Professional Development 

 
Raising Consciousness among the Faculty and Staff 
​
As  with  the  majority  of  attempts  to  develop multicultural programs across the country, the Changeton Central Steering 
Committee  put a great deal of emphasis on professional development. In fact, the group’s first in-service, “Working with 
Diversity,”  was  a  concerted  effort  to  begin  to  “sensitize”  the  school  system’s  over  nine  hundred  teachers  and 
administrators  to  the  concerns  of  a  multicultural  world.  In  order  to  jump-start  their  movement,  members  of  the  CSC 
consulted  with  two  professors  of  education  from  area  colleges  and,  with  their  help,  began  the  production  of  a  video 
called  ​Comments  on  Multicultural  Education​.  The  video,  which  consisted  of  Changeton  teachers  and  administrators 
explaining  why  they  supported  the  idea  of celebrating diversity, was a strategic way of showing the inservice participants 
that  a number of people within the school system were dedicated to the infusion of multicultural education. Through the 
use  of familiar faces, the video also served the purpose of personalizing the district-wide transformation process in a way 
that  would  be  inviting  and  less  threatening  to  others.  After  viewing  the  video,  the  superintendent of schools addressed 
the  large  audience.  He  stated  that  in  Changeton  there  were  “repeated  unwelcome  verbalisms  across  the  board  from 
teachers,  administrators,  and  staff  to  students  from  different  backgrounds.”  He  also  explained  that  many  educators 
expressed  frustration  at  not  being  able  to  understand  the  needs  of  all  of  their  students.  After  a  speech  from  a  parent 
about  discrimination,  Eva  introduced  another  video,  ​The Eye of the Storm, b ​ etter known as ​Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes (​ in which 
the  teacher  separates  the  class  by  eye  color  and  discriminates  against  one  group  while  glorifying  the other). As the film 
rolled,  there  was  whispering  and  laughter  throughout  the  audience.  Perhaps  the  response  was  incited  by  the  dated 
clothing  and  beehive  hairdo  of  the  video’s  central  figure.  Maybe  some  of  the  over  nine  hundred  people  present  were 
nervously  reacting  out  of  their  discomfort  with  the  inservice  setting  and  implications.  It  may  have  been  the  apparent 
homogeneity  of  the  classroom  on  the  screen  (all  young,  white,  working-class  kids),  as  compared  with the demographic 
reality  of  Changeton.  In  a very different tone from laughter, two white women commented to each other, in response to 
the  obvious  implication  of  the  video:  “It  doesn’t  carry  over,  we  don’t  see  that.  .  .  .  It’s  not  racial,  they  like  you or they 
don’t.” 
 
The Call for Sensitivity Training 
Gathering their forces after the in-service, the CSC participants met at the Central Administration Building. The focus of 
the group’s discussion centered around the attitudes and beliefs of the faculty and staff in the city. Committee members 
expressed disgust at the reactions of colleagues, a number of whom left the workshop during the ​Brown Eyes Blue Eyes 
video. Fred exclaimed, “People were reading, others were laughing, it was a waste of time. disgraceful!” Jake insisted, 
“Our main goal is to change the attitudes of those people who think that many of these children don’t belong 
here—older staff that have never dealt with this in the past lily-white schools.” Carl shared with the group how, 
mistakenly, a Thai translator had been brought into his office to act as an interpreter for a Vietnamese student. Carl was 
disturbed by what he referred to as the “you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all” syndrome. Kevin offered the following 
story: “It was a snowy day and a black woman was stuck in a snow bank. The custodian helped her and replied: ‘Give 
those niggers a drivers license, but they’ll never learn how to drive!’” 
 
The committee agreed that the process of “culturally sensitizing” people should be implemented throughout the school 
system, “including cafeteria workers, custodians, and office managers.” The participants also realized that in-service 
training was essential in that “you can’t just change people’s minds simply by telling them to change.” Instead, members 
of the CSC wanted to expose participants to certain issues and actively involve them in raising awareness. The pressing 
question for the group was how to transform the faculty and staff ’s attitudes when“they may not know the depth of the 
problem.” “Teachers in Changeton have no idea what baggage these kids are bringing to school,” exclaimed Kevin. 
Giselle added, “I saw a staff person who said, ‘Now Giselle, how did your mother bring you up?’ It was obvious that he 
had no idea about the lives of these students, some who may not have parents at all. We need to sensitize teachers, 
which goes together with raising the students’ egos.” 
Sara insisted that the CSC find ways to make teachers deal with youths “not as culturally disadvantaged, but as different.” 
Jake agreed, telling the story of a teacher who upon hearing the accent of a new student, wanted him out of the class. 
The evicted youth was an honors student in math and social studies. Understanding the immediate implications of and 
reactions to such abusive treatment, Raul insisted that “crime and economics are all tied to this, these are the people that 
drop out, they are the ones in the parking lot. . . .We need to teach these kids to work and keep the system going.” 
 
The committee understood the fact that teachers’ discriminatory attitudes have an enormous impact on students’ 
perceptions of schooling and themselves, as well as on their academic outcomes—“Teachers have tremendous influence 
on students in the messages that are transferred down.” Jake summed up the situation, “Some don’t know, some don’t 
care, and some are truly racist.” 
 
Emerging Goals for Professional Development 
To help the committee focus in on individual members’ concerns, as revealed I Chapters Four and Five, the group 
drafted and distributed amongst its membership a questionnaire, the Multicultural Committee Draft of Goals. As 
“Changing,Staff Attitudes” was one of the categories (and central goals), the following issues and insights, were 
mentioned in the responses: 
 
● Provide training day(s) for at least two members of each school’s multicultural committee. Focus on dealing with 
differences, prejudice reduction, and teaching for confronting issues of prejudice and discrimination. 
● Work with school-based committees in order to develop an action plan, for example, school-based workshops that deal 
with issues of race and social inequality. 
● We need experiential activities and opportunities to recognize and evaluate the ideological influences that shape our 
thinking about schooling, society, ourselves, and diverse others. 
● Teaching culturally different groups requires more sensitivity, it requires placing equal value on all students. The committee 
should be involved in providing training to all staff; that is, sensitivity workshops, in-service training, and more educational 
incentives for continued education. 
● We need to heighten the importance of staff sensitivity toward the diverse backgrounds of students and their families, 
sponsor in-service training that promotes respect and sensitivity, and develop a resource bank of presenters that could be 
used by other groups in the system offering in-service training. 
● Allow teachers more input in decision-making procedures in individual buildings staff will be more positive and enthusiastic 
if it is their school and not the administrators’. 
● All else will fall into place once educators’ visions are expanded. Start with sensitivity workshops and cultural awareness 
sessions to get teachers to confront their suppressed feelings, especially regarding racism. Then, work with teachers to help 
them view everyone as innately equal; that is, the concept of oneness. 
● All staff must be involved, not just portions of it. 
● Pay for the teachers to take multicultural courses and give them credit for this toward pay increases. 
● Have non-bilingual teachers attend bilingual workshops and the bilingual convention. 
 
Looking to the Greater Community for Professional Development 
The group brainstormed about programs that could help in their efforts to sensitize colleagues. CSC members would 
attend professional development meetings whenever possible in order to gain insights about potential future in-services. 
As Eva stated, “If you go out, we need people to bring back to this table as much information as you can.” Each time 
that the group would assemble, participants would share news about upcoming, or previously attended, multicultural 
workshops in the area. Carl informed the group that an anti-violence organization was holding a meeting and that the 
CSC should attend in order to “volunteer our expertise.” 
 
The committee agreed that it would be good to have parents and the public at large see teachers and administrators 
showing a deep level of commitment to embracing diversity by involving themselves in activities outside of the schools. 
However, a common problem with many of these workshops was the price. For example, one popular institute’s 
in-service ranged anywhere from a three hour presentation for $1,100 to a two-and-a-half-day in-service at a cost of 
$6,600. By June of 1993, the CSC dedicated itself to developing its own “multicultural training activity for central, 
working, and school-based committee members,” with the hopes that it would be ready to go as early as September. 
Having received $1,200 from the state desegregation plan to provide for the in-service and some extra funds needed to 
pay for substitute teachers, the Central Steering Committee’s plan of attack was to find an organization that could help 
shape and mfacilitate the group’s multicultural efforts. September 30, 1993, was the chosen day, and there was little time 
to waste. 
 
In August, a volunteer subcommittee took on the responsibility for organizing the upcoming in-service. In search of 
facilitators, the group first approached Facing History, an organization that links the Holocaust, discrimination, and 
public schooling. However, the spokesperson for this organization recommended that before the CSC utilize their 
services, they should provide some introductory activities to help lay a foundation. He suggested that this include 
exposure to “an expert on urban settings.” 
 
Through word of mouth, the subcommittee contacted Sandy Bur (a white man), as well as Lesley Warner (a white 
woman) and Mandy Roberts (a black woman), from two area colleges. The subcommittee met with Bur, who was a 
professor of Urban Studies (and who had also worked with the Nobel Public Schools), to help prepare for the upcoming 
event. Sara suggested that the CSC broadcast the in-service to all the schools. This way, teachers could call in for 
questions and create discussions in their classrooms. Sam agreed with the idea, citing George Washington University, 
which had done something similar. However, because of the complicated scheduling problems that this idea presented, 
let alone the enormous expense, the motion died.  
 
The subcommittee didn’t want to make the same mistakes that the CSC had made at its first all-faculty in-service. 
According to the needs assessment results, a great many participants didn’t like the original workshop, claiming that it 
was too big and didn’t allow for interpersonal interaction. This time around, the committee also wanted the facilitators to 
give people practical information that they couldbring back to their schools. Kevin expressed the need for people “to 
meet, look at materials, and learn about what to look for and what to do.” With very little input from Bur, and virtually 
none from Warner and Roberts, the in-service was set to take place. Attendance would include all members of the 
Central Steering Committee, plus two multicultural representatives from each school. In theory, the workshop was 
designed “to give staff a voice through leadership training and skills building” and “to empower them to help other 
teachers who may be in the middle and will come over to our side.” Volunteers prepared an information packet for all of 
the in-service participants. They solicited the information that they needed from individual schools (for example, what 
multicultural ideas each building had already put into practice and lists of site-based committee members), collected 
some literature on multicultural education, and prepared an in-service evaluation form. The group wanted to have 
ongoing evaluations/questionnaires for gaining insight from the greater educational community 
 
The In-Service 
On September 30, the Central Steering Committee and two representatives from each school met at a local college (fifty 
people all together). Eva set up the tables for registration and distributed name tags. There were billboards that exhibited 
what schools had done so far to support multiculturalism. Each participant received a red binder (which CSC volunteers 
had assembled) that included a list o the Central Steering Committee members, a list of site-based multicultural 
committees and their chairs, a letter of welcome from the superintendent, a CSC status report with a copy of the 
Mission Statement, a tentative schedule for future in-services, complied needs assessment data from the March all-faculty 
in-service, a list of multicultural activities taking place in the schools (by building), and chart describing the command 
structure of the school-wide multicultural education committees. It also included journal articles which presented a 
variety of perspectives on anti-racist, multicultural education (most notable authors being Gloria Ladson-Billings, James 
Banks, and Peggy McIntosh).​1 
 
Sandy Bur opened the workshop with an overview of the racial/ethnic history of Changeton. He spent most of his time 
describing the exploitation that the majority of working-class immigrants had faced over the years in such communities. 
Describing the demographic shifts of Nobel and Changeton from the 1960s through the 1980s, Bur anticipated a 
continued shift in a direction in which “whites will eventually be the minority,” and he stressed the importance of 
teaching “all kids that they have a lot to offer. 
 
 
 
 
Warner and Roberts then took the floor, echoing the importance of dealing with the changes that the first presenter had 
detailed. However, instead of lecturing from center stage, the two facilitators put the people into a large circle and 
suggested that during the exercises they were about to undergo, everyone keep track of their feelings. 
 
The two women began to separate the large group with descriptive binarisms: right handed and left handed, height 
(over/under six feet tall), age, eye color, field of study, those who have traveled internationally, those who served in the 
military those who have participated in the Nobel Marathon, those who live here I Changeton, marital status, and 
parental/grandparental status. They continued this process by dividing the group by language abilities, socioeconomic 
statu (“middle to upper middle class, blue collar”), private or public education, gender, and finally by sending “the 
non-whites” to the other side of the room, asking fo the “WASPs” (perhaps erroneously assuming that all whites are 
Anglo-Saxon Protestants) to “stay over here.” 
 
After this extensive process, the facilitators had everyone sit down and discuss what they “saw, said, felt, and 
experienced.” Random comments from the group began to surface: “Manipulated!” “We moved around too much!” 
“Ibegan to anticipate the exercise!” “Segregated!” “I didn’t like to be white or nonwhite.” Roberts asked if the 
participants felt labeled. One white male claimed, “It made everyone feel like a minority.” When asked to identify with a 
particular social class, many participants agreed that it made them feel uncomfortable. The general consensus in the 
group was that people “felt good about some categories, and bad about others.” 
 
Some participants challenged the membership of certain groups. For example, it was argued that Jamaicans and Haitians 
do not necessarily fall under the descriptor black. To this, Roberts responded, “What do you call a nigger with a Ph.D.?” 
“A nigger!,” she answered laughingly to a silent room—implicitly asserting,that all racially subordinated people are 
discriminated against regardless of their national origin or accomplishments. 
 
There were also people who didn’t know where they racially/ethnically stood. One woman sat down in the middle of the 
floor, later explaining to the larger group, “I was born in the U.S. My family is from Cape Verde. They originated in 
Europe (Italy). Where am I? When I changed my descriptor, they changed my minority status.” One white man, 
addressing the two facilitators, inquired, What would happen if you asked who is racist and who isn’t?” He added, “We 
need to talk openly and honestly about racism.” With this, the group began discussing the differences between “racist” 
and “prejudice.” Most people seemed to be participating enthusiastically, though no clear definitions emanated from the 
brief interaction. 
 
Jake encouraged everyone to get back into a big circle to get people as close together as possible. Alluding to the 
previous exercise, he stated, “We all mixed the differences and belonged with each other at one point, we all have 
differences and commonalities.” 
 
Roberts made reference to the Peggy McIntosh article (on white privilege) in the red binder that was handed out. She 
then read the article aloud and talked of her experiences of being followed and harassed by sales people in stores. On a 
tight schedule, the group, without much engagement with the literature, viewe three video clips of stereotyping in the 
classroom. The idea of presenting these scenarios was to have people begin to talk about how they would handle such 
situations However, just as the discussion was getting warmed up, time ran out. In the remaining few moments, the 
facilitators handed out the CSC’s in-service evaluation. 
   
Debriefing the September In-Service 
At the next Central Steering Committee meeting, the members present immediately focused on what had taken place at 
the previous workshop. Carl stated: “Bur was atrocious—he was only going to speak for ten minutes. He talked more 
about the blue collar stuff, and not about different populations—total irrelevance!” The committee agreed that the first 
speaker “was a bomb.” Kevin noted, “They [some participants] spoke positively in the staff meeting and are developing 
ideas.” The quantitative results of the in-service evaluations also indicated a positive response: the overwhelming 
majority rated the workshop as “good” to “excellent.” 
 
Some members found the experience to be “thought provoking,” but were left with the feeling of “now where do we 
go?” Sara was disappointed; “I wanted to go to the back of the room and call a time-out—my agenda was not fulfilled!” 
Melissa was completely dissatisfied: “We raced back and forth for no reason!” Jake expressed the sentiment that too 
much had been crammed in: “There was no time to interact with others.” June felt, “It was a good start for newcomers, 
but for people mwho had already dealt deeply with these issues, it was a letdown.” Raul and Juan supported this point. 
Sam insisted that the meeting wasn’t for members of the CSC, that “it was intended for the inexperienced.” In general, 
the committee members were in agreement that they wanted a lot more dialogue. As Fred concluded, “The speakers 
were too long.” 
 
Inspired by the in-service’s first exercise, the CSC discussed the realities of categorical separation. Jake insisted, “Until 
we say that these children are ours, we will not begin to solve the problem, but we shouldn’t pigeonhole them as black or 
brown.” The group talked about how students are registered in the schools by race.Jake added, “Right away, you are 
asking people to separate themselves.” Arguing that Cape Verdean is a mixed race, Raul stated, “America wants you to 
come here and fit into categories that are already established and millions of people are marked ‘other.’” Some of the 
CSC in-service participants admitted that they felt uncomfortable when the facilitators asked the group to separate by 
race. Withoutm exploring these potentially edifying issues, the CSC mulled over what to do for its next in-service.