Unshackling Our Youth through Love and Mutual Recognition: Notes from an Undergraduate Class on School Discipline Inspired by Ta-Nehisi Coates and bell hooks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this critically important manuscript. It’s methodological innovation is evident in its commitment to reframe who can teach, and it does so my operationalizing theories that prioritize humanity over outcomes. The manuscript was a pleasure to read. I was deeply engaged and inspired from start to finish. My hope is that this is one work of many more that will support the field of teacher education in reframing how we teach teachers about Black and Brown urban youth. I recommend acceptance without revisions, though the manuscript may benefit from a final proof reading to capture a few minor typos throughout. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript is well written and deeply engaging. 

Author Response

We are grateful and delighted that Reviewer 1 recommended that our article be accepted without revisions. We hope, however, that Reviewer 1 finds that our edits have made the article even better.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper explores the ways in which schools and, more specifically, teachers’ actions, are complicit in reinforcing the marginalization of racially minoritized youth as well as examples of teaching practice that may create opportunities for students to recognize their own strengths and capabilities through mutual recognition. Drawing from the authors’ own classroom experiences the paper offers deep and significant insights into the how students’ life trajectories can be influenced by particular pedagogical orientations informed by teachers’ willingness and ability to engage with students by recognizing and giving space for students’ life circumstances and the environments in which these play out beyond the classroom. The paper introduces original findings, addressing issues that are significant for both educational practice and the sociological understanding of education.

 

The analysis, informed especially through reference to the concept of shackling (or double-shackling) as employed by Ta-Nehisi Coates and that of mutual recognition employed by bell hooks, is highly pertinent to the themes and examples illustrated throughout the paper. It would, nonetheless, be useful to see a bit further elaboration of the notion of shackling (beyond simple reference to classroom emphasis on conformity and discipline), as well as other key concepts employed (including Du Bois’s notion of double consciousness) – while most readers are likely to be familiar with these concepts, it is important that the authors spell out more explicitly, near the start, which elements are important within the discussion and how these are to be employed in the analysis that follows. In clarifying these focal points, it would also be helpful to make reference (perhaps briefly at the start of the discussion but, more importantly, perhaps, in a brief ‘discussion’ section inserted between what are currently numbered sections 5 and 6 of the paper) to key themes that emerge over the course of the narrative, including the significance of humour and forms of language, but which are not otherwise brought together.

 

Insights from the application of these conceptual matters would also be enhanced by including a bit further background information about the specific school and community context that is the focus of the narrative. Some of this information appears incidentally, in quotations included in the discussion, but a bit more detailed, focused contextualization would provide a stronger reference point for major analytical elements, especially with reference to the various shackles the students encounter in their neighbourhoods. It would also be useful to know more about the general classroom compositions, as well as further details about the authors’ connections with the school and community, and the recruitment of specific participants (school graduates and community members) working with or as authors.

 

The discussion and narrative, overall, flows well, offering nuanced insights into classroom practices and their significance for students’ lives, though in places the kinds of signposting and integration of key themes that the comments above suggest a need for could be enhanced by breaking down a few of the longer sentences in order to highlight the significance of each of the major points being covered. Finally, on a very minor point, on p 5, line 220, just below the second set of images from the video, where reference is made to Author 1 pushing away Author 3, based on the surrounding narrative, should that be Author 2 rather than Author 1?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Very good; only minor edits required (a few longer sentences could be broken up).

Author Response

In response to Reviewer 2 

Thank you for your helpful and supportive comments; we are so pleased that you  thought the article was worthy of publication. We hope we have responded to the suggestions that were made in ways that successfully address them. All changes and additions, even minor ones are highlighted.

1. We hope that our new section, beginning on p 16 and entitled, “Rethinking education and teacher education” is a satisfactory response to Reviewer 2’s suggestion to be more detailed about the importance and the meaning of the work of Coates and Du Bois in our study (we were not sure which sections were labeled 5 and 6). We were a bit worried about the word count in and the flow of our already long article, and so did not, earlier within the article, go into more detail about the value and meaning of Coates and Du Bois to our study. We hope what we have done, with our new section, meets Reviewer 2’s concerns.
2. We hope our new section, beginning on p. 3 and titled, “Background to our project: Introducing authors 1 and 2 and the place that is Newark,” adequately addressed Reviewer 2’s suggestion to provide more description on Author 1 and Author 2, the city of Newark, and the composition of our class.
3. We appreciate Reviewer 2’s great catch that we wrote Author 1 when we should have written Author 2 on “p 5 line 220” (we couldn’t see line numbers on the downloaded version of the manuscript but found the spot and made the change.) Thank you.

We hope we haven’t missed anything.

Thanks again.