Seeping Deficit Thinking Assumptions Maintain the Neoliberal Education Agenda: Exploring Three Conceptual Frameworks of Deficit Thinking in Inner-City Schools
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2018
Seeping Deficit Thinking Assumptions Maintain the Neoliberal Education Agenda: Exploring Three Conceptual Frameworks of Deficit Thinking in Inner-City Schools
This article draws awareness to the subtle and seeping “common sense” mentality of neoliberalism and deficit thinking assumptions about racially marginalized students in inner-city schools. From a literature review conducted on deficit thinking and deficit practices in schools, I developed three different frameworks for understanding the roots of deficit thinking: (a) pseudo-scientific, (b) sociological-cultural, and (c) socioeconomic. This article examines the serious ethical implications of disengagement, internalized deficit beliefs, and being “pushed out” of school that arise from each framework. I argue that these implications, in conjunction with neoliberal agendas for schooling, have a double negative impact on the schooling experiences of racially marginalized students who attend inner-city schools.
AppleM. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18, 12-44.
2.
AppleM. W. (2011). Democratic education in neoliberal and neoconservative times. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21, 21-31.
3.
AronowitzS. (2003). How class works: Power and social movement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BailinS. (2005). What is critical thinking? In HareW.PortelliJ. P. (Eds.), Key questions for educators (pp. 54-58). Halifax, NS: Edphil Books.
5.
CooperB. (2006). Deficit thinking, learn university of North Carolina. USA, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Publishers.
6.
CubanL. (2004). Making public schools businesslike… again. Political Science and Politics, 37, 237–240. doi:10.1017/S1049096504004159
7.
CumminsJ. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multi-Lingual Matters.
8.
CumminsJ. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.
9.
DeiG.KarumancheryL. (2001). School reforms in Ontario: The “marketization of education” and the resulting silence on equity. In PortelliJ.SolomonP. (Eds.), The erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities (pp. 189-216). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises.
10.
FordD.HarmonD. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Equity & Excellence, 12, 141-147.
11.
GaabM. (2004). Book review of lives on the edge: Single mothers and their children in the other America. Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 36. doi:10.1207/s15326993es3602_5
12.
GarzaA.CrawfordL. (2005). Hegemonic multiculturalism: English immersion, ideology and subtractive schooling. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 29, 599–619.
13.
GibsonM. A. (1993). The school performance of immigrant minorities: A comparative view. In JacobE.JordanC. (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 113-128). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14.
HillD. (2006). Class, capital and education in this neoliberal/neoconservative period. Information for Social Change, 23, 11-35.
15.
hooksB. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
HoutM. (2008). How class works: Objective and subjective aspects of class since the 1970s (pp. 25-64). In LaueauA.ConleyD. (Eds.), Social class: How does it work?New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
HudakG.KihnP. (2001). Labeling: Pedagogy and politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
Hyslop-MargisonE. J.NaseemA. (2008). Scientism and education: Empirical research as neo-liberal ideology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
19.
Hyslop-MargisonE. J.SearsA. M. (2006). Neo-liberalism, globalization and human capital learning: Reclaiming. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
20.
MartinJ. (1992). Critical thinking for a humane world. In NorrisJ. (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking (pp. 163-180). Boston, MA: Teachers College Press.
21.
McMahonB.PortelliJ. P. (Eds.). (2012). Student engagement in urban schools: Beyond neoliberal discourses. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
22.
MeierD. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating community of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
23.
MilnerH. R.SmitheyM. (2003). How teacher educators created a course curriculum to challenge and enhance preservice teachers’ thinking and experience with diversity. Teaching Education, 14, 293-305.
PortelliJ. P. (2011). Preface. In SolomonR. P.SingerJ.CampbellA.AllenA. (Eds), Brave new teachers: Doing social justice work in neo-liberal times (pp. vii-xii). Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
26.
PortelliJ. P. (2013). Deficit mentality and the need for subversion: Reflections on Milani. In BorgC.CardonaM.CaruanaS. (Eds.), Don Lorenzo Milani and Education (pp. 213–218). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
ReayD. (2004). Exclusivity, exclusion and social class in urban educational markets in the UK. Urban Education, 39, 537-560.
29.
SharmaM. (2009). Inner city students: Stamped, labeled and shipped out — Deficit thinking and democracy in an age of neoliberalism (Masters Thesis). University of Toronto.
30.
ShieldsC.BishopR.MazawiA. (2005). Pathologizing practices: The impact of deficit thinking on education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
31.
SolomonR. P.SingerJ.CampbellA.AllenA. (2011). Brave new teachers: Doing social justice work in neo-liberal times. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
32.
Sue Books. (2004). Poverty and schooling in the U.S.: Contexts and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
