We examined twelve (12) articles published in 2020 that investigated the role of implicit racial bias in educational settings. A number of studies published in 2020 further explored the extent of teachers’ implicit racial bias and its influence on their evaluation of students. Prior literature has documented the links between racial biases held by teachers and racial inequality in education outcomes (Warikoo et al., 2016). 2020 research has revealed that it is possible that even well-intentioned teachers may be unconsciously influenced by their implicit biases, which hinder them from promoting racial equity (Starck et al., 2020).
Starck and colleagues (2020) compared teachers’ implicit bias against those of other adults with similar characteristics using two national datasets. The study found that both teachers and nonteachers have similar levels of pro-White implicit racial bias, indicating that teachers’ racial attitudes largely mirror those held by the broader society. Additionally, Chin and colleagues (2020) found that teachers’ implicit biases across the nation varied by teacher gender and race. Female teachers appeared slightly less biased than non-female teachers, and teachers of color appeared to be less biased than White teachers. Overall, teachers’ adjusted bias levels were lower in counties with higher shares of Black students, echoing the role of contextual factors. When the data were analyzed at an aggregated level, counties with higher levels of implicit racial bias among teachers tended to exhibit more pronounced disparities between Black and White students in both test scores and suspension rates. This finding persists even after adjusting for a broad array of covariates at the county level. Together, these two studies showed that schools and the teachers embedded in them should not be considered as separate entities inherently capable of counteracting societal inequalities independently (Starck, 2020)
Furthermore, Quinn (2020) conducted experimental studies to assess the impact of implicit bias on teachers’ evaluations of student writing. On average, teachers showed a significant implicit association between White students and higher writing competency (Quinn, 2020). Racial bias against Black students was found when teachers scored student writing using vague rubrics. Importantly from a mitigation perspective, racial bias was not found when teachers adhered to rubrics with clearer evaluation criteria. These findings lent support to previous implicit bias research on the relationship of evaluation criteria and teacher’s racial bias (Payne & Vuletich, 2018). Quinn (2020) noted that further research should be conducted to determine the influence of bias on specific academic subjects and the nature of the student work being evaluated.
Controlling for explicit racial bias, Marcucci (2020) conducted a survey with racial priming to examine the potential impact of implicit bias on teachers’ disciplinary decision-making. The participating teachers were randomly assigned to either the African American or White condition for the vignette, which served as the racial prime. Subsequently, the teachers were presented with questions regarding their hypothetical responses to the student described in the vignette, specifically addressing disciplinary choices that encompass punitive or rehabilitative approaches. The results indicated that teachers’ implicit bias had a greater impact on punitive disciplinary decisions than on rehabilitative decisions. Counterintuitive to conventional knowledge about anti-Black implicit bias and racial inequalities in discipline, Marcucci (2020) found that teachers treated White students more harshly by making more punitive disciplinary decisions. The author cautioned against interpreting such a finding as evidence for the presence of anti-White implicit bias. Instead, Marcucci (2020) suggested that social desirability might exert a powerful influence on teachers’ decision-making processes in specific contexts. The findings indicated that teachers have the capacity to override anti-Black implicit biases when they are aware of the socially desirable quality for racial neutrality in a reflective setting such as a survey, as opposed to the pressure of a real-time disciplinary interaction. While this overriding tendency may lead to over-correcting standards for White students and lowering expectations for Black students in a harmful manner, it also demonstrated that teachers may be open to engaging in transformative de-biasing strategies. To achieve success in implicit bias mitigation, Marcucci (2020) emphasized the need of restructuring the teaching profession to reduce the cognitive and emotional stress burden on teachers and, consequently, prioritize opportunities for self-reflection.
One recent study investigated the impact of school administrators’ implicit biases on the severity of disciplinary actions (Gullo & Beachum., 2020). With a survey sample of 43 administrators from 22 schools in 7 Pennsylvania school districts, the researchers found that the administrators showed an overall pro-White preference on the Implicit Association Test for race. Discipline data at the individual student-level, including information such as student race, infraction type, disciplinary action, and the deciding administrator for the infraction, was collected from participating districts and schools. It was found that approximately 25% of the differences in discipline severity were based on student race. Most interestingly, the severity of subjective disciplinary decisions, which are not dictated by law, policy, or code, was influenced by administrators’ implicit bias. On the other hand, some of the variations in objective disciplinary decisions were attributed to student race (Gullo & Beachum, 2020). This study is one of the first to demonstrate the influence of administrators’ implicit bias on their subjective discipline decisions.
Taking the findings from Marcucci (2020) and Gullo and Beachum (2020) together, it prompts scholars to consider the multifaceted ways implicit bias manifests itself, showing that it might differ depending on the settings where educational disciplinary practices occur. Marcucci’s controlled, survey setting demonstrated that educators are able to override their implicit biases, leading to unexpected outcomes such as more punitive measures against White students. Marcucci attributed such overriding not to anti-White bias but to the influence of social desirability and a potential over-correction upon reflection. In contrast, Gullo & Beachum’s investigation into real-world disciplinary actions confirmed the persistent effect of implicit biases. Their findings showed a pro-White preference among administrators, indicating that a notable proportion of disciplinary disparity can be attributed to implicit racial bias, particularly in subjective decision-making. These findings collectively emphasize the complexity of implicit bias in educational disciplines, particularly how it impacts punitive versus rehabilitative decisions and objective versus subjective decisions. Please see the Mitigation Section for the authors’ recommended solutions.
In summary, the research from 2020 underlined the varying influence of implicit bias across different levels of educators, not just among teachers who interact with students on a daily basis, but also among school administrators who have power to enforce discipline policies or promote applicable changes to them. In our review, we have uncovered divergent ways of how implicit bias influences educators across different contexts. A highlight that stood out is the nuanced impact implicit bias could have on disciplinary practices. It is crucial to recognize that in environments where educators are conscious of scrutiny, the effect of their implicit racial bias could lead to an overcompensation in disciplinary standards for students from different racial backgrounds. On the other hand, in situations where social desirability is not of concern, implicit bias continues to be associated with disparate subjective disciplinary decisions, leading to unjust treatment of certain student populations. While teachers and administrators may have every good intention to support all students equally, their behaviors and judgments are influenced by both their own implicit bias and deeply embedded systemic biases. These findings come at a crucial time, especially considering the anticipated demographic shift in U.S. schools where the number of racial and ethnic minority students are expected to surpass that of their non-minority peers (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2017).