1 Daniel Lobo T210X: Foundations of Urban Education Final Exam
To begin, I will admit that for the sake of this exercise, this proposal was drafted without regard to financial constraints. Let us assume that an anonymous entity has given RBHS a blank check to be used in order to achieve greater equity in the school. In a speech on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan proposed the following: “Let us build a law that brings equity and opportunity to those who are economically disadvantaged, or challenged by disabilities or background.”1 If we can’t achieve this legislatively, let us at least work on implementing such a policy at the micro level here at Ralph Bunche High School. Currently, RBHS has a problem with racial integration in its higher track courses, driven by an inequity in student performance between black and Latino students and Asian and white student. This means our school is currently under-serving our lower achieving, minority students, which is an injustice given that RBHS is a majority-minority school with 80% of its student population being comprised of black and Latino students.2 So, how do we correct this injustice? The answer lies in the comment posed by Mr. Danielson: “We should be worrying about making sure that students of color have mastered the basic skills before we start worrying about getting them into Honors and AP classes.” Though, I would tweak this statement just a bit. We need to make sure students of color have mastered basic skills in order to get them into Honors and AP classes. Giving our minority students the skills necessary for success in an effective way 1 E-Lecture #4 on Curriculum Access (slide 42) 2 E-Lecture #1 on Segregation and Desegregation (slide 12)
2
will prepare and motivate these students to pursue more rigorous coursework. In order to accomplish this, RBHS must commit to implementing a system that eliminates our current tracking practices, establishes a standard school curriculum with individualized student learning, and promotes parental and community involvement in the school, as a means of increasing minority student achievement. The prospect of deviating from a system of tracking may dismay certain teachers such as Mrs. Jackson and Ms. Gomes, but the fact is that tracking simply doesn’t help our students, and this system is especially detrimental to our minority students. Professor of Educational Equity at the University of California, Los Angeles Graduate School of Education, Jeannie Oakes states in her book, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, that numerous studies have
found that “no group of students has been found to benefit consistently from being in a homogeneous group” (8). Furthermore, Oakes states that the tracking process fosters lower self-esteem among the students placed in lower tracks.3 This data demonstrates two facts that may be contrary to what most people believe about tracking. First, higher achieving students would be no worse-off if placed in a non-tracking system. Second, lower achieving students are actually being harmed by being placed in a lower track. The lower self-esteem that these students gain may cause them to feel that they can never be capable of being in honors or AP classes, even if they have the potential to be in those classes. Such low self-esteem may be the cause of the attitudes teachers such as Ms. Claudell are seeing in their minority students. But, these attitudes can change if we discontinue tracking.
3 Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Second Edition. Ch 1 (pp. 1-14). Yale University Press.
3 But, perhaps more important, are the unethical dangers that all too often are associated
with tracking. Mrs. Fellon highlights such practices that take place with her ESL students, where many are placed in lower level classes even when they have high ability because counselors assume that if a student struggles with English, he will struggle with everything else. Tracking is inherently flawed because of this overly reductionist, arbitrary process of student placement based on past performance rather than student potential and improvement. More implicit in tracking are the lowered expectations for lower achieving minority students that teachers seem to adopt. This is demonstrated in Mr. Piebald’s comments regarding how students from more disadvantaged backgrounds are supposed to compete with students from higher achieving backgrounds. His sentiment about why should high school teachers be expected to change this, a sentiment that results from tracking, is deeply disturbing. It should be a teacher’s responsibility to get all of her students to a certain standard, whether those standards are dictated by the MCAS or a school curriculum. She doesn’t get to pick and choose which kids end up in her classroom, so where the students come from shouldn’t matter at all. It is her responsibility as an urban educator to educate her students—all of them. If it is the case that doing this effectively will require some changes, then changes must be implemented. Tracking is contributing directly to the inequity we are seeing in our higher track classes, thus the system must be changed. Given the data presented by Oakes, as well as the inequities we’re seeing here at RBHS, we need to move RBHS to a standards-based, student-oriented model of learning that will mitigate these inequities in the long run. We must better educate the students who are consistently lower performing, so that more of these students will become high performing later on. We can do this by implementing a standard curriculum, augmented with more professional development, as Mr. Groovy pointed out, that includes customized student learning and greater
4
community involvement in the school. Christine Sleeter, Professor Emerita in the College of Professional Studies at California State University Monterey Bay, states in Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom: There are beginning to be reports that in some schools, students demonstrate more learning on tests because of standards-based reform. For example, based on a study of reading and math performance in Chicago Public Schools, Roderick, Jacob, and Bryk (2002) found improved achievement in the lowest performing schools, particularly those that serve African American students. Because standards provide a public goal that can be used as a tool to strengthen curriculum and instruction, equity advocates such as Haycock and Craig (2002) advise administrators to use standards to reshape curriculum and instruction in their own schools. (6)4 That being said, as Sleeter acknowledges, classrooms today are becoming increasingly diverse, which is true at RBHS. The goal of implementing a curriculum standards is not to say that all students should learn the exact same thing, but rather that all students should at least be at the same benchmarks, so that we can be sure that all students are learning and are prepared for more “rigorous” coursework, if that is what they choose to pursue. A curriculum committee that would include teachers, administrators, parents, as well as students would collaboratively construct these benchmarks. They will collectively construct what it means to be a student at RBHS. In this way, the standard curriculum is representative of the interests of all of the stakeholders in the education process.
4 Sleeter, Christine E. (2005). Ch. 1, “Standards, Multicultural Education, and Central Curriculum Questions,” (pp. 5-27). In Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom. Teachers College Press.
5 Despite this standardization, this plan will be much more focused on personalized
learning. This brings us to the next phase of the plan, how the students would be learning. The answer is personalized student learning. Specifically, our model of instruction would mimic that of the School of One. In this model, each students masters particular skills at his or her own pace. It works like this: At the beginning of the school year, students take an initial assessment in order to diagnose their particular academic learning needs and to generate an initial hypothesis on how they learn best. Every student is then given multiple opportunities to master a particular skill. For example, a student may take two live instruction lessons, one online activity and collaborate with other students to master a skill such as adding fractions with unlike denominators. If he has difficulty with the content, School of One will provide alternative lessons or learning modalities until he achieves mastery. Students who continue to struggle are flagged so teachers can respond and provide intensive intervention.5 School of One has proven to accelerate students’ learning compared to students in traditional classrooms. In this untracked system, higher performing students would be able to “go the extra mile” on assignments in order to gain “honors” distinction in the class. In other words, the students would determine their own “tracks,” not us. With each student finding the way in which they learn best, minority students will be as prepared as possible to pursue more advanced coursework, if they so choose. That being said, unless this model of learning could be incorporated into AP classes, we would no longer have these classes at RBHS. But, as stated previously, students could receive honors distinction on their transcripts if they pursue more 5 Wolk, Ron (2010, April). “Education: The Case for Making It Personal.” Educational Leadership, pp. 16-21. Accessed November 18, 2011, from http://www.bigpicture.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/thecase-for-making-it-personal.pdf.
6
advanced coursework in their classes. As Mr. Groovy alluded to, under this model, there would obviously need to be professional development in place to adequately prepare our teachers for this type of pedagogy. It is my hope that our teachers would be receptive to this promising new policy, as they are one of the greatest determinants of this plan’s success. But, as Mr. Wu pointed out, different cultures put different values on education, so unless we get the families on board with this plan, it is destined to fail. But, Mr. Wu was wrong when he said that this is something schools can’t change. We do have the power to influence how these cultures value education. In his review entitled Communities and Schools: A New Vision for Education Reform, Warren argues, “if urban school reform in the United States is to be successful, it must be linked to the revitalization of the communities around our schools” (1).6 Warren develops a typology of these collaborative relationships, citing numerous examples of collaboration between public schools and community-based organizations. I believe the approach that would best suit RBHS would be what Warren calls the organizing approach (community school organizing). We should replicate the model demonstrated by the Logan Square Neighborhood Association (LSNA). LSNA is a community development organization that began advocating for the schools in their district in the 1980s. As a means of bringing more change to the schools, LSNA organizers developed a strategy to involve parents in the school by starting a leadership development program, so that parents could become active participants and decision makers in the education of their children. This Parent Mentor Program raised funds for parents to become teaching assistants in the schools. In this way, parents become the key link between the school and the community, serving as mediators to be sure that the school is properly serving the 6 Warren, Mark R. (2005). “Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 75(2): 133-168
7
community’s children, and that the community organizations are helping the school to tap into the culture of every student. LNSA-affiliated schools saw an increase in student performance from 1997 to 2002. They went from an “average of 28 percent scoring at or above the national norm in math in 1997 to an average of 39 percent in 2002. Meanwhile, the percentage scoring in the bottom quartile on the math tests fell at all schools, dropping from an average of 41 percent to 26 percent. Reading scores showed similar gains” (23). That being said, it would be difficult to draw causality directly from these jumps in scores to LNSA’s policies. But, 71% of teachers surveyed by LNSA reported improved discipline as a result of the parent mentors. Through the implementation of a program similar to this one, RBHS has the power to get the parents on board and change how they feel about education. We have to make them a part of the system, and show them what the school is capable of doing for their kids, their community and themselves. Some may consider this policy proposal rather drastic, but the reality of urban education is that there are additional barriers that must be overcome in order to be an effective urban educator. As pessimistic as it may sound, despite that school is known as the “great equalizer,” the education system in America is extremely stratified according to class. As professor of government at Harvard University, Jennifer Hochschild, and professor of education policy at Princeton, Nathan Scovronick, explain in The American Dream and the Public Schools, “because education in this country is delivered through school districts based on residence, and residence is based largely on wealth, the structure of schooling in America is inseparable from the structure of class” (Hochschild and Nathan 54).7 Because race and class generally trend together, with minorities comprising lower classes, and whites comprising upper and middle classes, residential segregation tends to occur racially as well. For example, over the past century, in some of 7 Hochschild, Jennifer and Nathan Scovronick (2003). The American Dream and the Public Schools. Oxford University Press.
8
America’s largest cities, including New York and Los Angeles, there has been an influx of black, Latino and other minorities into the inner city, while there has been an exodus of whites to outlying suburbs.8 Such residential segregation explains why states with some of the largest major cities in the country, including California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and Pennsylvania have the highest concentration of majority minority and hyper minority schools (slide 12). This segregation is arguably the defining characteristic of the political construction of urban schools. Despite how wrong this clear racially segregating construct seems to many, this country, per the order of the Supreme Court, has decided to accept this construct as is. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974) a 5-4 decision declared that race differences between districts were not legally actionable and that districts could not impose mandatory cross-district busing (slide 36). The Supreme court reinforced this fact in the 1990s, judging that current school segregation was a result of de facto rather than de jure segregation. Unless one could prove that school segregation was result of intentional policies, the fact of segregation itself didn’t give districts, schools, or parents legal recourse (side 38). Clearly, the court is of the opinion that because the current the current de facto segregation is not the direct result of overtly racist policies, it is legally acceptable in our schools. The problem with such an opinion, as Hochschild and Scovronick observe, is that the distinction between de facto and de jure segregation is not as black and white as the Supreme Court has perceived it to be. Residential racial segregation, and thereby school segregation, has “resulted in part from political choices such as zoning rules, public agency mortgage guidelines, highway location decision, mass transit access, and above all from school district boundaries and the placement of schools” (Hochschild and Nathan 37). Such 8 E-Lecture #1 on Segregation and Desegregation (slide 20)
9
policies and factors are implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, influenced by attitudes towards certain racial groups, or at least have been in the past. The effects of such racially charged policies do not suddenly disappear when the policy is stopped; they are perpetuated unless reversed. This is where we are now in our urban education construct—we are seeing the longterm segregation effects of racial policies, yet we have deemed such effects unworthy of reversal measures. This is no less of an injustice than the racial policies that were in place to begin with. Moreover, not only have we chosen to ignore racially influenced segregation in urban schools, but we’ve also committed to further adversely affecting the educational outcomes of the students of these urban schools. High-poverty and high-minority schools tend to receive lower levels of public funding as compared to more affluent suburban school districts. According to U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2005-06 school year, the gap in per-pupil funding between high-poverty and low-poverty school districts was -$773, while the gap in per-pupil funding between high-minority and low-minority school districts was -$1,122.9 Some may blame such funding disparities on economic fluctuations and state budget deficit. But, as education advocate Jonathan Kozol explains in his book, Shame of the Nation, in cities such as New York, urban students are permanently shortchanged, regardless of economic ups and downs.10 This disparity in resource allocation, in conjunction with external urban factors including the lack of enrichment opportunities for urban children, and pervasive health issues, such as asthma, hunger and trauma, make it extremely difficult for urban minority youth to attain the educational success of their suburban counterparts.11 Thus, urban children are not only
9
E-Lecture #2 on School Finance (slide 9) J. (2005). Shame of the Nation. Ch 2 (pp. 39-62) Hitting Them Hardest When They’re Small. Three Rivers Press. 11 E-Lecture #6 on Inequities Beyond School (slide 10) 10 Kozol,
10
affected by unfair government funding policies, but also by elements of their inner city environment that are beyond their control, creating a recipe for disaster. This is the reality of the political construction of urban schools. They are already disadvantaged institutions that have been relatively abandoned by the only entity with the power to change them—the federal, state and local governments. This is a fact that urban educators must realize. More importantly, urban educators must realize the full extent their own role in such a system. They have a responsibility to effectively educate their students. Regardless of what is decided that the students should learn, how student achievement is measured or what reform fad is trending, urban educators have a responsibility to make sure that each of their students is learning as much as any other student, including those in suburban school districts, those who are wealthier and those who happen to be white. Urban educators must realize that given the lives their students are born into—lives that are not necessarily conducive to educational success—this duty is going to be much more difficult to accomplish than it would be elsewhere. These educators must be willing to do whatever it takes to promote the academic achievement of their urban students, because for these students, every bit of success takes them one step closer to breaking the cycle of lower life prospects that they are born into. For an urban educator, going the extra mile 100 percent of the time is the only way of ensuring that education truly becomes the great equalizer for the urban youth of America.
11 Works Cited
E-Lecture #4 on Curriculum Access E-Lecture #1 on Segregation and Desegregation Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Second Edition. Ch 1 (pp. 114). Yale University Press. Sleeter, Christine E. (2005). Ch. 1, “Standards, Multicultural Education, and Central Curriculum Questions,” (pp. 5-27). In Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom. Teachers College Press Wolk, Ron (2010, April). “Education: The Case for Making It Personal.” Educational Leadership, pp. 16-21. Accessed November 18, 2011, from http://www.bigpicture.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/the-case-for-making-it-personal.pdf. Warren, Mark R. (2005). “Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 75(2): 133-168 Hochschild, Jennifer and Nathan Scovronick (2003). The American Dream and the Public Schools. Oxford University Press. E-Lecture #2 on School Finance Kozol, J. (2005). Shame of the Nation. Ch 2 (pp. 39-62) Hitting Them Hardest When They’re Small. Three Rivers Press E-Lecture #6 on Inequities Beyond School