Parental and Institutional Strategies of (De-)Thematization of Racism in Day Care Centers
In Germany, a recent experimental study by Hermes et al. (2023) revealed that families with migration backgrounds receive 4.4 percentage points fewer responses when seeking childcare compared to applications from families categorized as German. This finding contrasts with the prevalent assumption that early childhood education serves as a fundamental mechanism for dismantling social injustices, often perceived as a neutral, apolitical space solely devoted to child development and play. Such findings not only underscore the presence of latent prejudices but also highlight the necessity for a profound exploration of institutional racism within early childhood education centers.
In German academic discourse, discussions on racism and early childhood education are often treated as distinct entities, lacking the integrated approaches prevalent in Anglo-American scholarship (Azarmandi et al., 2024; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001). While Anglo-American research has generated valuable insights into how children internalize and reproduce racial distinctions (Iruka et al., 2022; Williams & Steele, 2017), these findings cannot be seamlessly applied to the German context. Racialization in German daycare settings is shaped by institutional legacies, governance structures, and administrative routines that embed racial logics into ostensibly neutral processes (Bostancı & Wirth, 2024).
While qualitative research in Germany, such as that by Diehm et al. (2013), Kuhn (2013), and Machold (2015), has provided critical insights into discriminatory practices in early childhood education, it often remains limited in addressing how racism operates as a structural and institutional phenomenon within daycare settings. Existing studies on ethnic discrimination offer important perspectives, yet they do not fully capture racism as an underlying social structure. Notable exceptions, such as Eggers (2005) and Dean (2020), provide deeper insights into how racial logics shape childhood experiences in Germany. Particularly, Dean (2020) demonstrates in her multi-perspective, multi-local ethnographic study, how institutional practices intended to promote diversity can inadvertently reinforce racialized categorization.
Despite these contributions, a significant gap remains in research examining how families navigating institutional racism in early childhood education experience and respond to exclusionary mechanisms. Moreover, little is known about how institutional structures and practices within daycare institutions continue to sustain racialized inequalities. Building on these insights, this article seeks to address these gaps by investigating:
- The specific practices and routines within early childhood education settings that families perceive as racialized and exclusionary.
- The strategies these families develop to navigate and resist such mechanisms.
- How these strategies may either challenge or, inadvertently, reinforce institutional racism.
Drawing upon the works of Stuart Hall (1989) and Philomena Essed (1991), racism can be conceptualized as a social structural principle that systematically disadvantages certain individuals through racist practices in the distribution of essential resources, such as housing, education, and justice. Institutional racism, a term developed during the Black Power movement of the 1960s by activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton, refers to discriminatory practices and policies embedded within organizational structures that perpetuate racial inequalities (Macpherson, 1999). These practices may include both overt and covert forms of discrimination that become institutionalized and normalized over time, as discussed by Benokraitis and Feagin (1977) and also explored in German contexts as institutional discrimination by Gomolla and Radtke (2009).
This paper employs Critical Race Theory to argue that racism is not merely individual prejudice, but a systemic issue deeply embedded within societal structures. This perspective is complemented by institutional analysis, which examines how organizations perpetuate inequalities through their policies, practices, and norms (Scott, 2013). Despite extensive research on institutional racism in educational institutions such as schools (Fereidooni, 2013; Karakayalı & zur Nieden, 2013), investigations into institutional racism within early childhood education centers, particularly in the German-speaking context, remain notably scarce (except Bundschuh & Müller, 2020; Dean, 2020).
Using qualitative methods, the study examined how institutional racism manifests in daycare centers, capturing implicit forms of discrimination often missed by quantitative approaches (Clarke, 2012). To understand how families perceive institutional racism in daycare settings, we conducted 20 qualitative interviews with 16 racialized parents – primarily mothers affected by anti-Muslim racism – and four experts in anti-discrimination work in early childhood education. While the study reflects parental perspectives, the absence of educator and administrator voices limits a fuller institutional picture. We analyzed the data using grounded theory and situational mapping (Charmaz, 2014; Clarke, 2012), identifying both manifestations of institutional racism and the strategies parents use to navigate them. These were then related to existing concepts such as boundary work (Lamont & Molnár, 2002) and decolonial critique (Oliveira Andreotti et al., 2015).
Institutional Racism and Unequal Access to Early Childhood Education in Germany
Despite the 2013 introduction of a universal right to daycare, access remains uneven – especially for racialized children, who continue to face structural barriers despite high demand (Bostancı & Wirth, 2024; Hogrebe et al., 2021; Nebe, 2022). While discrimination on access is well documented, exclusion does not end at the point of admission. Even within the system, institutional practices reproduce inequality. Legal frameworks such as the AGG and UN conventions mandate non-discrimination, yet everyday practices often rely on deficit-oriented classifications (e.g. “non-German first language”), which can reinforce rather than reduce disadvantage (Akbaş & Polat, 2022; Gogolin, 1994). The lack of systematic procedures to address racism highlights the limits of legal protections.
The following section presents findings on how institutional racism in daycare manifests through exclusionary materials, racialized interactions, and the absence of anti-discrimination structures – prompting families to develop individual coping strategies.
Racist Knowledge and Practices in Day Care Centers
Some families from our sample reported experiencing racism in daycare centers, characterized not only by a lack of diversity in educational materials and the prevalence of racialized assumptions in routines and interactions, but also by a deficiency in the professional management of racist incidents. This suggests a broader systemic issue – a profound lack of awareness and competency in addressing racism, critically undermining the quality of care and education provided. As illustrated by one mother’s experience:
As soon as the topic of racism comes up in any way and I, as a black person, address it, the floodgates actually close. That’s when I realized that she has no awareness of it at all. Actually, she should have realized from the beginning that this child is black, so that [race] will somehow be an issue. Anyway, there are only white children’s books and so on. It’s kind of like that in everything. (parent, interview 8, 2020).
This account highlights the lack of diversity awareness and critical engagement with racism, and how this not only leads to defensive and unprofessional behaviors but fails to address the specific needs and experiences of racialized children and families. The predominance of “only white children’s books” underscores a broader institutional failure to embrace diversity, which is crucial for cultivating an inclusive educational environment. The families interviewed recognized institutional racism in educational materials. Parents from our sample report that Black people and People of Color are rarely featured as positive main characters in books or games in daycare centers, leading to a scarcity of diverse play and learning materials. This reflects Auma’s analysis (Eggers, 2014) which shows that despite increased diversity in children’s books, racism is seldom addressed and Western-Christian norms often dominate, reinforcing early social hierarchies (Bamsey et al., 2024; Blackson, 2022; Cristol & Gimbert, 2008; Gross & Groos, 2023). The lack of diverse representation in educational materials perpetuates racist knowledge and the normalization of racial exclusion. Books and materials help children discover the world and shape their experiences (Eggers, 2008; Nel, 2017). When daycare materials primarily depict white, heterosexual, and non-disabled people, diverse identities and ways of life are neither addressed nor acknowledged, leading children to adopt a worldview with discriminatory connotations, where whiteness is implicitly framed as the normative standard (Bishop, 1990). This absence of representation reinforces institutional knowledge regimes that reproduce racial hierarchies as normative structures within early childhood education (Preissing & Wagner, 2013). The exclusion of diverse perspectives in children’s books and learning materials not only limits exposure to different identities but also actively constructs symbolic boundaries (Lamont, 1992) that define which identities and narratives are deemed legitimate. These boundaries operate through both inclusion and exclusion – while whiteness and dominant cultural norms are reinforced as the default, racialized identities are marginalized or rendered invisible. Consequently, the scarcity of diverse children’s books that critically address racism does not merely reflect an omission but actively maintains and legitimizes racialized distinctions. Such processes contribute to the reproduction of group boundaries, shaping how children internalize notions of belonging and difference, ultimately perpetuating racist ways of thinking and acting.
Beyond educational materials, some parents described experiencing institutional racism in interactions with daycare staff. In our sample, some Muslim mothers reported encountering racialized and gendered stereotypes. Two mothers stated that their sons were labeled as “macho” or “pasha” (parent, interview 5; interview 4, 2020), while the mother recounted how her son’s reluctance to perform table duty was attributed to her and her son’s Muslim identity (parent, interview 5, 2020). Additionally, a mother reported that specifically Muslim parents are being asked to pick up their children earlier during staff shortages and due to high illness rates in daycare centers, under the assumption that “Muslim mothers don’t work” (parent, interview 2, 2020). These examples illustrate how racialized attributions, rather than individual child behaviors or family situations, shape educators’ perceptions and interactions (Gillborn, 2008). Such practices reflect patterns of neo-racism or cultural racism (Balibar, 1992), which are particularly evident in anti-Muslim racism in Germany (Shooman, 2014). Assigning children’s behaviors to their religion or culture rather than recognizing them as individual responses contributes to the culturalization of difference (Kalpaka, 2006). Overall, the interview results align with the literature on racism in German schools (Fereidooni, 2021; Karabulut, 2022). Empirical research shows that seemingly normal processes and routines in organizations, along with the everyday knowledge and constructions of normality held by educators, are central to the emergence and impact of institutional racism (Gomolla & Radtke, 2009). Racist knowledge finds its way into educational institutions through stereotypes and becomes powerful in constructing difference and devaluing groups.
(De-)Thematization of Racism in Day Care Centers
Despite the described discriminating experiences parents reported, our analysis of the expert interviews reveals that there are scarcely any institutionally established procedures for addressing discrimination and racism in Berlin with a special focus on childhood. The exceptions include one third sector initiative and a state-funded complaint office, which operates with limited authority and is staffed by only one full-time employee (expert, interview 11; AuF n.d.). The lack of established complaint procedures for discrimination and racism makes it difficult to address these issues in daycare centers. As a result, the handling of discrimination cases varies significantly and is frequently subject to individual negotiation. Parents in our study reported employing various strategies to navigate and counteract discrimination in daycare settings. We categorize these strategies as ‘intervention’, ‘damage limitation’, ‘downplaying’, and ‘exit’.
Some racialized families expressed concern that their children might be denied access to daycare centers due to stereotypes and prejudices. To avoid the anticipated racist system during the admission process, some parents try to circumvent it by concealing their background, religion, or other aspects of their identity, effectively ‘hacking’ the system to secure fair treatment. For example, a veiled Muslim mother described how she did not apply to a daycare center in person but sent an email instead, stating, “Mother with South American roots, father from Asia, looking for a daycare spot”. (parent, interview 2, 2020). This approach was adopted after her previous attempts to secure a daycare spot in person had been unsuccessful. Upon receiving a prompt response that spots were available and an invitation to visit, she strategically sent her husband and mother instead, ensuring that the daycare’s management only met her at the time of signing the contract. She reflected on her actions by noting:
I wrote it that way, and immediately got a response. Then I sent my husband and my mother; I said, ‘No, you guys go ahead,’ and the daycare’s management only saw me when it was time to sign the contract. And then I thought, sometimes you really have to be, honestly, kind of a j[erk] to even get [ahead]. (parent, interview 2, 2020).
This hacking example highlights the lengths to which individuals sometimes must go to manipulate systemic structures for fair access, underscoring the tactical measures taken to counteract institutional racism within early childhood education settings.
When our interviewed families perceive racist knowledge, logic, or discrimination in daycare centers, they often ‘intervene’. Some of the parents also attempted to initiate change processes. They aimed to reduce racism by identifying racist moments and sometimes suggesting solutions. This included parents pointing out experiences of discrimination in direct conversations with educators, thereby making them visible. In cases where there was a perceived lack of diversity and representation in the learning environment and play materials, families intervened by bringing diversity-conscious books to the daycare center. For example, a mother described:
I brought a book to the daycare center, Julien is a Mermaid, by an African-American artist. It is about a boy, Julien, who likes to dress up as a mermaid, so it addresses roles, gender, and the book features only black characters. (parent, interview 5, 2020).
However, institutional support for critical interventions addressing discrimination was frequently lacking. During the study, several parents highlighted a pattern of selective engagement with diversity within their children’s daycare centers. This manifested as inconsistent responses to different characteristics of discrimination, suggesting a practice of ‘ambivalent diversity management.’ Such management selectively acknowledges certain forms of inequality while ignoring or dismissing others as controversial. Notably, there appeared to be a hierarchical prioritization of diversity dimensions, where for instance sexism took precedence over racism. One parent’s experience exemplifies this issue:
I have repeatedly asked if the daycare center could address anti-racism. The response was always that gender issues are currently the priority. Despite being there for almost three years, racism has never been addressed. (parent, interview 5, 2020).
This account underscores a systemic issue within the institution’s approach to diversity – certain dimensions of inequality are not only sidelined but are also pitted against each other, obscuring the persistent undercurrents of institutional racism. This selective prioritization raises significant questions about the efficacy of diversity policies in early childhood education settings. It reflects a broader trend identified in the literature on institutional discrimination, where anti-racism efforts are often subordinated to or conflated with other diversity initiatives (i.e., Powell, 2012; Tatum, 1997). Such findings are critical as they illuminate the complexities and challenges of implementing comprehensive anti-discrimination policies in environments that are foundational to child development.
Another example of the obstruction of parental interventions involves reports from parents who encountered institutional barriers when attempting to address racist incidents. As one mother describes she felt that her efforts led to the downplaying of her child’s experiences with racism and resulted in blockades during confrontations about racism:
Somehow, children at daycare said, ‘Ew, she’s brown’ or something like that, and then I immediately talked to the teacher and realized that her reaction was totally problematic, the way she handled it, both in the group with the children and how she addressed it or didn’t address it. She also initially denied it or somehow justified it, saying that something like that wouldn’t happen in this group, of course, and all that. Exactly, I found her approach to it totally problematic and then realized that she is definitely not an ally with whom I can somehow think about how we can deal with certain things or that she turns to me and sees what I need. (parent, interview 8, 2020)
Further insights from the expert interviews reveal systemic issues complicating efforts to transform daycare environments into anti-racist spaces. A significant concern highlighted was adultism, which manifests as a systematic minimization of children’s experiences and perspectives (Bostancı, 2024; Liebel, 2020; Liebel & Maede, 2023). An expert in anti-discrimination work shared examples of dismissive responses children might receive, such as being told: “‘It wasn’t so bad,’ ‘the person didn’t mean it that way,’ ‘you misunderstood,’ or ‘it’s not that serious.'”(expert, interview 11, 2020). Additionally, the expert described an incident of racist discrimination against two Black children, illustrating a disconnect where, despite the children’s reports to educators, the staff and later the management claimed ignorance of any such incidents (parent, interview 11, 2020). This specific example underscores how adultism can undermine the legitimacy and severity of children’s reported experiences, potentially reinforcing discriminatory practices within educational settings.
This negligence is manifest in the way parental interventions are obstructed, as reported by some parents we interviewed. In an illustrative instance of how pedagogical staff sometimes dismiss racist incidents, one mother recounted how her attempt to address a racist incident within the daycare was dismissed by the staff. When she expressed concern about a racially charged interaction, the educator responded by referencing the song “Three Chinese with a Double Bass” – including the use of gestures that mimic East Asian features – as a way of engaging with diversity. The mother described this justification as “creepy”, highlighting how pedagogical routines that rely on racial caricatures are defended as diversity-sensitive (parent, interview 8, 2020). Her account illustrates how racist practices are normalized within institutional cultures and how parents’ interventions are delegitimized through seemingly well-meaning but discriminatory logics (Hill, 2008; cf. Leutner et al., 2022; Longman & De Graeve, 2014).
When parents realize that their intervention attempts are blocked or remain ineffective, some adopt a ‘damage limitation’ strategy. Rather than continuing to push for structural change within the daycare center, they shift their focus to strengthening their children’s identities at home and helping them process racist experiences. In our sample some parents seek external spaces that provide opportunities for empowerment. One analyzed pattern is that families, regardless of their social status and privileges, describe feelings of helplessness and powerlessness when attempting to address and initiate anti-racist change within daycare institutions. One mother recounted her struggle to challenge the reproduction of racism in her child’s daycare on an individual level, describing the experience as overwhelmingly difficult. She specifically raised concerns about inappropriate labeling practices by staff, particularly regarding how her child’s self-identification was dismissed:
[A]t some point [my child] found the self-identification ‘golden’ for herself and I thought that was absolutely beautiful and absolutely wanted to leave it at that, but now the kindergarten teachers in her group find it very important that she does not call herself golden, because she would not be golden, but brown. (parent, interview 8, 2020)
Her experience underscores the deep-seated challenges parents face in confronting racial biases within educational institutions. Given these barriers, she turned to damage control strategies outside the daycare environment:
[S]o at the beginning I somehow still thought, then I got myself elected as a parent representative and thought, okay, maybe I can somehow have a little influence on the structure, but that was not the case at all. Now I’m actually at the point where I think, okay, I’ll try to balance everything at home and I think it’s amazing how much this daycare somehow shapes my child and it’s an incredible amount of work to somehow keep arguing against it or to somehow still enable other perspectives. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but that’s kind of my point of view right now, that I think, yes, then I’ll probably have to do a lot of extra work to balance out the things that you’re kind of told there. (parent, interview 8, 2020)
The strategies employed by parents in response to such institutional dynamics align for dealing with these issues reflect what Yosso (2005) describes as community cultural wealth, where marginalized groups utilize an array of knowledge, skills, abilities, and contacts to survive and resist macro- and micro-forms of oppression. The damage limitation strategy that parents adopt by reinforcing identities at home or seeking empowering spaces outside of daycare centers exemplifies what Yosso refers to as navigational capital, which is particularly vital in environments that do not affirm their racial identities.
Other parents in our sample, however, ‘downplay’ or even deny that certain experiences are racist. This strategy involves a degree of conformity when parents do not want to stand out to avoid jeopardizing the daycare spot or a supposedly good relationship with the daycare center. A father recounted that he deliberately “kept his mouth shut” during a tour and introduction to a daycare center where he noticed wall decorations with racist connotations because he was “trying to get a place in the daycare center.” (parent, interview 16, 2020).
The most drastic strategy parents use to deal with racism in daycare centers is the ‘exit strategy’, where they withdraw their children from the daycare center. When the interviewed parents took this step, it was usually a sign that the trust relationship was shattered and communication was no longer possible. Other intervention strategies had already failed by this point. One mother described this process after unsuccessfully trying to bring about critical changes in the daycare center: “As I said, I fought in the daycare center for a long time, and eventually we decided to switch…” (parent, interview 2, 2020). The exit strategy is not only used by families but also by daycare centers – as an interviewed expert highlighted –, which terminate the contract after parents have complained. This approach is justified by claiming that the trust relationship has now been damaged (parent, interview 11, 2020). ‘Exclusion’ makes it significantly harder to address and tackle racism institutionally in a sustainable manner. The ‘exit strategy’ employed by some parents, as discussed by Leonardo and Porter (2010), underscores the necessity for escape mechanisms in toxic racial environments as a form of resistance and self-preservation. This drastic measure reflects the ultimate breakdown of trust and communication within the daycare setting, highlighting the urgent need for institutions to fundamentally rethink their approaches to diversity and inclusion. However, this strategy was seldom utilized due to its association with certain privileges and the fundamental belief that changing the institution will foster an anti-racist environment for the children. Not all families could consider changing daycare centers – due to limited availability of spots in Berlin, there was no guarantee of immediately finding a new daycare center – especially when, as one family experienced, they had to submit 80 applications before securing a spot (parent, interview 16, 2020). Securing a daycare spot is crucial not just for the children’s continuity of care but also for parents to balance work and family life. Furthermore, some parents could not afford a period without daycare coverage before securing a spot and others doubted whether switching centers would genuinely benefit their children, given the rarity of daycare centers that actively practice anti-racist pedagogy.
Perpetuating Racism by De-Thematizing and Blocking Transformation
This paper highlights how institutional racism manifests in daycare centers through exclusionary educational materials, racialized assumptions in staff interactions, and the absence of anti-discrimination mechanisms. The findings illustrate that, despite legal frameworks intended to safeguard equal access, institutional routines and governance structures continue to reproduce racial inequalities. Parents navigating these challenges adopt a range of strategies, from direct intervention to avoidance, damage limitation, or complete withdrawal from the institution. These responses underscore the lack of institutional accountability in addressing racial discrimination in early childhood education.
Moreover, the study demonstrates that racist knowledge is embedded in educational materials and pedagogical practices, shaping children’s perceptions of race from an early age. The normalization of whiteness in books, songs, and learning environments reflects broader structural mechanisms of exclusion, reinforcing hierarchies that persist beyond daycare settings. The findings also reveal a hierarchical approach to diversity management, where certain dimensions of inequality – such as gender – are prioritized over racial discrimination, further marginalizing anti-racist efforts in daycare centers (see, critical to heteronormativity: Riegel, 2017). While this article provides critical insights into the institutionalized nature of racism in early childhood education in Berlin, it also highlights the need for structural interventions. A more systematic anti-racist approach in daycare centers requires institutional mechanisms that ensure accountability, such as clear anti-discrimination policies, standardized complaint procedures, and proactive diversity-sensitive educational strategies. Future research should further explore institutional resistance to anti-racist transformation, particularly examining the perspectives of educators, children, and administrators, whose views remain underrepresented in current studies. Without systemic changes, daycare centers will continue to operate as sites where racial inequalities are not only reflected but actively reproduced.
References
Akbaş, B., & Polat, A. (2022). Von „Sprachdefiziten“ und anderen Mythen – Praxen der Herstellung von Differenz in Einrichtungen der Elementarpädagogik. In Y. Akbaba, B. Bello & K. Fereidooni (Eds.), Pädagogische Professionalität und Migrationsdiskurse. Pädagogische Professionalität und Migrationsdiskurse (pp. 149–166). Springer VS.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29043-6
AuF – Contact and Advisory Office for Protection Against Discrimination in Schools and Daycare Centers in Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg (n.d.).
https://www.auf-fk.de/
Azarmandi, M., Delaune, A., Surtees, N., & Te Rongopatahi, K. M. (2024). Anti-racism commitment in early childhood education: The limits of cultural competency. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 25(2), 240–255.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491231220363
Balibar, É. (1992). Gibt es einen „Neo-Rassismus“? In É. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Rasse – Klasse – Nation. Ambivalente Identitäten (pp. 23–38). Argument Verlag.
Bamsey, V., McNair, L. J., Campbell, H., & Vašinová, M. I. (2024). Race and the space in between: Practitioner reflections on anti-racist practice in one Froebelian early years setting. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 22(1), 122–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X231195696
Benokraitis, N., & Feagin, J. (1977). Institutional Racism: A Perspective in Search of Clarity and Research. In C. V. Willie (Ed.), Black/brown/white relations: Race relations in the 1970s (pp. 121–143). Transaction Books.
Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6(3), ix-xi.
Blackson, S. (2022). Racial bias toward children in the early childhood setting. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 20(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X221087051
Bundschuh, S., & Müller, M. (2020). Förderung von Sensibilität gegenüber rassistischen und verwandten Ausgrenzungsmustern in Kindertageseinrichtungen in Rheinland-Pfalz: Eine empirische Untersuchung mit Empfehlungen zu präventiven Maßnahmen für die pädagogische Praxis. Institut für Forschung und Weiterbildung, Hochschule Koblenz.
https://www.hs-koblenz.de/fileadmin/media/fb_sozialwissenschaften/IFW/Rassismussensibilitaet_in_Kitas/Forschungsbericht_Neue_Perspektiven_Rassismussensibilitaet_in_rheinland-pfaelzischen_Kitas.pdf
Bostancı, S. (2024). Das Praxisfeld Kita: Ein Plädoyer für einen Dialog der kritischen Migrationsforschung und kritischen Kindheitswissenschaften aus einer postmigrantischen Perspektive. In S. Bostancı & E. Ilgün-Birhimeoğlu (Eds.), Elementarpädagogik in der postmigratischen Gesellschaft: Theoretische und empirische Zugänge zu einer rassismuskritischen Pädagogik (pp. 33–51). Beltz Juventa.
Bostancı, S., & Wirth, B. (2024). Institutioneller Rassismus in Kindertageseinrichtungen: Erscheinungsformen und Handlungsstrategien. Migration und Soziale Arbeit 1/2024.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). SAGE.
Clarke, A. E. (2012). Situationsanalyse: Grounded theory nach dem postmodern turn. Springer VS.
Cristol, D., & Gimbert, B. (2008). Racial perceptions of young children: A review of literature post-1999. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 201–207.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0251-6
Dean, I. (2020). Bildung – Heterogenität – Sprache: Rassistische Differenz- und Diskriminierungsverhältnisse in Kita und Grundschule. Springer VS.
Diehm, I., Kuhn, M., & Machold, C. (2013). Ethnomethodologie und Ungleichheit? Methodologische Herausforderungen einer ethnographischen Differenzforschung. In J. Budde (Ed.), Unscharfe Einsätze: (Re-)Produktion von Heterogenität im schulischen Feld (pp. 29–51). Springer VS.
Eggers, M. M. (2005). Rassifizierung und kindliches Machtempfinden (Doctoral dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universität). Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.
https://macau.uni-kiel.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dissertation_derivate_00002289/Dissertation_Maureen_Eggers.pdf
Eggers, M. M. (2008). Pippi Langstrumpf — Emanzipation nur für weiße Kinder?: Rassismus und an (weiße) Kinder adressierte Hierarchiebotschaften.
https://blog.derbraunemob.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pippi_langstrumpf-emanzipation_nur_fuer_weisse_kinder.pdf
Eggers, M. M. (2014). Interview mit Prof. Dr. Maisha Maureen Eggers, Erziehungswissenschaftlerin und Geschlechterforscherin, Professorin für Kindheit und Differenz (Diversity Studies) an der Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal über Kinderbücher und Empowerment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4yvd0ATQ3U
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. SAGE.
Fereidooni, K. (2013). Schule – Migration – Diskriminierung: Institutionelle Ursachen für die Benachteiligung von Kindern mit Migrationshintergrund im deutschen Schulwesen. Seminar. Lehrerbildung und Schule, 01, 97–100.
Fereidooni, K. (2021). Gadje-Rassismus am Beispiel des deutschen Schulwesens. In K. Fereidooni & S. E. Hößl (Eds.), Rassismuskritische Bildungsarbeit (pp. 37–60). Wochenschau Verlag.
Gillborn, D. (2008). Racism and education: Coincidence or conspiracy. Routledge.
Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Waxmann.
Gomolla, M., & Radtke, F.-O. (2009). Institutionelle Diskriminierung: Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91577-7
Gross, B., & Groos, M. (2023). Diversity-sensitive educational policies and practices in ECEC in Germany. STUDIUM EDUCATIONIS – Rivista semestrale per le professioni educative, 2, 140–148.
https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/studium/article/download/6865/5986/28678
Hall, S. (1989). Rassismus als ideologischer Diskurs. Das Argument, 31(178), 913–921.
Hermes, H., Leretporer, P., Mierisch, F., Peter, F., & Wiederhold, S. (2023). Discrimination on the child care market: A nationwide field experiment (Discussion Paper Series No. 16082).
Hill, J. H. (2008). The everyday language of White racism. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hogrebe, N., Pomykaj, A., & Schulder, S. (2021). Segregation in early childhood education and care in Germany: Insights on regional distribution patterns using national educational studies. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung, 16(1), 36–56.
https://doi.org/10.3224/diskurs.v16i1.04
Iruka, I. U., Gardner-Neblett, N., Telfer, N. A., Ibekwe-Okafor, N., Curenton, S. M., Sims, J., Sansbury, A. B., & Neblett, E. W. (2022). Effects of racism on child development: Advancing antiracist developmental science. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 109–132.
Kalpaka, A. (2006). Pädagogische Professionalität in der Kulturalisierungsfalle: Über den Umgang mit „Kultur“ in Verhältnissen von Differenz und Dominanz. In R. Leiprecht & A. Kerber (Eds.), Schule in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft (pp. 387–405). Wochenschau Verlag.
Karabulut, A. (2022). Schulische Rassismuskritik: Zur Überwindung des Artikulationstabus in schulischen Organisationsmilieus. Springer VS.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37899-8
Karakayalı, J., & zur Nieden, B. (2013). Rassismus und Klassen-Raum: Segregation nach Herkunft an Berliner Grundschulen. sub\urban, 1(2), 61–78.
https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v1i2.96
Kuhn, M. (2013). Professionalität im Kindergarten: Eine ethnographische Studie zur Elementarpädagogik in der Migrationsgesellschaft. Springer VS.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19158-4
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries across the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
Leutner, M., Lu, P., & Suda, K. (Eds.). (2022). Antichinesischer und antiasiatischer Rassismus: historische und gegenwärtige Diskurse, Erscheinungsformen und Gegenpositionen (No. 54). LIT Verlag.
Liebel, M. (2020). Unerhört: Kinder und Macht. Beltz Juventa.
Liebel, M., & Meade, P. (2023). Adultismus: Die Macht der Erwachsenen über die Kinder: Eine kritische Einführung (Kritische Einführungen: Bd. 4). Bertz + Fischer.
Leonardo, Z., & Porter, R. K. (2010). Pedagogy of fear: Toward a Fanonian theory of ‘safety’ in race dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(2), 139–157.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898
Longman, C., & De Graeve, K. (2014). From happy to critical diversity: Intersectionality as a paradigm for gender and diversity 4esearch. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 1(1), 33–39. Leuven University Press.
Machold, C. (2015). Kinder und Differenz: Eine ethnografische Studie im elementarpädagogischen Kontext. Springer VS.
Macpherson, W. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an inquiry (Cm 4262-I). The Stationery Office.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-stephen-lawrence-inquiry
Nebe, G. (2022). Allowing for segregation in ECEC? Legal conditions, administrative structures and enrolment practice in Germany. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 3(2), 177–199.
https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202232203
Nel, P. (2017). Was the cat in the hat black? The hidden racism of children’s literature, and the need for diverse books. Oxford University Press.
Oliveira Andreotti, V. de, Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40.
Powell, J. A. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society. Indiana University Press.
Preising, C., & Wagner, P. (Eds.). (2013). Handbuch Inklusion: Grundlagen vorurteilsbewusster Bildung und Erziehung. Herder.
Riegel, C. (2017). Queere Familien in pädagogischen Kontexten: Zwischen Ignoranz und Othering. In J. Hartmann, A. Messerschmidt, & C. Thon (Eds.), Queertheoretische Perspektiven auf Bildung: Pädagogische Kritik der Heteronormativität (pp. 69–94). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
https://doi.org/10.25656/01:17337
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th edition). SAGE.
Shooman, Y. (2014). „… weil ihre Kultur so ist“: Narrative des antimuslimischen Rassismus. Transcript.
https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-2866-1/…-weil-ihre-kultur-so-ist/
Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. Basic Books.
Van Ausdale, D., & Feagin, J. R. (2001). The first R: How children learn race and racism. Rowman & Littlefield.
Williams, A., & Steele, J. R. (2017). Examining children’s implicit racial attitudes using exemplar and category-based measures. Child Development, 90(3), 322–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12991
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Recommended Citation
Bostancı, S. (2025). Parental and institutional strategies of (de-)thematization of racism in daycare centers. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 8(21).
https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2025.21.7
Do you want to comment on this article? Please send your reply to editors@oneducation.net. Replies will be processed like invited contributions. This means they will be assessed according to standard criteria of quality, relevance, and civility. Please make sure to follow editorial policies and formatting guidelines.
