Implicit Bias in Education: 2019

 While there has been an increase in racial and ethnic diversity within the United States, many still live in segregated communities (Logan, 2013). The connection between housing and education segregation further perpetuates inequality from early life through adulthood (Wells et al., 2016). The lack of resources in schools from impoverished and segregated districts exacerbates this vicious cycle of inequality (Rothstein, 2013; Wells et al., 2016). A study by McCardle and Bliss (2019) explored the connection between school segregation and implicit bias, revealing a significant correlation between one’s personal diversity experiences and their levels of implicit bias. Specifically, individuals with more diverse experiences demonstrated lower levels of implicit bias. The complex interplay between implicit bias and education settings served as a focus of burgeoning research, drawing academic attention from 2019 to the manifestation of implicit bias in multiple educational environments, including early childhood, higher education, and special education. In the following section, we will examine publications from 2019 that explore implicit bias in each of these environments.

Early Childhood Education

Shifting our focus to the foundational years, Perszyk and colleagues (2019) aimed to investigate the interplay between racial and gender biases in young children. Considerable evidence indicated that adults tend to evaluate Black men more negatively compared to Black women, White men, and White women (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Navarrete et al., 2010; Purdie‐Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000). This intersectional pattern was also evident in adults’ assessments of Black boys (Todd et al., 2016). Specifically, prior research observed that preschool teachers tend to direct their visual attention in a way that suggests they anticipate disruptions from Black boys more than from other racial and gender groups of children (Gilliam et al., 2016). Building upon this foundation, Perszyk et al. focused on preschool-aged children to investigate whether this intersectional bias pattern exists within young children. Utilizing both implicit and explicit measures, the researchers evaluated how 4-year-old children responded to images of children varying in both race (Black and White) and gender (male and female). The results revealed a consistent pro-White bias among children. Furthermore, implicit bias in children was also assessed in racially more homogeneous countries. Qian et al. (2019a) conducted their research to assess the developmental course of implicit bias in Chinese participants. Their study showed that children as young as four years old displayed implicit racial bias towards outgroup members. Setoh et al. (2019) conducted research into the correlation between racial categorization and implicit racial bias in Chinese and Indian preschool children. The study revealed that children’s capacity to classify faces by race was connected to their implicit racial bias, rather than their explicit racial bias. This implied that children’s subconscious racial bias is linked to their perceptual abilities, rather than their conscious convictions about race. Additionally, the study explicitly considered the assertion that actively teaching children about racial categories might actually increase the prominence of these categories and have unintended consequences.

Special Education

          One article in our sample expanded the scope of implicit biases into special education. Building on prior research by Redfield and Kraft (2012), Oelrich (2012), and Fabelo et al. (2011), Dustin Rynders (2019) conducted an in-depth critical exploration of racial disparities in identification, discipline, service, and placement associated with special education. The author’s analyses highlighted evidence that Black students are disproportionately overrepresented in the more subjective disabilities categories such as having emotional disturbance and have a higher chance of being placed in restrictive settings (e.g., a separate, self-contained class; Redfield & Kraft, 2012). Furthermore, it was also found that White teachers refer a disproportionately high number of minority students to special education (Oelrich, 2012). These decisions could adversely affect minority students, given a previous report indicating that nearly 75 percent of special education students have faced suspension or expulsion at least once (Fabelo et al., 2011). Rynders identified implicit bias as one of the contributing reasons for these disparities.

Higher Education

          Within the realm of higher education Robinson et al. (2019) compiled narratives delving into the experiences of women of color within a predominantly White academic institution. Through a synthesis of statements from both students and faculty, the article highlighted concerns related to the recruitment, retention, and support of minority faculty and students in higher education. The analysis also exposed the hurdles faced by women of color, such as microaggressions, tokenism, and underrepresentation in leadership roles. Robinson and colleagues argued that implicit bias is one of the key factors contributing to these challenges encountered by women of color. Furthermore, the authors also emphasized the necessity for greater diversity in leadership positions within higher education. Above all, Robinson and colleagues underscored the imperative of equity and inclusivity in society, advocating that acknowledging the absence of equity can catalyze cultural transformation and encourage inclusiveness.

         Barbara Applebaum (2019) focuses instead on institutional culture transformation, finding that if taken in isolation implicit bias trainings are not a panacea. She critically assessed the effectiveness of implicit bias training as a means to drive institutional culture transformation within college campuses. The author contended that although implicit bias training is commonly employed as a response to address racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression, it is not without its limitations. Applebaum acknowledged the capacity of implicit bias training in effectively raising awareness about unconscious biases. However, she also raised a critique by pointing out training initiatives’ neglect of the structural and systemic factors that perpetuate oppression within the college environment, which may hinder the essential shifts required for transforming the institutional culture in college campuses.

          By examining these diverse studies published in 2019, we garner a more nuanced understanding of how implicit bias operates across different educational contexts, ranging from preschools’ early racial categorizations to higher education’s barriers for women of color and systemic inequalities in special education. The findings and discussions from this section signified an urgent need for multifaceted interventions to disrupt the deeply ingrained biases that perpetuate educational inequities across various age groups and settings. They also underscore the need for attention to the role of implicit bias in the earliest stages of education and resonated with McCardle and Bliss (2019)’s call for investments in our children.