Relational Teaching with Black Boys: Strategies for Learning at a Single-Sex Middle School for Boys of Color

Abstract

Background/Context

Positive teacher-student relationships are critical for Black boys’ learning across single-sex and coeducational environments. Limited attention to these relationships by school professionals is rooted in deficit-oriented conceptions of boyhood and Black masculinity. The popular message of deficiency and pathology is clear: Black boys and men are either dangerous or at-risk and need to be saved. Such narrow conceptions are destructive, operate unconsciously, skew teachers’ perceptions of who boys are, and distort teachers’ efforts to meet boys’ distinct learning needs. A “boy crisis” in U.S. education has been characterized by a set of distressing school outcomes in specific learning categories. Racial marginalization and poverty only serve to exacerbate these negative academic outcomes, whereby low-income Black boys remain in the bottom quartile across all achievement measures. Scholars have recently begun to partly attribute boys’ underachievement to a lack of emphasis on the relational dimension of schools.

Purpose/Focus of the Study

(1) Illustrate how a set of relational teaching strategies supported Black boys’ engagement and learning, and (2) further contribute boys’ “voice” to a counternarrative, which strives to complicate and dispel negative race and gender stereotypes associated with Black males in the United States.

Setting/Population/Participants

This study employs a relational teaching framework to examine the learning relationships among teachers and a full cohort of eighth-grade Black boys (N = 27) at a single-sex middle school for boys of color in New York City.

Research Design/Data Collection

In-depth interviews from a critical ethnography conducted at the school-site (2011–2012) culled boys’ narratives of their teacher-student relationships.

Findings/Discussion

Boys particularly expressed how teachers must foremost convey mastery of course content, with a lucid set of humane behavioral expectations. Narratives from the boys revealed how relationally effective teachers consistently enacted the following gestures: reaching out and go beyond; personal advocacy; establishing common ground; and accommodating opposition. Teachers demonstrated the capacity to acquire and refine relational gestures, but relationship struggles among the boys and their teachers were commonplace. Core findings include: (a) Boys illuminated how specific aspects of the school context facilitated successful enactment of the relational teaching strategies by teachers; (b) teachers’ use of the relational strategies was also facilitated by the social categories of race, gender, and class the boys embodied; (c) boys’ engagement and learning benefitted from positive teacher–student relationships, which ensued after effective use of the relational teaching strategies; and (d) relational teaching with Black boys is not limited to either single-sex or coeducational learning environments.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bristol

(2015). Teaching boys: Toward a theory of gender-relevant pedagogy. Gender and Education, 27(1), 53–68.

Brown

(2011). “Same old stories”: The Black male in social science and educational literature, 1930s to the present. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 2047–2079.

Chu

(2014). When boys become boys: Development, relationships, and masculinity. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Cose

(2002). The envy of the world: On being a Black man in America. New York, NY: Washington Square Press.

Creswell

(2010). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham

, & Meunier

(1999). The influence of peer experiences on bravado attitudes among African-American males. In Way

& Chu

J. Y.

(Eds.), Adolescent boys: Exploring the diverse cultures of boyhood. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Dumas

, & Nelson

(2016). (Re)Imagining Black Boyhood: Toward a critical framework for educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 86(1), 27–47.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2001). Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Fergus

, Noguera

, & Martin

(2014). Schooling for resilience: Improving the life trajectories of Black and Latino boys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

10.

Gilligan

(1996). The centrality of relationships in human development. In Noam

Gil G.

& Fischer

(Eds.), Development and vulnerability in close relationships (pp. 237–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Glaser

, & Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

12.

Haag

(Ed.). (2002). Single-sex education in grades K-12: What does the research tell us? In Jossey Bass Reader on Gender and Education (pp. 647–676). San Francisco: Jossey.

13.

Harper

S. R.

(2014). Succeeding in the city: A report from the New York City Black and Latino male high school achievement study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.

14.

Howard

(2013). How does it feel to be a problem? Black male students, schools, and learning in enhancing the knowledge base to disrupt deficit frameworks. Review of Research in Education, 37, 54–86.

15.

Kimmel

(2006). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press.

16.

Kindlon

, & Thompson

(2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York, NY: Ballantine.

17.

Mael

F.A.

(1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioeconomic and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 101–129.

18.

Majors

(1992). Title of article. In Billson

J. M.

(Ed.), Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: New York: Lexington Books.

19.

Martino

, Kehler

, & Weaver-Hightower

(2009). The problem with boys' education: Beyond the backlash. New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Martino

, & Pallotta-Chiarolli

(2003). So what's a boy? Addressing issues of masculinity and schooling. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

21.

Massey

, & Denton

(1993). American apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Measuring Effective Teaching Project. (2009). Measuring Effective Teaching Project Report 2009. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

23.

Miles

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. New York, NY: Sage.

24.

National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE). (2006-2013). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org

25.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

26.

Nelson

(2013). Transformative brotherhood: Black Boys' identity in a single-sex school for boys of color. Unpublished dissertation. New York: The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

27.

Newsweek. (2006). The “boy crisis” in education. (pp. 1–12). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301.

28.

Noguera

(2008). The trouble with Black boys and other reflections on race, equity and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Programme for International Student Assessment. (2009). Programme for International Student Assessment: 2009. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/contacts/whoswhoinpisa.htm

30.

Pollack

(1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York, NY: Random House.

31.

Raider-Roth

M. B.

(2005). Trusting what you know: The high stakes of classroom relationships. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Reichert

, & Hawley

(2010). Reaching boys, teaching boys: Strategies that work—and why. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Reichert

, & Hawley

(2014). I can learn from you: Boys as relational learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

34.

Reichert

, & Nelson

(2012). Reproduction, resistance, and hope: The promise of schooling for boys. Journal of Boyhood Studies, 6(1), 4–15.

35.

Roorda

D. L.

, Koomen

H. M. Y.

, Spilt

J. L.

, & Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affective teacher student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529.

36.

Soyini

D. M.

(2011). Critical ethnography: Methods, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

37.

Sroufe

L. A.

, Egeland

, Carlson

, & Collins

W. A.

(2005). Placing early attachment experiences in developmental context. In Grossmann

K. E.

, Grossmann

, & Waters

(Eds.), The power of longitudinal attachment research: From infancy and childhood to adulthood (pp. 48–70). New York: Guilford.

38.

Strauss

, & Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, UK: Sage.

39.

Thomas

(1993). Doing critical ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

40.

Warren

(2013). Towards a pedagogy for the application of empathy in culturally diverse classrooms. The Urban Review, 46(3), 395–419.

41.

Warren

(2014). Conflicts and contradictions: Conceptions of empathy and the work of good-intentioned early Career White female teachers. Urban Education, 49(2), 1–29.

42.

Warren

, Douglas

, & Howard

(2016). Introduction. Erasing the deficits: My Brother's Keeper and contemporary perspectives on Black male school achievement. Teachers College Record.

43.

Way

(2013). Deep secrets: Boys' friendships and the crisis of connection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44.

Wilson

(2009). More than just race: Being Black and poor in the inner city. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.