Like many other Serial fans, when “Nice White Parents” was released, I was intrigued. I was curious to join a good storyteller on a deep-dive into school integration history. But also, I am a white parent, and I was curious to hear what subconscious villany I was up to this time. At first, I felt a bit like breaking into “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished,” the Wicked ballad about bad outcomes the main character’s “good deeds” caused. But then, as I kept listening, I discovered what seemed to be an interesting undercurrent in the podcast. Could there be another unnamed villain lurking between the lines?
Joffe-Walt asserts that limiting the power of white parents is essential for progress. But this assertion can be framed in another way. In fact, Joffe-Walt reframes it near the very end of the podcast -
“How can we have equitable schools if our public institutions will only respond to these demands if they happen to align with the interests of white parents?”
There it is! Do you see it? School administrators are the ones taking action! It is a major problem that administrators only respond to those with social and financial capital. Take the first podcast episode for example. Is it villainous for parents to want a French program for their children? Most people would agree that it is not wrong to want French classes. But when administrators give rich, white parents permission to raise money separate from the PTA for a French program without communicating with the actual PTA, the situation becomes more complex.
The administration, by bending the rules, has created a conflict between the two groups. By pointing out how administrators repeatedly cater to the desires of rich parents, Joffe-Walt shows that there are serious issues in the administrative offices of many public schools. Poorer families do not have the same social and financial capital to impact funding. Therefore, administrations repeatedly ignore their concerns and needs.
Joffe-Walt argues that what white parents ask for can create problems. She criticizes parents for not wanting to put their children in “chaotic classrooms,” asking them to think back on their comments and consider if those moments were racially biased. But she also points out times the administration changes the rules for rich, white parents. Isn’t it more concerning and racist to bend rules for people of certain skin color? Take, for example, episode 3, where Norm Fruchter, a former member of the local school board, states that the district started the gifted program explicitly to appease and retain white students.
In this instance, the administration knew the effects the program would have on schools, and yet they decided to do it anyway. White parents, being told their children are “smarter” and need to be placed in gifted programs, are guided into “the best choice” for a white child while leaving high-achieving, minority students, like Nadine Jackson, behind.
Interestingly, the most positive school examples of equity from Joffe-Walt’s research arise in schools where administrators stick to their own rules. These schools recognize they might not be the right educational model for everyone, and in that case, they argue there are other school choices available to families (all families). In these instances, schools don’t pretend to be the answer to every single child’s educational needs. They recognize, as research has shown, that there is no one size fits all model.
The title “Nice White Parents” certainly punches a hot button topic right now. But I would argue that Joffe-Walt is calling out more than white parents in her research. In her final questions, here is how she puts it:
White children are the minority in District 15 and in New York City public schools and in American public schools. What about the interests of all the other parents who are not white or not advantaged? What about parents like Laura Espinoza, who did not especially care about diversity, but cared deeply about smaller class sizes? How does that happen? What about parents whose primary concern is better reading instruction or better special ed services or sports programs or functioning air conditioning in their kids’ classrooms? How can we have equitable schools if our public institutions will only respond to these demands if they happen to align with the interests of white parents?” [emphasis mine].
Joffe-Walt’s final questions push us to consider how the interests of other parents can be heard and valued. Here’s our answer:
By giving low-income parents educational options outside of the public school system or by allowing education funding to follow the child, administrators will be forced to start working to accommodate a more diverse group of parents too. Why? New York City schools spend $28,000 per child. Losing even a poor student should cost administrators real money.
But public school administrators should care about students and families beyond how much financial value they bring to a school’s budget. Isn’t that the goal of public school education? Check out “Nice White Parents” and let us know what you think. And consider this a call to action - support minority voices in their desire for choice.
FUN EXTRA: Check out the comments of the “Nice White Parents” discussion questions where this topic has come up right away…
NYCDAD states...
“...Also, I have not yet heard any responsibility (or blame) put on the shoulders of the Principals and Superintendents (past and present) especially when it comes to out-of-date textbooks, facilities that are not being maintained, and children/parents not being told of other (and sometimes better) opportunities. But like I said, more episodes await.”