Structural Violence of Schooling: A Genealogy of a Critical Family History of Three Generations of African American Women in a Rural Community in Florida

Abstract

Through the lens of structural violence, Black feminism and critical family history, this paper explores how societal structures informed by white supremacy shaped the lives of three generations of rural African American women in a family in Florida during the middle to the late twentieth century. Specifically, this study investigates how disparate funding, segregation, desegregation, poverty and post-desegregation policies shaped and limited the achievement trajectories among these women. Further, an oral historical examination of their lives reveals the strategies they employed despite their under-resourced and sometimes alienating schooling. The paper highlights the experiences of the Newman family, descendants of captive Africans in the United States that produced three college-educated daughters and a granddaughter despite structural barriers that threatened their progress. Using oral history interviews, archival resources and first-person accounts, this family’s story reveals a genealogy of educational achievement, barriers and agency despite racial and gendered limitations in a Southern town. The findings imply that their schooling mirrors many of the barriers that other Blacks face. However, this study shows that community investment in African American children, plus teachers that affirm students, and programs such as Upward Bound, help to advance Black students in marginalized communities. Further, these women’s lives suggest that school curriculums need to be anti-racist and public policies that affirm each person regardless of the color of their skin. A simple solution that requires the structural violence of whiteness be eliminated from the schooling spheres.

Early Childhood Education Teacher Well-Being: Performativity as a Means of Coping

“…Although the at-risk label is contentious (Ladson-Billings, 2007 ), the intention behind the implementation of such early childhood programming is not wrong and has been consistently demonstrated as beneficial for the long-term well-being and outcomes of the children for whom it is designed (Heckman & Karapakula, 2019 ). However, schools may be rife with structural issues (Anyon, 1980 ; Bowles & Gintis, 2011 ; Galindo, 2021 ; Phillips & Gichiru, 2021 ) which prevent labeled children from being fully served (Anderson & Ritter, 2017 ; Ferri & Connor 2010 ; Ladson-Billings, 2012 ). The demands of accountability and efficiency, for example, in United States public schools (Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017 ; Pinar, 2012 ) may undercut efforts to ameliorate the at-risk label.…”