultural strengths as part of individualizing learning. Another factor is that for the most part, standardized curriculum and assessment tools frequently reflect an implicit dominant cultural perspective (NAEYC 2019). While some do address ways to individualize learning, they do not explicitly include discussions about social identity issues and considering children’s cultural strengths.

•  Another research-backed principle states that it is developmentally best for young children to continue to develop their home languages while also learning English (Castro 2014). However, teacher training and resources for working with dual language learners are not always available, and many early childhood teachers struggle to effectively support dual language learners. Moreover, the idea of dual language learning continues to be a contested social issue and is not accepted in many school districts around the country.

•  The field of early childhood education still reflects the stratification of the larger society and the historic marginalization of women’s social and economic roles—which has a particularly strong impact on women of color. Comprising primarily women, the early childhood workforce is typically characterized by low wages. It is also stratified, with fewer women of color and immigrant women having access to higher education opportunities that lead to the educational qualifications required for higher-paying roles. Systemic barriers limit upward mobility, even when degrees and qualifications are obtained (NAEYC 2019, 14).

Biases Are Part of the System of Isms

Biases are beliefs that affect how individuals think, feel, and act toward others. They lead to acts of individual prejudice and discrimination. Starting in childhood, everyone absorbs and internalizes biases from larger societal attitudes (Bian, Leslie, & Cimpian 2017; Brown et al. 2017). As adults, early childhood teachers bring biased ideas, whether consciously or unintentionally, into their work (Yates & Marcelo 2014). This is why it is essential for teachers to understand how biases work—and uncover and get rid of their own.

For example, some teachers may assume that families are not interested in their children’s education because they miss family conferences, meetings, or other events, without considering that families may be unable to attend due to such factors as the cost of babysitting, lack of available transportation, or inflexible work hours, or that discussions with their child’s teacher are not in the family’s language. Or, some teachers might unquestioningly accept the disproportionate number of White early childhood educators who work as master teachers, program directors, university professors, and administrators, excusing this situation with the rationale that people of color lack sufficient qualifications or degrees or interest. They do not take into account societal factors such as the economic conditions that permit people to be full-time students or consider the far-reaching, negative results of attending underresourced and overcrowded schools prior to college.

Biases Are Explicit and Implicit

Sometimes a person’s bias is obvious, or explicit. Explicit biases are undisguised statements. They are attitudes and beliefs about a group of people that are applied to all individuals in the group. Examples of explicit biases in US society include the sexual harassment of women by powerful men; violence against mosques, churches, and synagogues by angry, prejudiced people; and white nationalist demonstrators chanting anti-Semitic slogans used by the Nazis. Most early childhood teachers are sensitive to explicit bias and, for the most part, work hard to avoid and address such behavior. Still, the field is plagued by some explicit biases, such as the belief that children in some racial groups are genetically more intelligent than those in other racial groups, that boys are inherently more destructive than girls, and that adopted children carry lifelong emotional damage.

In other cases, a person’s actions reflect bias that is not so obvious—even to the person acting on it. This is implicit bias. Implicit biases are attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner (Kirwan Institute 2015). Individuals may not be aware that they have these biases or that they act or fail to act because of them. For example, in our experience, White teachers who say that they are color blind (i.e., are not aware of racial or ethnic differences because children are children) tend to have classrooms in which White, urban, middle-class children are represented in the learning environment and curriculum while children of other backgrounds are not. Regardless of the teacher’s conscious intentions, this kind of classroom sends all children the message that the universal child is White, middle class, urban, able-bodied, and from a two-parent family, and therefore the one who matters. Children who do not fit in those categories are less than, different, exotic, not regular. These teachers may not express explicit biases that being White or middle class is better, but their implicit bias of what the universal child looks like turns into bias in practice and reinforces the societal inequities and injuries the child meets outside the classroom. This implicit bias is also evident in many college child development textbooks that have chapters of research about White, middle-class children and short segments at the end of the chapter, or in a separate chapter, about diverse children.

Teachers of young children—like all people—are not immune to such bias. Even among teachers who do not believe they hold any explicit biases, implicit biases are associated with differential judgments about and treatment of children by race, gender, ability, body type, physical appearance, and social, economic, and language status—all of which limit children’s opportunities to reach their potential. Implicit biases also result in differential judgments of children’s play, aggressiveness, compliance, initiative, and abilities. (NAEYC 2019, 15)

Implicit Biases Impact Teachers’ Behavior and Children’s Well-Being

Consider how girls often receive feedback about the way they look and the way they are dressed rather than about their abilities, while boys are praised for their efforts and accomplishments. Bit by bit, many girls become convinced that their value rests mainly on their appearance, a belief that becomes increasingly toxic for teens and young adults and tends to shadow the adult lives of many women (OWH 2019).

Another deeply hurtful—and well-researched—example of implicit biases influencing teacher behavior is documentation that African American boys are disproportionately suspended from preschool programs for behavioral issues. Oscar Barbarin was one of the first to look at this disturbing reality (Barbarin & Crawford 2006). Several years later, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights reported that African American children represent 18 percent of preschool enrollment, but 48 percent of preschool children receiving more than one out-of-school suspension (2014, 1). And although the teachers and directors who suspend these boys may not be acting with the conscious intent of being racist, their unexamined implicit bias results in racism.

Here is an example of a preservice teacher in one of Julie’s college classes facing an important learning moment concerning how implicit bias resulted in an incorrect and unfair interpretation of children’s behavior:

A preservice teacher was recorded leading circle time. The activity had fallen apart, with children getting up, running away, and refusing to participate. That evening the college class discussed what had happened. The preservice teacher complained about the disruptive behavior of two African American boys who had ruined the circle. Then the instructor played the video recording. Everyone was shocked to see that the real disruption had come from two White boys, that one of the African American boys had joined in later, and that the second boy had been almost entirely a bystander. But I remembered it as Alec and William! the preservice teacher