Editor’s note: The following op-ed/book report was written by an author requesting anonymity by pseudonym, something we rarely offer our contributors (satirist Johnny Bananas excepted). In this case we opted to make an exception.

The author notes that Deonna Smith’s “Rooted in Joy” is required reading for teacher professional development in Milton Elementary School.

by Midori Montdestrier (pseudonym)

Deonna Smith wrote “Rooted in Joy” in 2023. This year, 2024, it is required reading by all teachers at the Milton Elementary School. Smith, a former educator, runs a consulting business on how to integrate anti-racism into the classroom. You can find her book along with promotional merchandise for sale on her website. She describes herself as “an advocate for educational justice, administrator and abolitionist”. The subtitle is “creating a classroom culture of equity, belonging and care”. 

Smith claims that the education system is rooted in “white supremacy” and she insists on integrating anti-racism into the classroom, the entire school culture as well as at home. In the introduction she states that, “[T]hough this book is primarily written for teachers, it applies to everyone engaged in K-12 schooling. Teachers can’t do it alone. We need school and district leaders who are also committed to belonging, care and joy. In fact, equity work is even more impactful when it’s taken on school-wide. So, if you’re, say, a school administrator, the mindsets that are detailed here are just as important for you as a leader, and the strategies that you’ll find here can be shared with your teachers. Or, if you’re a parent or caregiver, this book can give you insight into how you can center joy, belonging, and care at home.” She could be talking about her strategies at this point, but later on that same page she asks, “Why do we need to talk about things like ‘equity’ and ‘anti-racism’?” She answers, “Because until we face the fact that racism and other systems of oppression have affected education, we can’t undo that impact. Unless we are honest about the fact that our educational system was designed to produce inequitable outcomes, we will never experience equity.” 

One could argue that the system isn’t designed to produce equity as equity is equality of outcomes. “Equity means we all end up in the same place,” to quote current Vice President Kamala Harris. The education system is not set up for everyone to end up in the same place due to being a merit-based system where everyone is treated equally and achieves to the best of their ability. Those that need extra help get it, but there will always be individuals that can achieve higher than others. There can be no equity if you have equality and there can be no equality if you have equity. In this sense, she is correct, but she is arguing that this means the system is racist due to being a merit-based system. Instead, she claims we need an asset-based system that takes students’ culture into account when assessing them, also known as the “whole child framework”. This is a round-about way to state that she doesn’t think black and brown students can or should succeed in a merit-based system even though she and many others do. This is the bigotry of low expectations. She never mentions Asian students. 

Smith goes on to discuss her writing style and specifically notes that, “Black is capitalized because it refers to a collective history, culture, and racial group… When white is capitalized, it’s typically associated with white supremacy groups and white nationalists. In an effort to delegitimize those organizations, I am sticking with the lowercase w for this book.” (emphasis in original) This logic is stated without any citation, but is common in Critical Race Theory circles. 

She also uses the term “LatinX” instead of Latino. Most authors have stopped using this nomenclature as a Pew Research Center study showed that only 3% of Latinos like or have heard of LatinX. It seems the height of supremacy to demand an entire culture change their language because it doesn’t conform to your sense of morality concerning gender. She doesn’t follow her own claim in this regard as she says, “This book will always strive to use the most specific and accepted term by the group referenced.” Seems she shouldn’t be using LatinX then… 

The rest of the introduction is splattered with Critical Race Theory buzzwords and phrases such as “We are constantly in the process of decolonizing and liberating our minds,” “That’s because the status quo – what’s normal and accepted – is deeply rooted in racism,” and “Our collective liberation must be the goal.” Liberation is a very commonly used word among Critical Race Theorists (and among Critical Theorists in general) and pops up throughout this book. Hebert Marcuse, a well-known Marxist from the Frankfurt School, the birthplace of Critical Theory, wrote probably the definitive work on the concept of liberation in his “An Essay on Liberation” from 1969. In it he describes liberation as being a liberation from the oppression of capitalism. This is otherwise known as “Social justice”. “Social justice” and “education justice” being other phrases repeated frequently in “Rooted in Joy”. This is the liberation from all forms of systemic oppression, specifically in this context, as the liberation from disparate outcomes (equity), but more broadly expands to liberation from enlightenment rationalism and capitalism. Emancipation and abolitionism are other words for the same concept and Smith describes herself as an abolitionist as well as calling for teachers to become “abolitionist teachers”.

The first chapter starts out with this concept of liberation in the second paragraph, “My vision was simple: focus on relationships, have an ‘asset’ mindset, and always see education as liberation.” She is always seeing education as a way to dismantle systems of oppression. Since she describes the entire education system as a system of white supremacy and therefore oppression, one must conclude that her goal is to dismantle the entire education system and she wants all other teachers, administrators, staff and parents to do likewise. She calls on them to almost have a religious epiphany, “The internal work, unpacking your own identity, mindset, and even mental health, has to be the foundation.” She states this won’t work unless you put your entire self into it. Don’t just teach culturally responsively, but become “culturally responsive, or ‘asset-based’”. This is instead of merit-based. 

Like religion, the transformation is an ongoing process and lifelong endeavor. “I’ve studied anti-racism and teaching for many years, but that doesn’t mean that I’m the ultimate authority and expert. I’m learning with you.” She’s learning with the reader because it is a lifelong commitment and “[t]hat’s because this work is never ‘done’”. It will also never be enough. “What does it mean to engage? This looks like sending letters home, communicating, and finding opportunities for them to participate in the community. But engaging isn’t enough… For your practices to be rooted in equity, you must push back against the frameworks that value the dominant culture over students’ native cultures.” 

It’s not enough to do this only in the classroom, but outside of it as well. She calls on teachers to become activists on multiple occasions: “Many teachers across the country are experiencing burnout and/or ‘compassion fatigue’ and don’t have the bandwidth to organize against these laws. But, ultimately, we need teachers and their allies to organize for change.” “Even teachers in ‘safe’ states, where these policies are not being voted in, need to be actively engaged in the fight against them.” “The ‘-isms’ are so deeply ingrained in our systems that it takes active work to push up against them… It requires a commitment to justice, to not taking the easy way out… the change to be part of dismantling harmful systems and reimagining and rebuilding something new.” “Organizational structures can be difficult to tear down on your own, but it starts with recognizing and voicing concerns about inequity.” This last sentence makes it clear that equity isn’t about treating everyone fairly, but about tearing down organizational structures. 

Smith repeatedly uses inflammatory language to justify the activism because she “had to learn how to survive (let alone thrive) in a classroom where the norm was based on being able-bodied, neurotypical and white.” As is typical with Critical Race Theorists, she takes her own experience and extrapolates that to the entire population. What matters is her lived experience, not the reality in which she admits her teachers did wonderfully with her academically. By extension, “our kids’ lives were at stake” (emphasis in original). There have been “dire consequences” putting “all groups in danger”. This is a manipulation tactic to call people to action. 

The second chapter opens with praise for the riots of 2020, calling them “the largest social justice movement in US history, which led to a reexamining of almost every system that holds our society together (Buchanan & Bui 2020).” (Citation in original) This is the lead-in to what asset-based teaching means. “Teachers viewing a student through an asset lens means they don’t focus on all the ways the student doesn’t measure up to schooling standards, and they don’t view students’ particular cultures and experiences as something the students need to overcome.” “An asset-based approach refuses to focus on standardized metrics as a way to assign value.” In other words, don’t hold students to a standard, especially if they aren’t white, because you are forcing them to adhere to whiteness in order to succeed. “Getting students college-ready, especially those who have been systemically denied access, means getting your students to comply with the dominant culture as quickly as possible. Schools are not joyful liberatory spaces, but rather mechanism for students to be stripped of much of their culture and individuality. By pushing back on standardization and conformity, abolitionist teachers make space for other experiences, such as joy, creativity, and identity (Love, 2019).” (Citation in original) According to Smith, schools aren’t for teaching or college readiness, but for liberating students to express joy, find their identity and become critically conscious. 

A “critical consciousness” is that state where one sees the world as a Marxist sees it; as a system of power dynamics. There is no truth but power and all of society is set up by the oppressors for the benefit of the oppressors at the expense of and for the express purpose of exploiting the oppressed. It is the opposite of a “false consciousness” in which one is blissfully ignorant of the systemic oppression society is based in. The critical theorists (in this case Smith means the teachers) awaken (think woke) the uninitiated (in this case the students) from their false consciousness into their critical consciousness from which they then ruthlessly criticize this system and society until it falls apart. This is liberating the mind. Smith lists “just a few of the characteristics of white supremacy culture and how they show up in our classroom.” This list includes “Perfectionism”, “Quantity over quality”, “Only one right way”, “Paternalism”, “Individualism” (think collectivism, i.e. communism, is good), and “Objectivity” which she states “is the false consciousness that we can be truly objective or neutral.” (emphasis added) No one can be neutral in a world based in power dynamics. It’s not a matter of if power is at play, but a matter of how. Therefore, no one can be neutral and you must be liberated from your false consciousness to your critical consciousness to understand this. To put it another way based on race: “The question is not ‘did racism take place’? but rather ‘how did racism manifest in that situation?” (Robin DiAngelo 2012 emphasis in original)

Not only does this mindset that Smith advocates require teachers to hold students to lower standards, or no standards at all, but she states that teachers should not do what has worked for them in the past to manage classrooms and student behavior or improve student achievement. “It can be tempting to make sure that you are transferring life lessons to our students. In a way, that is our job. When I work with teachers, they are often concerned about what will happen to their students in the future if they don’t teach them discipline, time management and responsibility.” She is implying that teachers shouldn’t teach students discipline, time management and responsibility. She does not want students to do better in society because that would be indoctrinating them into white supremacy since all of society is white supremacist. She wants society to fall apart and not teaching students how to function in it is a way to do that.

Smith states this desire for a lack of teaching students more explicitly in the next paragraph. “This is a valid concern. Teachers who work with older students especially can find themselves frustrated with what they perceive as a lack of preparation from previous teachers. This happens quite a bit with middle school. Teachers always tell me what kids ‘should’ have learned or ‘should’ be able to do. Surely if you’ve been attending school for 8 years and you’re 13 years old, you should have some emotional regulation skills or you should know not to talk over someone when they are speaking. But getting caught up in this ‘should’ game isn’t productive for teachers or students. When you’re too busy thinking about what students should be able to do, you don’t have time to dream about the possibilities of your current reality with them.” Don’t teach them. Don’t worry about what they should be able to do or shouldn’t do. None of that is relevant. She even goes on to describe a teacher who spent all of her time with her students preparing them for middle school. This was presented as a bad thing, because even though they were well prepared “we saw kids that were so focused on getting ready that they had no time to enjoy that last year of having a close relationship with one teacher.” To her, the relationship, liberatory or abolitionist teaching, is more important than the students’ success. 

Smith even discourages schools from teaching ELL (English language learners) English because she claims it is white supremacist to do so. “[S]chools that have policies that prohibit students from using their native languages. Initially they thought they were ‘helping’ students by forcing them to speak English because there is a sense of urgency to build English language fluency, but that policy clearly rejects the assets that bilingual students bring to the classroom. Policies that seem to make sense academically can absolutely be rooted in racism.” “Too often I’ve seen these students over-enrolled in speech and language services or enrolled in ELL classes, which are essentially classes to help them formalize their English skills. On a practical level, this makes sense. Learning formal English eliminates barriers in other classes that require English fluency. But many schools hold these classes during elective time or lock students out of other opportunities and spaces because they are not designated as English proficient. English is necessary to navigate most schools, but how many students miss out on opportunities because they’re automatically devalued for not speaking perfect formal English?” No one is devaluing ELL students. There are only so many hours in the day and the primary objective of a school should be academics. Bringing these students up to speed in English as quickly as possible is what will help them succeed. They will have time for electives later, when they can communicate with their peers, and as she puts it, navigate the school. It’s not about erasing their culture. It’s about helping them succeed, but again, success in the current system is upholding white supremacy according to Smith. 

In fact, on numerous occasions Smith calls for teachers to not teach or teach very little. “It can seem silly to spend 10 out of every 30 minutes a week on culture, but it ends up paying off in the long term.” In other words, spend one third of class time “in circles and community building opportunities” instead of teaching them basic knowledge. “The first couple days, you’ll probably go over procedures for hours a day.” Teachers should not need to go over classroom procedures for hours a day. 

She even admits that her own students didn’t learn from her when she was a teacher. “[T]hey don’t typically remember learning anything specific. What they always remember is how they felt in my class and the joyful times that we had together.” It’s all about feelings and not about substance. If students don’t remember any specific teachings, but how they felt in your classroom, you just want them to have a joyful experience, right? Why bother teaching them if they aren’t going to remember it anyway?

Deonna Smith has a very clear Marxist agenda. The constant oppressor vs oppressed narrative espoused throughout the book solidifies the connection. She claims that the current societal system is rooted in white supremacy (oppressor) and that makes it virtually impossible for black and brown students (oppressed) to succeed in the system and she doesn’t want them to, because that would be upholding the system. Instead, she wants to root the education system in joy. Joy is a word that has gained popularity lately. From the UN’s “SDG (sustainable development goal) of Love and Joy” to the current Democrat presidential campaign of “Joy”, the concept goes back to Marx’s writings and is heavily used in Queer theory when speaking of “trans joy”. 

Joy is the joy of destruction of the current system. It is the joy of tearing everything down to build it anew in the Marxist vision of utopia. In order to do this, Smith must show teachers how to use Critical Race Theory praxis to not educate their students in the current system. The current white supremacist system must be dismantled and if the students can’t function in current society, they will destroy it for a new one. She doesn’t want them to behave. She doesn’t want them to learn. She wants them to be chaotic and uneducated because in this way they will become revolutionaries. It is unclear how many school systems are using this book as professional development for teachers, but it is being used in Milton Elementary. The next time someone says that CRT isn’t being used in Vermont schools, point them to this book.