Cite as Arca, G. & Sethi, N. (2021). We Are Afraid They Won't Feel Bad: Teaching for Social Justice at the Elementary Level. In K. Swalwell & D.Spikes (Eds.) Anti-Oppressive Education in "Elite" Schools: Promising Practices & Cautionary Tales from the Field. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved at
We are halfway through our presentation at a conference. Participants are buzzing about the simulation they just experienced and asking procedural questions, sharing their responses and reactions. Then the inevitable happens. Someone asks, “How do you handle your students feeling guilt or shame? I don’t want to make my students feel bad.” We freeze. We look at each other. Our response? “We’re afraid they won’t feel bad.”
We need our students to feel something because students will not truly understand or even engage with the dynamics at play unless they have an emotional involvement—including discomfort. In fact, discomfort is often where learning begins. It is good for our students to wrestle with it, especially those who live with great privilege. Beyond that, our simulations are never about assigning individual blame. They are about recognizing and experiencing (briefly, temporarily, and minutely) the systemic effects of privilege. Without that realization, students will be allowed to think that oppression is disconnected from them or someone else’s problem.
The simulation in question is our pom-pom activity. We created it to attempt to simulate the dynamics of cyclical wealth and power and disrupt students’ belief that poor people just need to work harder in order to no longer be poor. As co-teachers at a progressive private school in Washington, DC, we tried to teach with a social justice lens in all of our curriculum. This means we continually questioned whose voice is/is not heard, or who is advantaged/disadvantaged by institutions and systems. This means that when we taught economics, we explicitly addressed cyclical poverty, wealth, and oppression, and investigated who is (and who is not) valued in economic systems. The simulation we created was one of the most dynamic learning experiences we have ever had with fifth graders. Before we explain it, however, a few words of caution.
First, while we love when students have fun, that was not the intention of this activity. In fact, many of our students did not find this experience “fun,” instead feeling a mixture of anger, guilt, and shame. Secondly, this simulation was woven within an explicit instructional framework and should not be taught in a “constructivist” way. Cyclical poverty is a real concept that we can define—we do not want students to leave this experience with fuzzy understandings of that. We did not just toss the simulation into our day but planned meticulously for this experience with explicit pre- and post-reflections. Lastly, students’ misconceptions and questions should never be left floating in the air after this simulation as they need multiple ways throughout the curriculum to think through their experience, make connections, and receive feedback. Without these caveats, we fear (and know) that the simulation and others like it will be used as an “exciting” experience that students are left to sort out by themselves. This explicit instruction also helps make the information accessible for all of our students.
The Simulation
There are three rounds to the pom-pom simulation. Round One consists of collecting as many differently sized and colored pom-poms as they can in two minutes. Pom-poms, of course, represent wealth and power. There is a catch, however. Students receive slips of paper with “assignments” on them with instructions for how they can gather pom poms (e.g., You can use both of your hands, but you may not move your feet at all). Only two people are allowed to use their hands and move around as they typically would. We also caution all students that if you touch or bump another body, you lose pom-poms. This is a safety requirement but also makes it harder for those already limited by their instructions.
After setting up the simulation and answering questions, we start a timer and tell them to go. Once pom-pom collection is over, we put students into three groups based on the number of pom-poms they collected: Group 1 includes a few students (out of 26 total) who have “great wealth and power,” Group 2 has another few students who have “some wealth and power,” and Group 3 is everyone else with “little wealth and power.” For debriefing, we ask students to move to different areas of the room for each group to discuss Round 1. Group 1 moves to the biggest, most comfortable area. Group 2 moves to a smaller but still comfortable area. Group 3 is corralled into an uncomfortable corner of the room. Students are typically very engaged in the debrief, animatedly talking about how the process was “not fair” and how they deserved another chance. Group 3 students often loudly complain about the instructions they had, saying things like, “I could only use my two pointer fingers behind my back!” or “This is not fair—why are we all smushed back here?” As they air their grievances, we say, “We hear you complaining that Round One was not fair, so we will give you another chance in Round Two.”
Round Two consists of making “baskets” of crumpled up balls of paper with each group using different color paper. We tell the third group with little wealth and power that they will have an advantage in the next round due to their large number of members. Every time one member of the group makes a “basket,” each member of the group will earn another pom-pom. There are cheers when this is announced, but the celebration is short lived as we show each group where they have to stand to shoot. Group 1 is in front and Group 2 is behind them, and Group 3 is in the back of the room. Naturally, Group 1 makes many baskets, while Group 2 and 3 rarely make any. During this round, we witness some very creative teamwork, as well as enterprising blocking tactics. After Round 2 ends, we tend to hear more frustration about how “unfair” the whole situation was and many requests for a new “fair” round. “We couldn’t even see the baskets. And Group 1 blocked our shots! They already have so many pom-poms.” “It was basically impossible. I don’t even know why we tried.”
We move onto Round 3 during which each group gets to decide what they think is a “fair” system to distribute all of the pom-poms. We give them five minutes to discuss with their group and come up with a system they support. Each group must choose a spokesperson to present their plan to the class with one minute to make a pitch for their group's plan. What students do not know until voting happens is that voting is weighted (Group 1 members get five votes each, Group 2 gets two each, and Group gets a half vote each) to represent the influence that wealth confers. When students see the unequal voting power, Group 3 is livid. They planned on winning the vote by virtue of their large number of people. Group 1 is pleased as they planned on retaining their “wealth and power” and now had the votes to do so. When we voted, Group 1’s proposal got the most votes after calculating the weighting. The other students were frustrated. Group 1 was pleased—they had started out trying to think of a “fair” system, but soon realized “it doesn’t say it has to be fair.” They also were influenced by two members who repeatedly said, “Stay wealthy! We should keep our power!”
The Debrief
At this point, we stopped the simulation for a debrief. First, we asked students to verbally share their reactions and feelings, limiting them to one comment per person and giving them time to reflect.
When I first saw the amounts each group got, it made me feel like the people in the third group were being treated like they aren't humans… ½ a vote. ½ human! Half not real. Not seen. When the people with more wealth get so many more votes, it feels like just because they have more, they also should get more of everything always. We are the people working the hardest, but we can’t get the things they have that we want and need. (Student from Group 3)
I do agree with [student’s name] that it wasn’t fair. But our group was trying to make it so that we would still be at the top of the ladder, so it wouldn’t be as fair—you had to be strategic and life isn’t always fair. (Student from Group 1)
Once everyone shared, we reminded students that this was a simulation and therefore not the same as actually experiencing poverty, discrimination, etc. We do not suddenly understand how others in these situations feel because we did an activity about pom-poms. This reminder is essential to avoid trivializing or minimizing oppression or injustice as most people (whether they are fifth grader or adults) find having perspective difficult when they are frustrated. After this, we asked them to make connections to real life—both in the debrief discussion and later as a homework reflection.1 A sample of their responses is included below.
[T]hough the law says everyone can vote, there are examples in history when our voting wasn’t fair. Even now, some people can’t vote because they don’t have access to it.
I think that was an accurate representation of those with more or less power because there are less super wealthy people then super unwealthy people but if someone super wealthy says they are doing something it might sway other people to do the same. I think an example is endorsements during the election.
I used to think that if you work hard you can get wealth but now, I think there is more to it. I think this because If you are born without wealth you will have a disadvantage and you will be stuck behind someone who started with a lot of resources and wealth.
We wrote this simulation as an antidote to the idea that people experiencing poverty should just “work hard” and in hopes of simulating the experiences and effects of privilege (or not having privilege), but students have made connections to ableism, racism, sexism, classism, politics, and more in their written reflections.
Considerations
For teachers considering using simulations like this as a strategy for social justice education in “elite” settings, we recommend the following essential elements:
Simulations are critical teaching tools to make learning relevant, personal, tangible, and felt. We become numb to stories of injustice or misfortune that happen to others and report sadness or outrage, but soon move on. When we experience an injustice, even in small ways, those emotions stay with us far longer. When students have an experience like this, they use these feelings as prior knowledge that can be activated when confronted with new vocabulary and complex content. In addition, everyone (including children) already has preconceived ideas: people are poor because they are lazy, racism was “fixed” by Martin Luther King, only bad people believe stereotypes, etc. Once we have established these “facts,” it is very hard to change our minds about things we already “know.” Experiencing something that disproves our preconceived notions is key because it forces us to acknowledge what we think we know, and it shows how it is not necessarily true. It also demonstrates to our students the ways in which they can grapple with some of the more unequal or unjust aspects of our society.
Sometimes, understanding concepts in our world like this might feel bad—and we won’t avoid that. Concepts like oppression or cyclical wealth are painful. It does feel bad. But this is teaching, and this is learning. And one thing the students consistently see in this experience is that their learning is vast and connected to the actual world around them—and that their learning and voices matter.
______________________________
Interview with Gabby Arca and Nina Sethi
Katy: What was your philosophy as a teaching team?
Gabby: What Nina and I did really well was that “one-two-punch”: you know you’re loved and supported--and you will be challenged and near tears and you’re going to write in your journal “I can’t stand my teachers” right now and then we’ll be there for you two seconds later when you come in from recess after a fight with your friend. It’s not a constant either/or—it’s a both/and. You are challenged because you are cared for.
Nina: It takes time. Someone might be upset in the moment. Hopefully, later on—you may not hear about it—it sinks in. We were very transparent about what we were doing—if you walked into our classroom, it was very obvious. Being two women of color, people did not like certain things and sent us emails—such a wonderfully passive aggressive tool to throw a compliment in there but CC the head of school! When push comes to shove, we’ve had administrators back us up. We would often invite parents to come in and talk to us—while they were super uncomfortable, they knew we shared facts. One of my favorites was when a mom came in because her white son said that she was racist and she was crying. She clearly wanted us to reassure her, but we said, “It sounds like you were.” A year later, she told me she had learned a lot from her son being in our class and tries to incorporate what she learned into her Sunday school. I appreciated that. It took her awhile and I’m sure it was painful for her son to call her racist.
Gabby: You also can’t deny when dynamic learning is happening—a classroom has a buzz. We built a reputation, families that expressed their appreciation and kids who loved us, and we had the administration’s backing. I think a lot of that was the power of two of us. What private schools need to do is put two teachers of color together. That setup gives safety, support, and power that you can’t beat. We also understood this is one way to make change—we have access to super wealthy white people. The parents won’t listen to us or talk to us, but we had access to their babies. And their babies loved us, and we got them thinking and asking questions—and they will listen to their kid who brings home really important questions. Then when that mom came in swinging that finger, crying, saying her kid called her racist—usually that feels really terrible as a teacher, but reframing those moments as successes because that’s what they really are. That, in combination with what I call “speaking it into existence.” We’d say, “Thank you so much for being in this work.” Even if they weren’t, they would pretend because that’s part of whiteness and we know that and would use it. Also, Nina was especially good at framing our tough content as “rigorous,” which was totally factual. Talking about the world around us and thinking critically is higher level work and there’s nothing private school families love more than their kid doing something their friends’ kids aren’t doing.
Nina: Just make it about the kids. “Your student asked a really great question and I gave him facts about his question that he was curious about.”
Gabby: We’d also be sincerely excited for the kids and say, “Gosh, our generation doesn’t know how to talk about these things” and parents would agree, and we’d talk about how proud we were that their kids could.
Nina: I’ve had some success referring to our mission. It requires a lot of patience and I reserve my patience for children.
Gabby: We would retreat to our rooms sometime, which is not a solution, but when you walk through the hallway and encounter multiple microaggressions—we’re saving our patience and we want to keep our job and the world is the world on top of that, so it’s hard to always find the right words. In my experience, white people need the exact right words in the exact right tone. It can take a lot to be heard, even when you’re trying to be supportive. People could come to our room literally any time, but rarely did—I struggled with that feeling of that diversity eye-roll vibe. At conferences is when I would feel most valued—when people would say “This is really great” and saw how complicated and important this type of education is. It requires two women of color, who have been in a range of spaces and studied a great deal with degrees from “elite” institutions who know a lot of layers about a lot of things—quality social justice education requires a lot for us to pull these things together and make it work.
Katy: What dimensions of anti-oppressive education were especially tough to tackle?
Nina: At well-meaning white liberal progressive schools there is a lot of “Don’t say that—we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings,” but that’s not why we don’t use that language. Dehumanizing someone debases all of us and lowers our collective humanity. Wealth and inequality also dehumanize people. The reason we wrote the simulation is because we had students who would talk about poor people and say, “They’re poor because they don’t work hard.” They’re fifth graders, so they’re just repeating what they hear their parents say. And we’re like, “Okay, that’s one opinion.” We never directly said, “Your dad is wrong.” We would say, “Why don’t we try this and see what we all think?” And then students could reflect on their own. A lot came from our students’ questions. In terms of what was difficult, talking about disability—we did our best, but I always felt like that the kids were still very concrete about it.
Gabby: Disability is so complex. We really wanted to avoid the pity or overcomer narratives and struggled to find the way to do so successfully. One of our good friends was in a wheelchair (she passed away in 2019, we love you Anne Thomas!) and she told our students that she would not have liked it if people held the door for her. Wealth took some guts. That first year we had a few Black kids in our class and almost all were very wealthy. We thought of those kiddos and families first and how they wanted to present and be. The dynamics of looking at the wealth gap was really important because white kids would be confused: “Race means people don’t have money, but my friend here is rolling in it!” The other thing that was hard, but we were both jazzed about, is that the justice lens we have is incessant. It would be the choices we were making on a rolling basis, both of us figuring out how we were going to pull a book or write a simulation because we heard a kid say something. We missed stuff, for sure, but it was incessant.
Katy: Talk to me about assessment, or how you calibrated when to push harder or pull back.
Nina: We always had written reflections. Sometimes they got something wrong because they’re ten and made a connection that doesn’t make sense, so we would clear that up. Other times, students would say, “I don’t want to learn about this anymore—it’s too painful.” Depending on who they are, we would take that different ways. And some kids just aren’t there yet—they can’t make the connections yet because they’re so concrete. That’s okay.
Gabby: Sometimes we had to connect the dots for them because it was too important to leave hanging. Another way we would know it was working is when we would hear them start correcting each other, gently and kindly, taking on certain language. We would look at each other and think, “That kid really gets humanity.” And then we had drawings and writing reflections in case they didn’t want to share what they were thinking with the whole group. It’s kind of “spidey” sense subtle, watching your kids having reactions to things. It’s truly listening to your kids.
Katy: A common question is if you’re teaching them racism or homophobia because they wouldn’t otherwise know about it. What’s your response to that line of thinking?
Nina: That feels like if we hide under the bed, then nothing exists.
Gabby: One thing that is really sincere with both of us is that we respect kids as brilliant thinkers. That question is disrespectful to kids. Time and time again, our students said what they liked about our teaching was that we treated them as real people who got to learn about the world. It doesn’t mean throw everything at them—but it does mean respect how thoughtful they can be. We definitely got parent complaints that we were “scaring” kids, which we had to debunk and work through and honor all at the same time. But the kids were savvy. They already knew at ten how to be avoidant of race. Sometimes we would prompt them, and they would act like they don’t know—especially in a progressive crowd of kids. They actually do know, and they’ve learned from adults so they’re doing a level of pivoting that’s pretty impressive. Regardless, they need the vocabulary, the frameworks, and the time to make connections with this content. They live on Earth.
Katy: What messages did you give kids about their obligations?
Nina: We ended the year with a storytelling unit where kids would perform their stories and we would talk about the importance of using your voice, about how some of our voices are heard more than others and what obligation that leaves us with.
Gabby: Some of the pushback we would get, especially in our conversations around race, was parents saying, “My kid comes home and thinks everything is their fault. You guys did this to them.” One thing we would be explicit about is that they are ten. It wasn’t removing this sense of obligation to be a good human, which was a non-negotiable in our room. They got that you have a voice, but so does everyone else—all of us are speaking up for humanity when and how we can. We didn’t nail the obligation piece because we had too many kids who were so loving that they would have thought, “I must wake up at 6am and cry about this every morning!” And that isn’t their weight to carry in that way. They didn’t start racism, so our work is to work against it—but it is not you.
Katy: Were you explicit with kids about transitioning to places where that baseline expectation isn’t there?
Gabby: We would talk about it as them having dissonance—noticing what didn’t match. A lot of them had dissonance from classroom to home, which was tricky. I struggled with how confusing that would be for some of our kids. We felt for them. People can spiral down being annoyed or frustrated with parents and it’s really not effective. We tried to just celebrate how awesome the kid was being so they’ll expand their realities through their engagement and critical thinking. Their life is going to be swimming in these different spaces and they just got this huge dose of Women-of-Color-Education-Land intensely for a year. We can’t make every connection for them as they move on—we have to trust that the intensive year gave them something and they’re going to connect to it and build. There were hard moments. Every year I’ve ever taught, a kid has said the “n” word at least once and it’s so disappointing. We were good keeping in mind that they are ten years old, but there were still moments of treating them like a full human. I remember having to tell a kid that they hurt my feelings: “I’m shattered inside by what you did, and I need a moment before we can talk through this.” Maybe that’s crummy but remembering they’re ten and celebrating them and then owning how you’ve hurt someone.
Katy: Is that the flip side of respecting them?
Gabby: Yes. But I can’t imagine a teacher having said that to me! But that’s the learning. If I took that away from them, they miss it. We respect them enough—we want them to have the whole learning process.
Nina: That’s what we’re fighting against. If, at the end of the day, everything is okay for you—well, it may for you, but what about everyone else?
Gabby: In my house, we say, “It’s not me versus you—it’s us versus the problem.”
Katy: Whenever I visit private schools, someone pulls me aside and says, “I care about social justice. I shouldn’t work here.” Have you ever felt that way?
Nina: Before I worked at Sheridan, I taught in public schools. I know not all public schools are the same, but I felt like I was hurting children due to high stakes tests and inappropriate tasks. We weren’t encouraged to talk about race, even though the city was really segregated. I wanted to work at a progressive school and the most progressive ones are private. We have a lot more flexibility and freedom. I think about how I’m teaching kids who have access to power and it’s really important that they know about these systems of oppression. So many public school teachers are doing so many amazing things—just the constraints of the system really got me down. Know what’s best for you and be kind to yourself—so many teachers aren’t, and they burn out.
Gabby: If you understand systemic oppression, there is such an opportunity for change in terms of having access to folks in the top 1% during such formative years. It’s powerful and you can’t deny that. Beyond that, creating a space that inundated these messages—even in the best public school, I can’t imagine having that freedom. I will also say, we applied to different jobs every year. And we were not in the minority—we have other friends of color who worked at private schools and we all talked to get a pulse on where you can be treated well. We know our value and then we know what mission statements are trendy at private schools—we’re well-educated women of color.
Nina: Every day at Sheridan I’m reminded that representation matters. I was explaining it was okay to say “Indian American” and how I call myself Asian American and how Asians are the majority of the world. We had a student who was East Asian adopted by white parents and the next week I heard her say, “I’m Asian American” for the first time. No one had ever modeled that you could say that because everyone she knows is white.
Gabby: And the modeling—that intimacy. We love these kids. We love them to pieces. They knew, the families knew. That’s what kept us afloat even when it was hard. For me, the narrative so often goes around the white kids when we talk about this. But there are other kiddos in those rooms and I think we always thought of them first. It was really powerful for us and for them that we were there for them. They also deserve women of color teachers who love them fiercely and can give them the tools they need as they navigate the world so they can value themselves and self-advocate and all of that. A lot of times it sounds like “we’re talking about private schools, we’re talking about white kids,” but so much of the fight is for them.
Gabby Arca is currently the Special Education teacher at a bilingual public elementary school in Oregon. She’s passionate about supporting all kids in being their best selves, and in honing their voice for themselves and others.
Nina Sethi is currently a 3rd grade teacher, the Co-Teaching Faciliator, and a faculty facilitator of a Students of Color affinity group at an independent school. Learn more about Nina & Gabby's work at teachpluralism.squarespace.com and @teachpluralism.
REFERENCES
Jones, S. (2020). Ending curriculum violence. Teaching Tolerance, 64. https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/spring-2020/ending-curriculum-violence
ENDNOTES
1 The discussion prompts included the following questions: Why were some people given more votes than others? Was this an accurate representation of those with more or less power in the world? What examples can you think of where this might play out in the world? The homework was to respond to the following prompt: “I used to think ___, but now I think ___.”
2 Editors’ note: This point Gabby and Nina make about analogs with real world applications is crucial. We do not recommend engaging students in simulations that directly replicate injustice (e.g., holding a mock slave auction). Also, be careful never to assign students roles because of their real-world identities so as not to retraumatize or tokenize them. See Stephanie Jones’ (2020) work on curriculum violence for more on this.
We need our students to feel something because students will not truly understand or even engage with the dynamics at play unless they have an emotional involvement—including discomfort. In fact, discomfort is often where learning begins. It is good for our students to wrestle with it, especially those who live with great privilege. Beyond that, our simulations are never about assigning individual blame. They are about recognizing and experiencing (briefly, temporarily, and minutely) the systemic effects of privilege. Without that realization, students will be allowed to think that oppression is disconnected from them or someone else’s problem.
The simulation in question is our pom-pom activity. We created it to attempt to simulate the dynamics of cyclical wealth and power and disrupt students’ belief that poor people just need to work harder in order to no longer be poor. As co-teachers at a progressive private school in Washington, DC, we tried to teach with a social justice lens in all of our curriculum. This means we continually questioned whose voice is/is not heard, or who is advantaged/disadvantaged by institutions and systems. This means that when we taught economics, we explicitly addressed cyclical poverty, wealth, and oppression, and investigated who is (and who is not) valued in economic systems. The simulation we created was one of the most dynamic learning experiences we have ever had with fifth graders. Before we explain it, however, a few words of caution.
First, while we love when students have fun, that was not the intention of this activity. In fact, many of our students did not find this experience “fun,” instead feeling a mixture of anger, guilt, and shame. Secondly, this simulation was woven within an explicit instructional framework and should not be taught in a “constructivist” way. Cyclical poverty is a real concept that we can define—we do not want students to leave this experience with fuzzy understandings of that. We did not just toss the simulation into our day but planned meticulously for this experience with explicit pre- and post-reflections. Lastly, students’ misconceptions and questions should never be left floating in the air after this simulation as they need multiple ways throughout the curriculum to think through their experience, make connections, and receive feedback. Without these caveats, we fear (and know) that the simulation and others like it will be used as an “exciting” experience that students are left to sort out by themselves. This explicit instruction also helps make the information accessible for all of our students.
The Simulation
There are three rounds to the pom-pom simulation. Round One consists of collecting as many differently sized and colored pom-poms as they can in two minutes. Pom-poms, of course, represent wealth and power. There is a catch, however. Students receive slips of paper with “assignments” on them with instructions for how they can gather pom poms (e.g., You can use both of your hands, but you may not move your feet at all). Only two people are allowed to use their hands and move around as they typically would. We also caution all students that if you touch or bump another body, you lose pom-poms. This is a safety requirement but also makes it harder for those already limited by their instructions.
After setting up the simulation and answering questions, we start a timer and tell them to go. Once pom-pom collection is over, we put students into three groups based on the number of pom-poms they collected: Group 1 includes a few students (out of 26 total) who have “great wealth and power,” Group 2 has another few students who have “some wealth and power,” and Group 3 is everyone else with “little wealth and power.” For debriefing, we ask students to move to different areas of the room for each group to discuss Round 1. Group 1 moves to the biggest, most comfortable area. Group 2 moves to a smaller but still comfortable area. Group 3 is corralled into an uncomfortable corner of the room. Students are typically very engaged in the debrief, animatedly talking about how the process was “not fair” and how they deserved another chance. Group 3 students often loudly complain about the instructions they had, saying things like, “I could only use my two pointer fingers behind my back!” or “This is not fair—why are we all smushed back here?” As they air their grievances, we say, “We hear you complaining that Round One was not fair, so we will give you another chance in Round Two.”
Round Two consists of making “baskets” of crumpled up balls of paper with each group using different color paper. We tell the third group with little wealth and power that they will have an advantage in the next round due to their large number of members. Every time one member of the group makes a “basket,” each member of the group will earn another pom-pom. There are cheers when this is announced, but the celebration is short lived as we show each group where they have to stand to shoot. Group 1 is in front and Group 2 is behind them, and Group 3 is in the back of the room. Naturally, Group 1 makes many baskets, while Group 2 and 3 rarely make any. During this round, we witness some very creative teamwork, as well as enterprising blocking tactics. After Round 2 ends, we tend to hear more frustration about how “unfair” the whole situation was and many requests for a new “fair” round. “We couldn’t even see the baskets. And Group 1 blocked our shots! They already have so many pom-poms.” “It was basically impossible. I don’t even know why we tried.”
We move onto Round 3 during which each group gets to decide what they think is a “fair” system to distribute all of the pom-poms. We give them five minutes to discuss with their group and come up with a system they support. Each group must choose a spokesperson to present their plan to the class with one minute to make a pitch for their group's plan. What students do not know until voting happens is that voting is weighted (Group 1 members get five votes each, Group 2 gets two each, and Group gets a half vote each) to represent the influence that wealth confers. When students see the unequal voting power, Group 3 is livid. They planned on winning the vote by virtue of their large number of people. Group 1 is pleased as they planned on retaining their “wealth and power” and now had the votes to do so. When we voted, Group 1’s proposal got the most votes after calculating the weighting. The other students were frustrated. Group 1 was pleased—they had started out trying to think of a “fair” system, but soon realized “it doesn’t say it has to be fair.” They also were influenced by two members who repeatedly said, “Stay wealthy! We should keep our power!”
The Debrief
At this point, we stopped the simulation for a debrief. First, we asked students to verbally share their reactions and feelings, limiting them to one comment per person and giving them time to reflect.
When I first saw the amounts each group got, it made me feel like the people in the third group were being treated like they aren't humans… ½ a vote. ½ human! Half not real. Not seen. When the people with more wealth get so many more votes, it feels like just because they have more, they also should get more of everything always. We are the people working the hardest, but we can’t get the things they have that we want and need. (Student from Group 3)
I do agree with [student’s name] that it wasn’t fair. But our group was trying to make it so that we would still be at the top of the ladder, so it wouldn’t be as fair—you had to be strategic and life isn’t always fair. (Student from Group 1)
Once everyone shared, we reminded students that this was a simulation and therefore not the same as actually experiencing poverty, discrimination, etc. We do not suddenly understand how others in these situations feel because we did an activity about pom-poms. This reminder is essential to avoid trivializing or minimizing oppression or injustice as most people (whether they are fifth grader or adults) find having perspective difficult when they are frustrated. After this, we asked them to make connections to real life—both in the debrief discussion and later as a homework reflection.1 A sample of their responses is included below.
[T]hough the law says everyone can vote, there are examples in history when our voting wasn’t fair. Even now, some people can’t vote because they don’t have access to it.
I think that was an accurate representation of those with more or less power because there are less super wealthy people then super unwealthy people but if someone super wealthy says they are doing something it might sway other people to do the same. I think an example is endorsements during the election.
I used to think that if you work hard you can get wealth but now, I think there is more to it. I think this because If you are born without wealth you will have a disadvantage and you will be stuck behind someone who started with a lot of resources and wealth.
We wrote this simulation as an antidote to the idea that people experiencing poverty should just “work hard” and in hopes of simulating the experiences and effects of privilege (or not having privilege), but students have made connections to ableism, racism, sexism, classism, politics, and more in their written reflections.
Considerations
For teachers considering using simulations like this as a strategy for social justice education in “elite” settings, we recommend the following essential elements:
- Simulations should be long enough for students to feel emotions/responses genuinely (e.g., guilty for watching friends in an “unfair” situation or frustrated and ready to give up). Even after an hour, students will report that a simulation was “endless,” “unbearable,” and “went on forever.”
- Simulations must have an explicit, real world analog.2 Our pom-pom simulation occurs in the midst of our economics unit, after we teach students about the distribution of wealth in the United States. They often think of other applications on their own, especially as we continue to learn more economic systems.
- Try to have multiple rounds so that students can feel and observe the cyclical, repetitive, and defeating nature of the experience. If it is too short, it will just be a funny or odd activity and easily shrugged off. Multiple rounds also give students the possibility of redemption or “fresh start,” so they often react with frustration when they thought it was finally going to be fair but is the same dynamics all over again.
- Debrief is key. Start with feelings and observations, move to reflection and connections, and end with identifying how your thinking has changed and next steps. Without a debrief, the students simply played a game or did an activity, so the application must be explicit!
- We have students share out orally immediately after the simulation about how they felt and what choices they made. Every student is given a chance to speak. Students are allowed to pass, and we encourage them to add to the discussion instead of repeating. We have them journal immediately after this share to get out their thoughts and reactions and complete a question sheet for homework. The sharing out, discussing, and journaling take at least thirty minutes and we usually have to cut the discussion short (or at least pause it until the next class).
- Make sure to add a disclaimer that it is a simulation that only lasted an hour or so and is NOT the same as the actual experience. If this is not our lived reality, we cannot fully understand how others who are actually in the situation feel.
Simulations are critical teaching tools to make learning relevant, personal, tangible, and felt. We become numb to stories of injustice or misfortune that happen to others and report sadness or outrage, but soon move on. When we experience an injustice, even in small ways, those emotions stay with us far longer. When students have an experience like this, they use these feelings as prior knowledge that can be activated when confronted with new vocabulary and complex content. In addition, everyone (including children) already has preconceived ideas: people are poor because they are lazy, racism was “fixed” by Martin Luther King, only bad people believe stereotypes, etc. Once we have established these “facts,” it is very hard to change our minds about things we already “know.” Experiencing something that disproves our preconceived notions is key because it forces us to acknowledge what we think we know, and it shows how it is not necessarily true. It also demonstrates to our students the ways in which they can grapple with some of the more unequal or unjust aspects of our society.
Sometimes, understanding concepts in our world like this might feel bad—and we won’t avoid that. Concepts like oppression or cyclical wealth are painful. It does feel bad. But this is teaching, and this is learning. And one thing the students consistently see in this experience is that their learning is vast and connected to the actual world around them—and that their learning and voices matter.
______________________________
Interview with Gabby Arca and Nina Sethi
Katy: What was your philosophy as a teaching team?
Gabby: What Nina and I did really well was that “one-two-punch”: you know you’re loved and supported--and you will be challenged and near tears and you’re going to write in your journal “I can’t stand my teachers” right now and then we’ll be there for you two seconds later when you come in from recess after a fight with your friend. It’s not a constant either/or—it’s a both/and. You are challenged because you are cared for.
Nina: It takes time. Someone might be upset in the moment. Hopefully, later on—you may not hear about it—it sinks in. We were very transparent about what we were doing—if you walked into our classroom, it was very obvious. Being two women of color, people did not like certain things and sent us emails—such a wonderfully passive aggressive tool to throw a compliment in there but CC the head of school! When push comes to shove, we’ve had administrators back us up. We would often invite parents to come in and talk to us—while they were super uncomfortable, they knew we shared facts. One of my favorites was when a mom came in because her white son said that she was racist and she was crying. She clearly wanted us to reassure her, but we said, “It sounds like you were.” A year later, she told me she had learned a lot from her son being in our class and tries to incorporate what she learned into her Sunday school. I appreciated that. It took her awhile and I’m sure it was painful for her son to call her racist.
Gabby: You also can’t deny when dynamic learning is happening—a classroom has a buzz. We built a reputation, families that expressed their appreciation and kids who loved us, and we had the administration’s backing. I think a lot of that was the power of two of us. What private schools need to do is put two teachers of color together. That setup gives safety, support, and power that you can’t beat. We also understood this is one way to make change—we have access to super wealthy white people. The parents won’t listen to us or talk to us, but we had access to their babies. And their babies loved us, and we got them thinking and asking questions—and they will listen to their kid who brings home really important questions. Then when that mom came in swinging that finger, crying, saying her kid called her racist—usually that feels really terrible as a teacher, but reframing those moments as successes because that’s what they really are. That, in combination with what I call “speaking it into existence.” We’d say, “Thank you so much for being in this work.” Even if they weren’t, they would pretend because that’s part of whiteness and we know that and would use it. Also, Nina was especially good at framing our tough content as “rigorous,” which was totally factual. Talking about the world around us and thinking critically is higher level work and there’s nothing private school families love more than their kid doing something their friends’ kids aren’t doing.
Nina: Just make it about the kids. “Your student asked a really great question and I gave him facts about his question that he was curious about.”
Gabby: We’d also be sincerely excited for the kids and say, “Gosh, our generation doesn’t know how to talk about these things” and parents would agree, and we’d talk about how proud we were that their kids could.
Nina: I’ve had some success referring to our mission. It requires a lot of patience and I reserve my patience for children.
Gabby: We would retreat to our rooms sometime, which is not a solution, but when you walk through the hallway and encounter multiple microaggressions—we’re saving our patience and we want to keep our job and the world is the world on top of that, so it’s hard to always find the right words. In my experience, white people need the exact right words in the exact right tone. It can take a lot to be heard, even when you’re trying to be supportive. People could come to our room literally any time, but rarely did—I struggled with that feeling of that diversity eye-roll vibe. At conferences is when I would feel most valued—when people would say “This is really great” and saw how complicated and important this type of education is. It requires two women of color, who have been in a range of spaces and studied a great deal with degrees from “elite” institutions who know a lot of layers about a lot of things—quality social justice education requires a lot for us to pull these things together and make it work.
Katy: What dimensions of anti-oppressive education were especially tough to tackle?
Nina: At well-meaning white liberal progressive schools there is a lot of “Don’t say that—we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings,” but that’s not why we don’t use that language. Dehumanizing someone debases all of us and lowers our collective humanity. Wealth and inequality also dehumanize people. The reason we wrote the simulation is because we had students who would talk about poor people and say, “They’re poor because they don’t work hard.” They’re fifth graders, so they’re just repeating what they hear their parents say. And we’re like, “Okay, that’s one opinion.” We never directly said, “Your dad is wrong.” We would say, “Why don’t we try this and see what we all think?” And then students could reflect on their own. A lot came from our students’ questions. In terms of what was difficult, talking about disability—we did our best, but I always felt like that the kids were still very concrete about it.
Gabby: Disability is so complex. We really wanted to avoid the pity or overcomer narratives and struggled to find the way to do so successfully. One of our good friends was in a wheelchair (she passed away in 2019, we love you Anne Thomas!) and she told our students that she would not have liked it if people held the door for her. Wealth took some guts. That first year we had a few Black kids in our class and almost all were very wealthy. We thought of those kiddos and families first and how they wanted to present and be. The dynamics of looking at the wealth gap was really important because white kids would be confused: “Race means people don’t have money, but my friend here is rolling in it!” The other thing that was hard, but we were both jazzed about, is that the justice lens we have is incessant. It would be the choices we were making on a rolling basis, both of us figuring out how we were going to pull a book or write a simulation because we heard a kid say something. We missed stuff, for sure, but it was incessant.
Katy: Talk to me about assessment, or how you calibrated when to push harder or pull back.
Nina: We always had written reflections. Sometimes they got something wrong because they’re ten and made a connection that doesn’t make sense, so we would clear that up. Other times, students would say, “I don’t want to learn about this anymore—it’s too painful.” Depending on who they are, we would take that different ways. And some kids just aren’t there yet—they can’t make the connections yet because they’re so concrete. That’s okay.
Gabby: Sometimes we had to connect the dots for them because it was too important to leave hanging. Another way we would know it was working is when we would hear them start correcting each other, gently and kindly, taking on certain language. We would look at each other and think, “That kid really gets humanity.” And then we had drawings and writing reflections in case they didn’t want to share what they were thinking with the whole group. It’s kind of “spidey” sense subtle, watching your kids having reactions to things. It’s truly listening to your kids.
Katy: A common question is if you’re teaching them racism or homophobia because they wouldn’t otherwise know about it. What’s your response to that line of thinking?
Nina: That feels like if we hide under the bed, then nothing exists.
Gabby: One thing that is really sincere with both of us is that we respect kids as brilliant thinkers. That question is disrespectful to kids. Time and time again, our students said what they liked about our teaching was that we treated them as real people who got to learn about the world. It doesn’t mean throw everything at them—but it does mean respect how thoughtful they can be. We definitely got parent complaints that we were “scaring” kids, which we had to debunk and work through and honor all at the same time. But the kids were savvy. They already knew at ten how to be avoidant of race. Sometimes we would prompt them, and they would act like they don’t know—especially in a progressive crowd of kids. They actually do know, and they’ve learned from adults so they’re doing a level of pivoting that’s pretty impressive. Regardless, they need the vocabulary, the frameworks, and the time to make connections with this content. They live on Earth.
Katy: What messages did you give kids about their obligations?
Nina: We ended the year with a storytelling unit where kids would perform their stories and we would talk about the importance of using your voice, about how some of our voices are heard more than others and what obligation that leaves us with.
Gabby: Some of the pushback we would get, especially in our conversations around race, was parents saying, “My kid comes home and thinks everything is their fault. You guys did this to them.” One thing we would be explicit about is that they are ten. It wasn’t removing this sense of obligation to be a good human, which was a non-negotiable in our room. They got that you have a voice, but so does everyone else—all of us are speaking up for humanity when and how we can. We didn’t nail the obligation piece because we had too many kids who were so loving that they would have thought, “I must wake up at 6am and cry about this every morning!” And that isn’t their weight to carry in that way. They didn’t start racism, so our work is to work against it—but it is not you.
Katy: Were you explicit with kids about transitioning to places where that baseline expectation isn’t there?
Gabby: We would talk about it as them having dissonance—noticing what didn’t match. A lot of them had dissonance from classroom to home, which was tricky. I struggled with how confusing that would be for some of our kids. We felt for them. People can spiral down being annoyed or frustrated with parents and it’s really not effective. We tried to just celebrate how awesome the kid was being so they’ll expand their realities through their engagement and critical thinking. Their life is going to be swimming in these different spaces and they just got this huge dose of Women-of-Color-Education-Land intensely for a year. We can’t make every connection for them as they move on—we have to trust that the intensive year gave them something and they’re going to connect to it and build. There were hard moments. Every year I’ve ever taught, a kid has said the “n” word at least once and it’s so disappointing. We were good keeping in mind that they are ten years old, but there were still moments of treating them like a full human. I remember having to tell a kid that they hurt my feelings: “I’m shattered inside by what you did, and I need a moment before we can talk through this.” Maybe that’s crummy but remembering they’re ten and celebrating them and then owning how you’ve hurt someone.
Katy: Is that the flip side of respecting them?
Gabby: Yes. But I can’t imagine a teacher having said that to me! But that’s the learning. If I took that away from them, they miss it. We respect them enough—we want them to have the whole learning process.
Nina: That’s what we’re fighting against. If, at the end of the day, everything is okay for you—well, it may for you, but what about everyone else?
Gabby: In my house, we say, “It’s not me versus you—it’s us versus the problem.”
Katy: Whenever I visit private schools, someone pulls me aside and says, “I care about social justice. I shouldn’t work here.” Have you ever felt that way?
Nina: Before I worked at Sheridan, I taught in public schools. I know not all public schools are the same, but I felt like I was hurting children due to high stakes tests and inappropriate tasks. We weren’t encouraged to talk about race, even though the city was really segregated. I wanted to work at a progressive school and the most progressive ones are private. We have a lot more flexibility and freedom. I think about how I’m teaching kids who have access to power and it’s really important that they know about these systems of oppression. So many public school teachers are doing so many amazing things—just the constraints of the system really got me down. Know what’s best for you and be kind to yourself—so many teachers aren’t, and they burn out.
Gabby: If you understand systemic oppression, there is such an opportunity for change in terms of having access to folks in the top 1% during such formative years. It’s powerful and you can’t deny that. Beyond that, creating a space that inundated these messages—even in the best public school, I can’t imagine having that freedom. I will also say, we applied to different jobs every year. And we were not in the minority—we have other friends of color who worked at private schools and we all talked to get a pulse on where you can be treated well. We know our value and then we know what mission statements are trendy at private schools—we’re well-educated women of color.
Nina: Every day at Sheridan I’m reminded that representation matters. I was explaining it was okay to say “Indian American” and how I call myself Asian American and how Asians are the majority of the world. We had a student who was East Asian adopted by white parents and the next week I heard her say, “I’m Asian American” for the first time. No one had ever modeled that you could say that because everyone she knows is white.
Gabby: And the modeling—that intimacy. We love these kids. We love them to pieces. They knew, the families knew. That’s what kept us afloat even when it was hard. For me, the narrative so often goes around the white kids when we talk about this. But there are other kiddos in those rooms and I think we always thought of them first. It was really powerful for us and for them that we were there for them. They also deserve women of color teachers who love them fiercely and can give them the tools they need as they navigate the world so they can value themselves and self-advocate and all of that. A lot of times it sounds like “we’re talking about private schools, we’re talking about white kids,” but so much of the fight is for them.
Gabby Arca is currently the Special Education teacher at a bilingual public elementary school in Oregon. She’s passionate about supporting all kids in being their best selves, and in honing their voice for themselves and others.
Nina Sethi is currently a 3rd grade teacher, the Co-Teaching Faciliator, and a faculty facilitator of a Students of Color affinity group at an independent school. Learn more about Nina & Gabby's work at teachpluralism.squarespace.com and @teachpluralism.
REFERENCES
Jones, S. (2020). Ending curriculum violence. Teaching Tolerance, 64. https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/spring-2020/ending-curriculum-violence
ENDNOTES
1 The discussion prompts included the following questions: Why were some people given more votes than others? Was this an accurate representation of those with more or less power in the world? What examples can you think of where this might play out in the world? The homework was to respond to the following prompt: “I used to think ___, but now I think ___.”
2 Editors’ note: This point Gabby and Nina make about analogs with real world applications is crucial. We do not recommend engaging students in simulations that directly replicate injustice (e.g., holding a mock slave auction). Also, be careful never to assign students roles because of their real-world identities so as not to retraumatize or tokenize them. See Stephanie Jones’ (2020) work on curriculum violence for more on this.
