Inequity and Escapism: Public Education in America by Stewart Gohringer

Inequity and Escapism Public Education in America

Stewart Gohringer Harvard GSD

Inequity and Escapism Public Education in America

Stewart Gohringer Harvard GSD

Contents

Special Thanks Preface

7 9

I: Introduction 1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

II: History 2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950 3. Reconsidering Education and Society:1950-2011 4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston 5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

27 41 65 99

III: Reality 6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts 7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options 8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools 9. America’s Paradox: Capitalism, Public Education, and Democracy

121 181 199 223

IV: School 10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends 11. The School: Built Ideologies 12. The Next Curriculum: “Flipping” Education 13. The Next School: Architecture’s Responsibility

247 261 307 321

VI: Conclusion 14. Interstitial Education: A School for Boston’s Gaps 15. The Final Argument: Good Enough for Someone Else?

333 355

References Works Cited

357 381 5

Special Thanks

Paul Cote Geospatial Information Specialist Harvard Graduate School of Design Sarah Dickinson Librarian, Frances Loeb Library Harvard Graduate School of Design Judith S. Gohringer Art Teacher Rochester City School District Vicki LaBoskey Professor, Education Mills College Richard Murnane Juliana W. and William Foss Thompson Professor of Education and Society Harvard Graduate School of Education Shan Shan Qi Master of Architecture, Class of 2011 Harvard Graduate School of Design Ingeborg Rocker Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture Harvard Graduate School of Design Scott Walker Digital Cartography Specialist Harvard Map Collection 7

Preface

This book contains research, criticism, and proposals towards the completion of a year-long thesis project on the topic of the American education system and its schools. The second phase of the project will be an architectural design proposal for a new public school. This book was completed, start-to-finish, in five months. In the true spirit of a thesis project, this book uses hard research and evidence to pursue a naively ambitious agenda. I hope this book starts a conversation that I can continue for the rest of my career. Stewart Gohringer Candidate for Master of Architecture I, 2012 Harvard Graduate School of Design Research Instructor: Ingeborg Rocker 9

Introdu Introduction

uction

Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

Todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public education system is tearing the United States apart. Once the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s greatest asset, K-12 education has now become a national embarrassment. An integral component of modern democracy, public education was set in place by the Founding Fathers.1 Even in its infancy, the American ideal of educating every one of its citizens without regard to class or financial means was more progressive than the developed countries of Europe. Today, the opposite is true. And in terms of performance and job qualifications, U.S. students are becoming increasingly less competitive when compared against students of developing nations. I: Introduction | 13

1.01 2009 PISA Rankings Mathematics: Shanghai-China: 1st Reading: Shanghai-China: 1st Science: Shanghai-China: 1st

USA: 31st USA: 17th USA: 23rd

31st

The international advantage that the United States once enjoyed no longer exists in K-12 education. But America’s decline is certainly not from a lack of spending, it’s from a lack of intelligent distribution. The U.S. national average for annual expenditures per student is over` $10,000.2 Depending on how one measures it, America’s spending per pupil is the highest or among the top five highest countries in the world.3 Federal, state, and local spending on public education is more than $500 billion dollars annually, exceeding the budget of the Department of Defense.4 But after decades of spending increases based on outdated principals, we continue to have an outdated education system with stagnant results. 1.02 “Per-pupil spending has risen by 240% in the last three decades, after correcting for inflation, but achievement scores for students have remained virtually flat.” - Changing the Odds for Children at Risk

240%

“Education is perhaps the main tool that democracies use to attempt to equalize economic opportunities among citizens,”5 and America’s failure to sustain its once strong system of education has helped to create deep divides in contemporary society. “In 2007, the public perception of schools in the U.S. was the lowest in recorded history.”6 More and more Americans are losing faith in their own public institutions. Affluent white families, in particular, are increasingly choosing to remove their children from the public system entirely. And this already comes after decades of white urban migration, “white flight,” from diverse urban districts to much more homogenous suburban districts.7 1.03 European Americans in Public School: 1986: 70.4% 2000: 61.2% 2005: 57.1% - Narrowing the Achievement Gap in a (Re)Segregated Urban School District

-13.3%

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

Societal protectionism and isolationism have resulted in an opt-out system of education. Those who can, leave. Concerned families in underperforming urban districts, optout of their local public school, enrolling in charter schools, participating in urban-suburban programs, or use public vouchers to help pay for private schools. Families able to afford more expensive housing and the cost of relocating can leave troubled school districts to live in the neighborhoods of higher-performing districts. And more than ever, those who want the best for their children, without needing to move, opt-out of public education altogether, buying private educations for their children.

1.04 “We found that high-poverty classrooms have four times the concentrations of academic, attention, and behavior problems as low-poverty classrooms.” - Whither Opportunity? A system that was designed to unite, has become a system that separates. The United States no longer has a cohesive education system, it has education tiers, islands of society that are drifting away from each other instead of joining to form a cohesive whole. “Education islands” is not just a metaphor, it is a geographically-based urban reality. The zip code effect is a term that links student performance to specific urban neighborhoods. In most U.S. cities, a rough estimate of a child’s academic achievement can be based on the child’s zip code. Graduation rates, GPA’s, discipline records, dropout rates, and test scores can all be tied to zip codes.8 Socio-spatial segregation, the sorting of residential populations based on social status,9 is what accounts for huge differences within American public education. In recent decades, socio-spatially segregated islands have become increasingly self-similar, meaning that poor-performing school districts have become relatively worse and the best school districts have become relatively better.10 In this respect, public school districts are symptomatic of American society in general. Since the 1970’s, the United States has become more polarized and more partisan. The middle class (and the middle-ground) is shrinking. The U.S. is becoming a nation divided against itself, Republican vs. Democrat, the rich vs. the poor. As I: Introduction | 15

different camps argue to protect their own interests, the country loses its coherence. 1.05 “7% of first graders (in the U.S.) now get no recess at all, with many more having their minutes drastically cut; the poorer the school, the less time is dedicated to it.” - Good Magazine

“More than any other institution, schools are charged with making equality of opportunity a reality. During a period of rising inequality, can schools play this critical role effectively? Or has growing income inequality affected families, neighborhoods, and local labor markets in a manner that undercuts the effectiveness of schools serving disadvantaged populations?...As the rich become increasingly isolated in certain neighborhoods and schools, the extent of inequality becomes less visible to them and to society as a whole, which in turn can lead to increased social conflict and a reduced sense of common purpose.”11 - Whither Opportunity? $113,744

$120,000

1.06 Family Income Gap: 1947 to 2010

80th % $100,000

$88,331

How much has the gap grown? How many times greater is the family income of the 80th percentile compared to the 20th percentile?

$80,000

$41,993

$40,000

20th %

$20,000

$26,685

1978

$13,525 1947

$27,015

2010

$60,000

Underperforming school districts do not exist because of a lack of spending; they exist because there is a gaping hole in society, a huge and growing gap that is dividing the rich and the poor. Since the 1966 Coleman Report, political leaders have been aware of the strong relationship between a family’s socioeconomic status and the educational achievement of their children.12 Educational disparities that once existed between racial groups now exist between socioeconomic groups, as the income achievement gap is

1947: 3.10x

1978: 3.27x

2010: 4.26x Source: U.S. Census Bureau

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

now twice as large as the black-white achievement gap.13

30-40%

1.07 “The achievement gap between children from highand low-income families is roughly 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born twenty-five years earlier...Family income is now nearly as strong as parental education in predicting children’s achievement.” - Whither Opportunity? Since the 1940’s the income gap between top wage earners and bottom wage earners has grown dramatically. Over the decades, affluent families have invested relatively more time and resources on their children’s education compared to the children of poor families. High-income families have proportionally more access and greater ability to use the educational resources that are available to everyone. These differences continue to compound over time, exacerbating the differences and widening the income gap. Because residential patterns follow family income trends, this gap has been spatialized within metropolitan regions and resulted in gaps in school quality between rich and poor neighborhoods.14

1.08 Median Weekly Earnings by Educational Attainment adults, 25 and older

> H.S. Diploma $ 459 1.08 MEDIAN WEEKLY EARNINGS BY EDUCATIONAL H.S. Graduates $ 636 ATTAINMENT Some Coll. / Assoc. Deg. All Adults Bachelor’s Degree

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Advanced Degree

$ 731

$ 798 $ 1,047 $ 1,354

Any good parent does the best he or she can for their children. This natural and instinctual drive should be encouraged and should never be denied. Among middleincome and affluent families, the desire to improve the educational outcomes for their children exists in the form of school choice. Those who have the money can choose the best school and community setting available. The children of these families have been granted a tremendous gift; being born into a caring, concerned and financially advantaged family. However, this is gift is not available to all children. Too many are born to loving and hard-working parents who do not possess the financial means to move to a better school district. Other children, less fortunate still, are born to I: Introduction | 17

parents, a parent, or just...born...into a world that is unaware or incapable of making informed decisions on their behalf. Through no fault of their own, these children enter the public school system by default, whether or not they are intellectually/psychologically prepared. Manufacturing choice, in the form of charter schools or voucher programs, do help some students find better educational settings, but this inevitably leaves others behind and handicaps the schools it draws from. What does it say about a school when families feel unlucky to be attending it? How can new choice be invented when it fails to serve the entire public and actually detracts from those who do not participate? 1.09 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Fourth graders growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities.â&#x20AC;? - National Assessment of Educational Progress

grade levels

Public education will never be able to make up for a quality home environment and good parenting, but as a function of society, public education has the responsibility to acknowledge that such inequities exist. As it stands, we do not have a truly public system of education, instead, we have systems of public education that deal with increasingly homogeneous pockets of the public instead of the public at large. We have high-performing schools for high-income families and low-performing schools for lowincome families. 1.10 The United States has more than 14,000 public school districts. - U.S. Census Bureau Because of district-level property taxes and district-level school boards, families are naturally concerned with the educational standards and school quality of their own local district. An intra-district focus can make it easy to ignore the quality of schools in the district next door. School district performance, property values, and property taxes are all interrelated and based upon one another.15 When school districts perform well, property values go up and tax revenue increases. As district performance worsens, property values

14,000

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

fall, forcing property tax rates to increase in order to collect the same amount of revenue.16 This creates a vicious cycle that can work wonderfully for districts on the rise, and disastrously for districts in decline. It is a system that pits districts against one another, competing for taxpayers and affluent homebuyers, neglecting to serve families trapped in poor districts. How can such a system exist? A system that encourages district A to benefit at the expense of district B?

29 seconds

1.11 “Every 29 seconds another student gives up in school, resulting in more than one million American high school students dropping out every year.” - The Silent Epidemic School districts acknowledge each other through competition not through cooperation. Each district is its own bubble, with its own successes and its own failures, trying to make itself the best and most attractive bubble it can. These bubbles are a failure in American citizenship. The fact that a municipal boundary is all that separates one voter’s concern for another is absolutely unpatriotic. Students attending a high school containing 75% or more low socioeconomic students are three times more likely to be taught by an uncertified English or science teacher than students attending an affluent school.17 Across the nation, 50% of African American students’ peers live in poverty, compared to just 18% of white students’ peers.18 These figures would startle many families who live in districts unaffected by noticeable levels of poverty. But when the facts are made available, they become much easier to tolerate when they are someone else’s problem.

1/10

1.12 “More than one in ten U.S. schools are “Drop Out Factories” where no more than 60% of students who start as freshman make it to their senior year.” - Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk Ironically, the institution designed to unite American society is now widening its divisions. But instead of giving up on it, privatizing it, or escaping from it, the United States must rebuild it. It is true that only a quality public education system I: Introduction | 19

can create a cohesive and well-informed democracy, from top to bottom, but in order to re-build that public system, America must overcome its own short sightedness to realize what is needed. With the movie Waiting for “Superman” and NBC television’s Education Nation, the media has begun to realize the absolute necessity of improving the country’s education, but no popular outlet is brave enough to confront the true source of public education’s failings...the American voter. 1.13 “At the same time as funding for new schools is becoming more limited, the population is getting older. Just 20 percent of Americans now have kids in school. You have to find a reason for older people to support schools. Building in community amenities is a way to solidify a school campus as a community center that a wide range of people will support.” - Rick Dewar, The Third Teacher

20%

Over half of all Americans and well over half of all voters live in the suburbs.19 The average voter does not understand the importance of valuing all public school districts. Likewise, the average voter does not value the importance of improving all classes of society equally. In today’s political atmosphere, calling someone a “socialist” might as well be a four-letter word. To quote Ronal Reagan’s economics advisor Milton Friedman, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”20 This sentiment continues to fuel conservative economists and could be considered the anthem for today’s Tea Party movement. The laws, services, and programs that helped the United States advance from its hardest times are no longer regarded with trust and pride. 1.14 “Americans recognize that public schools are the heart of their communities. They are at least five times more likely to cite public schools than churches, hospitals, or libraries as their most important local institutions.” - National League of Cities This book is a research effort born out of a devotion to public education and a deep sadness with the way it is being treated. This author has benefitted greatly from the district and the school into which his parents were fortunate enough

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

to move him. Even with loving, involved, and well-educated parents, it is impossible to deny the importance of academic setting, school culture, and peer influence, all of which are so different (too different) from district to district. A child’s parents, a child’s family income, and a child’s location are the three most influential factors in determining the rest of a child’s life...all of which are completely out of the control of the child himself. As a function of government, one that acts on behalf of and for the benefit of every citizen, we cannot allow public education to exacerbate the differences that already exist between children. Public education must be critically re-examined in order to understand its fundamental flaws, and at the very least, speculate possibilities for making it better. As one of the most advanced countries in the world, and as the wealthiest country in the world, we have no excuse to ignore our own citizens. Being born lucky already accounts for too much, it shouldn’t be the basis of the public education system as well. This book discusses a national issue, but to provide greater detail and specificity, the city of Boston will serve as a case study. Boston is one of the oldest cities in the country and has been a part of nearly every significant moment in U.S. history. In terms of education, Boston, Massachusetts is a city of firsts: the first public school (Boston Latin, 1635),21 the first U.S. college (Harvard, 1636),22 and the first state board of education (Massachusetts, 1837).23 A liberal city in a liberal state with high taxes and an appreciation for government services (it adopted a state-minimum healthcare mandate in 2006),24 Boston should be an ideal setting for the public education system. In fact, in 2006, Boston’s public school district was ranked the most improved urban school district among large U.S. cities in the entire nation.25 If any city has a good school district, it should be Boston. But a look at Boston’s schools, especially when compared to the districts in the greater Boston area, reveals just how depressing the situation is today. Boston, America’s city upon a hill, with its most improved status, has a school district that few of us would wish to attend. Boston reveals many of the problems that so many U.S. cities (particularly older cities in the Northeast) are facing. And if a proud and sustainable system of public education does not exist in Boston, one can I: Introduction | 21

only imagine the districts within other U.S. cities that don’t enjoy the same benefits and unique advantages. This book is organized into five sections, each contributing towards a better understanding of where public education has been, where it is today, and where it must head in the future. Sections I includes this introductory chapter. Section II is devoted to the history and changes that America’s system of public education has endured. Chapter 2 explains the origins of public education in the United States, it’s necessary function for the young democracy, and its fast assent to a system capable of teaching every American. Chapter 3 continues public education’s history to today. Beginning in the 1950’s and the demand for greater civil rights, the second half of the 20th century presented society with difficult and seemingly intractable problems. The changes that occurred during this time have left us with a humbled and problematic shell of a once proud institution. Chapter 4 briefly examines the history of Boston, this book’s case study city. This chapter gives images and greater historic context to the education timeline discussed in chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 5 serves as a highly critical recap of the key policy decisions that have left us with the system we enjoy today. As this chapter points out, piecemeal solutions, fear of change, and a failure to innovate will not allow the United States to remain educationally significant. Section II presents a current snap shot of today’s education landscape. Chapter 6 again uses Boston to illustrate today’s district disparities. With the urban school district at its center, Metro Boston includes over 100 individual municipalities with nearly one school district for every town. The maps and graphs give real values to the reality of socio-spatial segregation. Chapter 7 uses diagrams and text to summarize and assess the various “solutions” that exist to deliver and improve education including schoollevel, district-level and inter-district level options. Chapter 8 looks at the Boston school district more closely, examining its schools, student body, and support programs. The chapter also includes more in depth maps and comparisons to the districts immediately surrounding Boston. Chapter 9 is a challenge to the social and political background in which public education exists. This chapter confronts the American citizen, bluntly stating what is holding education back from

1. Why Public Schools? Why Boston?

becoming a fair, equitable, and just system. Section IV discusses school buildings and school teaching methods. The school is the home and mental image of education but is not thoroughly discussed in previous sections. Chapter 10 explores the trends in American school building throughout the country’s history. Chapter 11 includes several case study schools; school buildings that were not only architecturally transformative but buildings that also embodied a particular educational philosophy, political ideal, or community concern. The lessons from these buildings help to show that even a single school building can have the power to transform the educational environment and inspire other buildings like it. Chapter 12 examines new Information Age solutions to existing problems with education’s status quo. Chapter 13 focuses on what the new school and the new “classroom” must address to responsibly serve students of the 21st century. Section V concludes the book. Chapter 14 applies the ideals discussed in the previous chapter towards a particular site in Greater Boston. The culmination of the historic lessons, current educational models, and future social needs, the chapter ends with a proposal for a new and necessary type of public school. Like the title of its last chapter (15. The Final Argument: Good Enough for Someone Else?), this book ends with the frustrated conviction that was used to write every chapter. Hopefully, the United States can recall the same ambition and foresight of its founding fathers, to reimaging the system that was created over two centuries ago.

I: Introduction | 23

II:

Hist History

tory

Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

Given the image many of us have regarding our countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s origin and its founding fathers (independent, self-determined, and self-made) it is fair to ask why public education was imagined in the first place. Why would a compulsory government system be created, taxing all land owners and mandating the participation of every child? Why did this seem like a good idea following the overthrow of a tyrannical system of taxation and subservience? As it turns out, this countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first leaders were not the rebellious libertarians that our popular culture imagines them to be. Early Americans created a free and public system of education to ensure the protection of individual liberties, not to squash them. This chapter will briefly explain the original motivations for public education, how it changed as the nation grew, and how it looked by the early 20th century. II: History | 27

n tio

e Th

89 85 87 17 - 17 - 17 5 - ion hts 7 t 7 ig f 1 s t itu f R e o on ill o nc S. C e B e . Th n di U Or The

77 -1

nd La

W ar

ra cla De

nd pe de n I

e nc

o ui

-1

803

L The

ha urc aP ian

17 50

a on

ar W

ian rar Ag Age

First Stat

e Board of

n( Educatio

7 MA) - 183

The Mexican-American War The Civil

War

Comm

du st ria lA ge

on Sc

The Morril

hool M

ovem

ent

Act (“land -grant” co lleges) - 1 The Eman 862 cipation Pr oclemation - 1863

Th eP ro gr es ld siv W eE ar ra I

W or

s es pr De at re II G ar e W ld or W

50 19

n io

Ni ne

te en

th Am

Cu mm ing

e Th

“G ll

ci So

.I.

5 93

44 19

-1

”-

t Ac

ity

r cu

Ple v. B ssy v . Fe oa rgu rd son of en Ed dm - 18 uc 96 en at i on t( Fo wo -1 rm 899 ati m on en ’s of su the ffr NA ag AC e) P-1 19 92 09 0

Timeline: 1750-1950

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

2.01 Early Instruction

2.02 The Declaration of Independence 1776

COLONIAL ERA The origins of our education system can be traced back to the New England Colonies. Under the authority of the King of England, most of the colonies enacted laws requiring parents to educate their children. Reading, writing, understanding laws, learning the skills of trade, and following the Puritanical and Anglican religious tenants were deemed necessary parts of colonial society. Teachers and ministers were paid through a combination of taxes, parental contributions, tuition, and church donations.1 Most colonies were established by a particular religious sect and their schools naturally reflected the dominant sect’s particular religion.2 Colonial schools taught children a common religion which helped give each colony a sense of common belief and purpose. As the American colonies became more diverse, different ethnic and religious groups objected to compulsory taxation and education that taught conflicting sets of religious teachings. Weighing the pressures of the collective colony and the individual religious groups, new and alternative religious schools were allowed to form and share public money as well. This may have diminished a singular sense of community, but it allowed for more groups to feel included. A growing economy and middle class also supported private academies, usually created by private business owners and funded by tuition, to teach more specific skills in trade and the economy.3 REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA AND U.S. DEMOCRACY Britain’s thirteen American colonies did not remain imperial territories for long. Without direct political representation, American’s rejected England’s taxes and its political authority. War began in 1775, the Declaration of Independence was formed in 1776, and after an improbably victory, the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.4 First and foremost, early Americans feared losing their individual rights and liberties to a controlling and disconnected centralized power. In 1791, the Bill of Rights created amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ensuring certain rights for every citizen.5 A notable change was brought to public education with the First Amendment which separated the church from the state. No longer could ministers overtly teach the particular tenants of a specific religion (which would amount to a stateII: History | 29

sponsorship of religion). Although religion’s role was not officially recognized within the classroom, very few schools were religion-free; most early public and private educators used Protestant ideals to guide their teaching. Because so much of the early U.S. population was Protestant, this practice was accepted for decades.6 The Revolution’s republican political system generated new political motivations for widespread public education. These motivations included the desires for liberty, equality, and greater public good. Public education was viewed as a way of ensuring liberty, allowing the public to be aware of their guaranteed rights and giving them the knowledge to act should they be broken. Public education was also seen as a tool for greater equality. At the core of a republican government, is the need for equal representation and access to the political system. Differences in income, education level, and religion can exist, but those differences cannot threaten to unfairly represent certain groups over others. Without an educated electorate, a ruling elite or a special class of citizen could take hold of all the political power, a situation already experienced by the colonies. Education, free and available to all income levels and social classes, would allow citizens of difference to participate equally. Another goal central to republican government is public good. Representative government values commonwealth over private benefit, two things that should not be mutually exclusive. Public education would provide a method to each young Americans of the country’s shared values and principles... the exceptional differences that went into the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For these reasons, public education was seen as a necessary service for the continued success of the republic. This was an almost unanimous sentiment among our early political figures.7 Less unanimous was the level at which public education would be administered. Prior to the Revolution, education had been decided by each colony individually. Immediately following the Revolution, distrust in a strong central authority was high, and most felt that federal responsibilities should be kept to a minimum. As federalists and anti-federalists debated which aspects of government should belong to the states and which aspects should belong to the nation, James Madison finally suggested a series of compromises that

2.03 James Madison

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

2.04 Land Ordinance of 1787

2.05 George Washington 2.06 Noah Webster

would strengthen the union with more roles for the Federal government, but excluding public education from the national level, making it an issue for each state to determine.8 Over the two decades following the Revolution in which these early and seminal debates occurred, the role of public education had already been written into the constitutions of most states, therefore Madison’s suggestions were more easily accepted. This would set the tone until the mid20th century; education was left up to state governments, private institutions, and religious groups. Except for Thomas Jefferson’s Land Ordinance of 1785 (which acted as a planning grid for new settlements and required a public school in the center of each town), the federal government did not handle issues of education.9 There were a few figures who tried advocating a stronger national role in education. Benjamin Rush, and educator and humanitarian, sought to tie the whole country together with a network of free schools.10 George Washington, the nation’s first president, wanted a “universal public education” that included a national university where all of the country’s leaders-in-training could learn common American principles.11 Noah Webster, creator of Webster’s Dictionary, also proposed a plan to unite the country, not through a network of schools, but through a specifically American curriculum, that would teach American English and common American cultural values.12 Both Rush and Webster were concerned that strong regional and state cultures would eventually weaken and break apart the union (something that would nearly happen in the mid-19th century). But their ideas came off as too federal and lacked sufficient support to be implemented. A true progressive for his time, newspaper writer Robert Coram attacked the idea that property and land ownership should be equated with citizenship. He claimed that knowledge is the true basis for citizenship and therefore free to all: “Education should not be left to the caprice or negligence of parents, to chance, or confined the children of the wealthy citizens’ it is a shame, a scandal to civilized society, that part only of the citizens should be sent to colleges and universities to learn to cheat the rest of their liberties.” 13 - Robert Coram, 1791 II: History | 31

STATE

oversee Public University tuition

Board of Visitors

authorize elect

oversee

compose elect

Superintendent one for every ten schools

Aldermen three for every county

100 Free Citizens tax payers

Jeffersonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plan for 1779

elect

all children

Elementary School taxes

Regional Districts (composed of county Aldermen)

appoint

WARD (TOWN)

Public Board of Visitors

best students

Grammar School taxes + tuition

COUNTY

State Legislature

best students

MULTI-COUNTY REGION

elect

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

Coram’s beliefs went so far that he proposed eliminating all schools requiring private tuition, replacing them with entirely public schools. For better or worse, Coram’s vision was and never has been realized. But it was Jefferson, this time at the state level, who proved most influential. In 1778, his clearly-titled Bill for the More Generous Diffusion of Knowledge claimed that people must be well educated in order to protect their natural rights. His proposal for the state of Virginia required all children (of free citizens) to be included in public education for at least three years of elementary school, without regard to wealth or status. This bill put into writing many of the beliefs shared by all. Jefferson’s model of schools included elementary schools that would teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and history...not religion. Grammar schools would be available to the best elementary students, and free college tuition for the best student from each grammar school.14 Although Jefferson’s bill was not officially accepted by Virginia, it roughly forecast the model that most states would adopt.

2.07 Thomas Jefferson

JEFFERSONIAN ERA Through the 1800’s, the United States grew at an impressive rate. The 1800 Census revealed a population of 5.3 million.15 Within 50 years, the population had reached 23.2 million,16 and by 1900, the U.S. population had reached 76.2 million: a 1400% increase in 100 years.17 With greater modernization, came more immigrants and poor workers in the established cities.18 It became clear that the existing Agrarian Age model of education, the one-room schoolhouse, would not be sufficient in an increasingly industrial country. The one-room school had been the perfect method of delivering basic lessons to almost every city, town, rural village, and even the open frontier. Holding between 50 and 100 students within a single room, a sixyear curriculum accommodated various ages and learning abilities. Moving from small group to small group, a direct teaching style allowed the teacher to address and asses each student individually.19 With the addition of trained student monitors, the Lancastrian model of schooling pushed the single-room school to hold and teach hundreds of students within the same room.20 II: History | 33

2.08 Horace Mann

“Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the greatest equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.”23 - Horace Mann, 1848 Far ahead of his time, Horace Mann was one of the most influential education reformers of the nineteenth century. The first Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education,24 Mann condoned corporal punishment in the classroom, favoring disciplined positive reinforcement.25 Considered the “Father of the Common School Movement,” Mann helped modernize education, introduce schools for teachers, and reinforced the civic importance of schools in a free and democratic society.26

Horace Mann

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

2.09 School Room 1850’s

COMMON ERA As the number of schools for each city grew, beyond just a few individual buildings, the need arose for a very different model of education. Like most industrializing countries, the pressures of modernization centralized and socialized the U.S., increased popular government participation, migrated jobs from farm to city, increased reliance upon secular and scientific practices, and increased public support for well-structured school systems.21 These changes belong to the Common School movement, which continued to support a vision for universal and “common” schooling for all. Years of schooling, curriculum, and school buildings would all be affected by the movement. Its leader was American educator Horace Mann. Mann favored a liberal-arts education, one that educated the mind, body, and personal character of each student. An expanded course offering, including sciences, foreign languages, arts, and physical education, began expanding the role of the public school. Influenced by the Prussian school system, Mann introduced an 8-4 education system: eight years of grammar school and an additional four year of secondary school (high school) for the brightest students.22 One of the most influential figures in the formation of the American education system, Horace Mann’s grade schedule and additional curriculum would eventually become the national norm. The Common School movement also saw the transition from the single-room school house to the Common Era school building. As urban populations grew, so did the singleroom schoolhouse, some becoming so large that hundreds of students were taught in a single class. But additional students, more years of schooling, and more courses demanded the school building to move beyond a single room. In urban areas, blocky brick and stone buildings, one or two stories high, were built with two, three, or four identical classrooms on each floor, each holding 50-60 students.27 With bigger school districts came bigger costs. Originally financed by the sale, licensure, lease, or tariff of public land, these methods were no longer adequate in generating enough revenue. Taxes, based on property values and locations, proved to be the only way to provide enough renewable funds to run a large school district. II: History | 35

Eventually, all states mandated that local districts collect their own taxes and support their own schools.28 This tax model allowed district spending to be proportional to its local tax base. The authority over public education still rested with the state, but day-to-day management and administration was carried out by local districts. Through this system, once decentralized districts were organized under a common state umbrella of requirements, codes, and basic curriculum. 1837 marked the first state board of education in Massachusetts. By the antebellum period following the Civil War, local resistance to a state-wide education authority subsided, and every state had established their own board.29 Post Civil War modernization brought diversification and new tensions. Like the country itself, schools needed to find the right balance between a cohesive system and a system that allowed for greater levels of differentiation. States and local districts set efficient practices in place; standardized curriculum, testing procedures, and schedules created coherent and consistent expectations for schools. To account for differences in ethnicity, job training, and learning capabilities, different sets or tracks of curriculum were established, often times accompanied by different methods of teaching.30 The balance of universal and individual practices opened Industrial Age schools up to a greater level of social, class, and economic diversity than any other country had ever attempted. INDUSTRIAL ERA Industrial Age schools valued the same set of principles as the Industrial Revolution: standardization, repetition, and efficiency. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the Industrial Age school emerged and would remain the dominant school model for decades to come. Building density increased and schools grew to three, four, or five stories tall. The now â&#x20AC;&#x153;traditionalâ&#x20AC;? classroom was created, which then included furniture fixed to the floor.31 The public kindergarten, first seen in St. Louis in 1873, began to catch on in other districts.32 In the 19th century, the high school was essentially a prep school for student planning on attending college. In 1860, there were just 300 high schools nationally. But by 1900, there were over 6,000 high schools.33

2.10 Crowded Classroom Jacob Riis, photographer ca. 1890

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

But while Industrial Age schools were being built in record number, a small but concerned group of educators began to question the very premise of the Industrial Age school building and the Industrial Age teaching mentality. The Progressive Era is remembered for the temperance movement and women’s suffrage, but also important were the progressive educators, most notably John Dewey and William James. Progressives introduced ideas that challenged the conformity, standardized models, and dictatorial teaching methods that had become so widespread. Industrial-model schools had allowed millions of Americans to have access to a quality public education but they had done so by treating students like raw materials, moving them along the assembly line, to produce identical finished products.34 Progressive educators believed in a child-centered model of education, one that created unique learning conditions for every unique learner.35 Although the Industrial Age school mentality was not defeated, the Progressive movement would become more influential in the pedagogy and architecture of U.S. schools after WWII. Of course there was a group that was intentionally excluded from many of the advancements in education: African Americans. With slavery abolished after the Civil War, African Americans were supposedly granted the same Bill of Rights as whites. But across the country, varying degrees of legal barriers were placed in front of black Americans by racist and politically well-represented whites. In Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court created the principle of “separate but equal,” a ruling that theoretically would allow separate and segregated facilities for blacks and whites as long as those facilities were equal.36 In 1899, Cumming v. Board of Education specifically applied the “separate but equal” principle to public schools, allowing districts to legally segregate blacks and whites by creating all black schools and all white schools. Of course these “Jim Crow” schools were not equal, but it would take over 50 years for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision.

2.11 Depiction of Jim Crow

1900’s Legalized [de jure] segregation and other racist practices continued through the first half of the 20th century, and became particularly apparent with the growth of the suburbs. II: History | 37

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950

As cities became more congested and more industrial, trains, street-cars, and automobiles allowed less-dense urban growth to occur beyond the city limits.37 But not everyone was included in the suburban phenomenon. In Corrigan v. Buckley of 1926, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed private companies to include racially restrictive language in their business strategies which allowed racially restrictive covenants; urban settlement patterns were affected across the country.38 Exclusionary zoning laws separated residential and industrial areas within cities on the basis of public health, but the laws went on to separate single-family homes and multi-family homes on the basis of racial and class segregation. And when a racial minority wished to buy a home, government “redlining” meant that racially dis-similar neighborhoods were off limits to government-insured mortgages.39 Furthermore, the lack of anti-discrimination laws meant that society stood by while individual acts of person-to-person racism occurred every day. With so many decades of segregated practices, it is no wonder why race, poverty, and urban settlement are still so intertwined. Racism is actually what lead to the federal government becoming more involved in public education. There is no mention of education in the U.S. Constitution, and aside from the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Morril Act in 1862 (a congressional act that provided land to states for the creation of state-run “land-grant” colleges), and the “G.I. Bill of Rights” (grants to veterans for education and job training) of 1944, the federal government stayed out of education matters. But by the mid-20th century, the Civil Rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, the “Great Society,” and issues over property taxes forced the federal government into action. These lead to significant policy changes that continue to affect us today.40

2.12 “Jim Crow Must Go” 1962

II: History | 39

Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

In the modern history of the United States (from the 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to today), public education has been defined by its changing (and court-ordered) relationship to society. These changes were brought about by new considerations to race, equality, special education, the international economy, and poverty. From the privileged view of hindsight, we can recognize both the achievements and the missed opportunities that these past actions have left us with today. Recounting our recent history will generate the societal context (and baggage) that is necessary for future actions to address. II: History | 41

-1 95 4

g lin

-1

t Ac

-1

8 95

s ge

1 96 -1

19 50

W ar

Br ow

v. Bo ar d

uc at io

er 63 r u t i on 19 em n a dn” w e c o t o u a 4 cti Br E d 96 sin s eA e -1 as rc nse rk ct tiv ss a a A a o e f f P 65 rm on dy en De a 19 ffi ati ne s l tuc en “A os tar op ona R Ed .K S o F y i d r n ar ea l t Nat oh nd tH ra co tJ ec de Se en roj d e d i P F an es k Pr tary ni 68 en ut m - 19 p S ed Ele s nat i e s as ch ass un Jr. la ing K r t e SR en uth m nL US ve 1971 arti M o g) . r M D usin ts g (b r h 9 72 u 1 b g n rs) Ri eckle orde vil tte-M ict b 73 i tr lo 9 r 1 is a C x) r (d Ch enve erty ta n v. ty” wan (prop 4 s v. D 7 r z e S 9 e y 1 e u e ) K ict driq ov v. Ro ol distr nP tonio ro n scho 75 n 9 ta a A 1 li r o n t a p c a “W W etro on A e S Educati . Wad dley (m nam abilities Roe v liken v. Bra 1976 Viet with Dis rogress Mil P ls n a u tio id ca Indiv of Edu essment ss A l na Natio s bu

d In

us tria e l Ag

Risk” - 1983

or m at ion Ag e

“A Nation at

f In

Imp

ed lv vo In s nt n re io Pa ess c Re

ic q om Ira on in Ec ar re W ve Se

11 20

W ar

ild

at Se v.

ft B

tle

eh in d

-2

00 2

Timeline: 1950-2011

rov

ing

Am eri ca’ sS cho ols Ac t-

199 4

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3.01 Thurgood Marshal

3.02 Little Rock High School 1957

1950’s By the 1950’s the “separate but equal” clause had reached its much needed end. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which lead council Thurgood Marshal (who later became the first African American Supreme Court judge) claimed that Topeka, Kansas’s Board of Education went out of their way to bus black children to segregated schools of inferior quality, often further away than a near-by white-only schools. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that segregation, in and of itself, is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 Not only did the decision highlight the differences in education between blacks and whites, the decision also noted that women, ethnic minorities, and handicapped students were also being excluded from the full benefits of public education. This reversed the court’s earlier ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, eradicating “separate but equal” from the vocabulary of the law. In his decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren stressed the equal opportunity and rights that everyone is guaranteed without explicitly mentioning equal conditions or equal results (a point that would be debated years later).2 The decision required the desegregation of all school districts through the integration of black and white student populations. Most school districts in the northern states had already integrated (legally speaking) prior to the Brown ruling, but 17 southern states still had legally mandated segregated schools.3 Most districts which had not already integrated their schools acted in compliance with the law. But there were also districts that refused. In 1957, President Eisenhower used federal troops to enforce the mandatory integration of the school district of Little Rock Arkansas. One can only imagine the emotional and physical bravery that those first black students must have demonstrated. The Supreme Court ruling, attention from the President, and the use of federal troops forced the federal government to involve itself with public education.4 A different milestone of the 1950’s was the successful Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957. With Sputnik, the USSR had beaten the United States into outer space, and as Americans watched the communist machine streak through the night sky over their heads, a brand new type of fear and panic swept across the country; for the first time in II: History | 43

3.03 Chief Justice Earl Warren

“Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system... We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 5 - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, 1954

Brown v. Board of Education

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3.04 “Crisis in Education” 1958

3.05 President Lyndon B. Johnson 3.06 President Johnson Meets with Civil Rights Leaders 1964

several decades, the U.S. questioned its intellectual and technological superiority, advantages that were supposed to be guaranteed by democracy, capitalism, and a vast network of public and private schools.6 This fear was summed up best by Life magazine’s 1958 cover “Crisis in Education” which contrasted the uncompromising standards experienced by Russian students against the soft and nurturing environment of American classrooms. Eisenhower and Congress responded with the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). The act sent $1 billion in federal funding to public schools in order to increase math, science, and foreign-language skills of America’s youth.7 This would mark the first of several recent federal programs directly targeted at math and science. 1960’s In the 1960’s, the Civil Rights Movement was being demonstrated in mass. Sit-ins, boycotts, marches, and civil disobedience were used to increase political pressure. Submitted to Congress by President Kennedy in 1963 and signed into law by President Johnson in 1964, the Civil Rights Act legally banned the discrimination of racial minorities and women. The act would set up the legal footing for Supreme Court cases involving education in the 1970’s (the use of racial quotas and mandatory busing). A part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s civil rights agenda was the “War on Poverty.” Under his Great Society, Johnson intended to create greater racial, economic, and social equality.9 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1964 recognized the negative impact that poverty has on children and education. The ESEA provided federal aid to children of poor families, more money to school districts with concentrations of poverty, and financial assistance to college students who demonstrated need. The act also helped fund programs for the disabled and bilingual, and allowed some schools to provide preschool, afterschool daycare, and school lunch programs. Project Head Start (1965), was rooted in the belief that education was the solution to poverty; public assistance was provided to low-income families to help break the “cycle of poverty” with preschool programs.10 The biggest criticism of Johnson’s programs, however, was their budgets; ESEA provided an II: History | 45

average aid of only $150 per pupil per year, some of which was only administered in a single lump sum.11 Since some of the programs were not given the money necessary to fully succeed, the door was opened for critics to shun the wasteful federal intervention into public education. In 1967’s Hobson v. Hansen, a court in Washington, D.C. ruled that tracking African American students into different academic paths was discriminatory. The same ruling stated that per pupil expenditures could not be less for black students than for white students. This decision elaborated upon Brown by clearly making financial discrimination illegal.12 NIXON’S 1970’s The 1970’s were marked by a series of Supreme Court cases that would elaborate and clarify 1954’s Brown v. Board ruling. In 1971, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg further emphasized that a “duel system” of schools, one for blacks and one for whites, was unconstitutional and must be replaced with an integrated solution.13 The Swann ruling added that mandatory busing would now be a legally enforceable way of achieving an integrated school system; by overcoming the racial settlement patterns that directly resulted from once-legalized segregation, busing across those existing settlement patterns could forcibly re-integrate different racial groups that lived within the same school district.14 A 1975 Gallup poll demonstrated the public’s ambivalence to this ruling, showing that a majority of Americans favored desegregated schools, but 75 percent also opposed the use of buses to do so.15 Parents liked the idea of desegregation until that “idea” sat down next to their white child on the same bus and in the same classroom. For similar reasons, the 1973 ruling of Keyes v. Denver made the manipulation of district boarders illegal, if those manipulations intentionally segregated the student population.16 These rulings imposed federal regulations on matters that were once entirely up to local districts. From the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that these actions helped enforce the spirit of Brown v Board, but in the heat of the moment, the country had very mixed opinions. President Richard Nixon helped use these mixed opinions to his advantage. Many conservative Americans felt

3.07 Race Riot Fires in Southeast L.A. 1965

3.08 A Protest on Forced Busing in Boston 1970’s

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

that the country was moving (progressing) too quickly. Nixon directly criticized the Great Society and the social welfare programs that Kennedy and Johnson had established.17 After a successful campaign and election, Nixon had the rare opportunity of selecting four Supreme Court justices, replacing nearly 45% of the entire court.18 Keeping to his campaign promises, Nixon selected four conservatives, changing the balance of the court. Nixon’s justices would be the decisive votes that slowed the social progression of education reform.

3.09 President Richard Nixon

PROPERTY TAX The first of these regressive cases was a federal rejection of progress made in two State Supreme Courts. In Serrano v. Priest in 1971, the California Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, classification by wealth was just as unconstitutional as classification by race.19 In cities, this classification is realized when drastically different school funding exists between neighboring districts. In the most extreme case, a funding differential of 1:10,000 existed between neighboring districts in Los Angeles.20 Property taxes, the primary funding mechanism of schools, kept this wealth disparity in place, influencing families to separate by wealth, and forcing significant differences in schools and teaching.21 Immediately following the Serrano ruling, 50 cases were filed in 30 different states. Courts in Texas, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Connecticut each agreed that a funding system which relied so heavily on property taxes was unconstitutional.22 As dozens of states passed new laws to correct their funding, the individual state rulings were beginning to have even greater national implications. If the Fourteenth Amendment, a nation-wide right, found extreme differences in district-to-district funding unconstitutional, wouldn’t extreme funding differences between states be similarly unconstitutional? This was the question the Supreme Court faced in San Antonio School District v. Rodriquez, in 1973. In a reversal of the progress made by so many individual state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5:4 (the majority included Nixon’s four conservative appointments) that the use of local property tax to finance schools, though not equal, did not II: History | 47

discriminate the poor nor absolutely deprive a certain class of people (the poor) from education. This ruling asserted that education is not recognized as a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, and since local taxation allows local participation and local elections, two rights guaranteed by the Constitution, property taxes could not be found unconstitutional.23 In the minority decision, Justice Brennan argued that education is “inextricably linked to the right to participate in the electoral process and to the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First Amendment.”24 This is exactly the reason why the Founding Fathers thought public education was so necessary in the first place; public education was necessary for the representative government to function properly. Aside from issues of constitutionality, the use of property taxes for school funding highlights practical contradictions. Although local participation and election does allow the residents of the district to participate in the funding of their school, their only answer to raise revenue for their schools is to raise their own taxes; it is the market that sets property values, not the residents. To many Americans, this seems like a fair trade-off, but in districts of concentrated poverty, where residents have little or no ability to pay higher taxes, residents are unable and unwilling to tax themselves further. Although compliant with the Constitution, this highlights a practical “catch 22” in the public school financing of U.S. school districts; the poorest residents can only afford to live in the poorest districts with the poorest schools and have difficulty moving to better school districts because of residential competition and higher property values. Poor citizens cannot increase their own taxes without further burdening their financial situation. And without raising taxes, poor communities cannot generate greater funding for their schools to pay for adequate facilities, teacher wages and compensation packages, teaching materials, and student/ teacher support services.25 Despite the national ruling, both New Jersey and California had already concluded that local property taxes were in violation of their state constitutions, which include clauses guaranteeing public education. After complicated legal battles, both states decided to use state income tax revenue to fund the districts that were dramatically under-

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3.10 “Proposition 13” 1978

funded by local property taxes alone. Naturally, California taxes increased in order to fund the local district inequities. These tax increases were protested by Californians with “Proposition 13,” a 1978 citizen’s initiative that limited future increases on property taxes.26 Thanks to Proposition 13 the method of overcoming inequity, taxes, cannot be increased to actually overcome inequity. Today, despite devastating fiscal deficits and inadequate program funding, California is handicapped by its own rules. In 1960, California schools ranked among the best in the country. Now they are nearly last in most categories.27 Similar tax restrictions exist in other parts of the country, such as Proposition 2 ½ in Massachusetts.28 MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS Alongside the debate over property taxes and school funding was the debate over school district unification. In Richmond, Virginia a federal trial court ruled that the existing school district boundaries had a segregating effect on the local population. The case argued that high levels of busing rendered school district lines arbitrary, and therefore districts should be redrawn to include Richmond’s entire metropolitan region in a single unified district. Many services, such as water and sewage, were already shared across the whole region for the sake of quality and efficiency; this case argued that schools should be treated similarly to efficiently distribute (integrate) the student population.29 The Richmond ruling was appealed and eventually made its way up to the U.S. District Court. In Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 1973, the higher court overturned the lower court’s ruling. The interdistrict solution was deemed inappropriate.30 In a similar case, a U.S. District Court ruled that Detroit must join its 53 urban and suburban school districts to combat the systemic segregation caused by existing district lines.31 This case was also appealed and reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley, the Supreme Court overruled the District Court’s ruling, concluding that unification was not required under the Constitution. Contrary to the lower courts, and contrary to other advanced industrial countries, the United States Supreme Court did not believe that existing district boundaries enforced segregation.32 II: History | 49

AN OPPORTUNITY LOST In two separate but related issues, segregation via property tax and segregation via district boarders, the newly conservative Supreme Court halted the social progress that had begun with Brown v. Board and the Great Society. Today, there is nearly no metropolitan region in the country without concentrated pockets of poverty and wealth (Detroit and Richmond provide excellent examples). These concentrated pockets have ripple-effects that act to segregate large portions of America’s society. In 2004, 73% of African American students and 77% of Latino students attended majority non-white schools. In contrast, only 12% of white students attended majority non-white schools. 33 America’s wealthiest public schools spend 10 times more per pupil than the country’s poorest schools, $30,000 per pupil vs. $3,000 per pupil.34 These differences result directly from differences in property taxes and lead to gross disparities in teacher turnover, class sizes, percentage of qualified teachers, available course offerings, supplementary instructional materials, extracurricular activities, and achievement scores.35 Sadly, today’s reality was not an unforeseen consequence; these results were predicted decades ago, but enough Americans (most importantly the Supreme Court justices) disagreed or chose to ignore the evidence. Since the 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity report (the “Coleman Report) by the Department of Education, there has been hard proof to show that family socioeconomic status and educational achievement are linked.36 But this data was marginalized by the counterresearch of Harvard professor Charles Jencks. His writing inspired popular ideas that no amount of education, teacher qualification, or facility improvements would help children overcome the setbacks of racial discrimination, family background, or being born “unlucky.”37 In his attempts to show that education couldn’t overcome economic discrepancies, Jencks convinced many that it was not worth the effort to overcome discrepancies in education funding. Social scientists, such as Ralph Tyler and Benjamin S. Bloom, debunked Jencks research methods and results but not after significant damage was done in the war over public opinion.38 Today, Americans acknowledge the link between

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

socioeconomic status and educational achievement, but take it for granted, as if it is inevitable and not the result of “social conditions, policy choices, and educational practices.”39 Jencks provided affluent citizens with a reason not to spend their taxes on the poor; even if they cared to help, they believed their money would not make a difference. Money is not an answer to all of society’s problems, but this defeatist attitude still halts social progress today, progress that does need funding.

3.11 President Jimmy Carter

LATE 1970’s, 1980’s, AND THE 1990’s Although less controversial, other important reforms in education continued through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. In 1975, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (now called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) mandated states to provide free education to all students with disabilities.40 Students with disabilities are disproportionately expensive to educate, but society agreed that a mental of physical predisposition should not limit a student from fully participating in society. In the Mere, Pierce, and Yoder cases, the Supreme Court demonstrated that even private schools could not deny admission to students on the basis of race.41 This basic but necessary ruling refused to allow any school in the country to become a safe-haven for overt racism. President Jimmy Carter’s research initiative, the 1976 National Assessment of Education Progress, brought new hope to the pace of education reform. But any groundwork that was laid was undone by the next administration. 1980 saw another swing of the political pendulum; Republican candidate Ronald Reagan replaced the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. “The election of Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1980 symbolized the federal government’s retreat from urban issues.”42 Consistent with the rest of his social and political platform, Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education (established by Carter), challenged the First Amendment which bans religious prayer in public schools, and sought to ban court-ordered busing. But none of these ideas were ever realized.43 What Reagan did realize was the “Excellence Movement,” first outlined in the highly influential report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.44 Like 1958’s “Crisis in Education,” A Nation at Risk scolded II: History | 51

An Excerpt from A Nation At Risk – April 1983 - U.S. Department of Education “Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament. Our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them. This report, the result of 18 months of study, seeks to generate reform of our educational system in fundamental ways and to renew the Nation’s commitment to schools and colleges of high quality throughout the length and breadth of our land.” 49

A Nation at Risk

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3.12 President Ronald Reagan

3.13 President Bill Clinton

the country for allowing the education system to deteriorate. The report noted that the United States had lost its industrial dominance, lost its moral direction, and had been losing its intellectual edge for decades.45 As a solution, the Excellence Movement stressed five areas that needed improvement: content (a further concentration on the “core” subjects of math, science, and English) standards and expectations (ending “grade inflation” and elevating standards at the college level), time (increasing the school day and increasing the school year), teaching (recommending higher levels of certification and performance-based pay), and leadership and fiscal support (continuing to assist students in need with financial assistance).46 Among the various recommendations, the emphasis on core subjects, standardization, and greater levels of evaluation have been the most influential. Since A Nation at Risk, standardized testing in core subject areas have become the benchmark of educational evaluation.47 While the report sent a wake-up-call that desperately needed to be heard, it also built upon an already growing negative perception of American education, a perception that has only gotten worse since 1983.48 In 1994, Bill Clinton’s Improving America’s School Act (IASA) re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 while adding standards-based education practices into the law: “The law required that states set challenging and rigorous content standards for all students and develop assessments, aligned with the standards, to measure student progress. By holding schools accountable for meeting the standards, it was expected that teachers and actors at other levels of the educational system would redirect their efforts and find ways to improve student achievement…ESEA set forth primarily an incentives theory of change. It assumed that—with sufficient motivation— teachers (and other relevant school personnel) would find the means to improve instruction. Unfortunately, early implementation research showed that many schools lacked an understanding of the changes that were needed, and also lacked the capacity to make them happen.”50 - National Academy of Education

II: History | 53

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND President Clinton’s 1994 act served as the precursor to the now notorious “To Close the Achievement Gap with Accountability, Flexibility, and Choice, So That No Child Is Left Behind” Act of 2001. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) took a “tough love” approach to education, expanding standardsbased educational assessment practices, and backing them with financial penalties.51 Under the law, schools wishing to receive federal funding must comply with new testing and scoring practices. In grades 3-8 and once more in high school, students must be tested in both math and reading. In order for schools to demonstrate their improved teaching practices, a certain percentage of students must score “proficienct” or better on the tests.52 If a school does not meet its Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for two years in a row, the school must notify parents that they have the ability to transfer their child to a different school within the district, at the district’s expense, usually involving additional busing. Three years of consecutive AYP failure requires schools to install “supplemental services” to improve test scores. These services can include private tutors, hired within the school or hired individually by the parents. Four years of consecutive AYP failure requires schools to take “corrective actions” such as leadership change, greater district oversight, and teacher firing. Five years of consecutive AYP failure requires schools to be “reconstituted,” closed down and placed under the control of the state / a chartered school / a private education firm.53,54 But NCLB didn’t just “raise the standards” for school-wide performance, it specified that scores must improve even among the most challenging demographic groups in order to close academic achievement gaps and truly leave no child behind.55 President George W. Bush said that NCLB will fight “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” and since NCLB holds poor and minority students to the same standards as white students, blacks will no longer be “segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt.”56 Supported by Democrats (education advocate Sen. Ted Kennedy) and Republicans (Rep. John Boehner, President George Bush), NCLB intended to improve educational outcomes for every student. But with this act and its language, President Bush shifted the topic of segregation within education to the topic of culture within education.

3.14 No Child Left Behind 3.15 President George Bush Signs No Child Left Behind 2002

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

By placing the same standards, tests, and financial repercussions in every school, the same culture of progress will be present in every district regardless of its student population. Brown v. Board’s hope of racial integration and equality is replaced by a hope for testing equality. 57 This shift in focus denies the underlying differences between segregated student populations, especially when every group is supposed to reach the same standard, building a system designed to fail. By penalizing the schools that fail to reach their Annual Yearly Progress, funding is removed from the schools that need funding the most. NCLB marks a new peak in federal involvement in public education. Compared to local property taxes (50%) and state aid (43%), federal funding (8%) is the smallest share of a school’s budget, but federal standards are now controlling a much larger percentage of public education’s teaching practices and pedagogy.5859 NCLB has only continued the trend of bombarding students with testing instead of teaching. High stakes testing have always been important for grade promotion and college applications, but the 2001 act also made standardized testing responsible for education funding, and in some cases, teacher and principal salaries and promotions.60 Teachers once taught for the benefit of the student. Now there are teachers who need to “teach for the test” so that students will score well enough to keep them paid and employed. No Child Left Behind has been a disappointing plan. The accountability that the federal government demanded of teachers and principals should have also been demanded of the federal government. Since NCLB was never adequately funded, the federal government set unobtainable goals for state and local governments to achieve.61 RECENT COURT CASES Between 1972 and 1997, 32 states went to court over their education funding mechanisms; 16 states were required to make changes.62 Because there is still no educational language in the U.S. Constitution, it is the interpretation of state constitutions that has occupied courts in recent decades. Key to every state court ruling is whether the people or the constitution should pursue educational equity or educational adequacy.63 II: History | 55

In the 1989 case of Rose v. Council for Better Education, the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled that the state provided an unconstitutional school system, one that did not provide equal schools for all Kentucky residents. The court said that “money matters” and that the state cannot neglect its duties to its citizens even if schools are maintained at the local level.64 “The system of common schools must be substantially uniform throughout the state. Each child, every child, in this Commonwealth must be provided with an equal opportunity to have an adequate education. Equality is the key word here. The Children of the poor and the children of the rich, the children who live in the poor districts and the children who live in the rich districts must be given the same opportunity and access to an adequate education.”65 – Supreme Court of Kentucky, 1989 A similar case arose in California ten years later. In the 1999 Williams v. State, plaintiffs went to court over sub-standard school conditions. Williams cited unsafe and unhealthy building conditions, a shortage of qualified teachers, insufficient instructional materials, and so much overcrowding that the worst schools needed to implement a “Concept 6” schedule which lengthens the school day, shortens the number of teaching days, and breaks the school year into blocks of four months of school and two months of vacation. Before being tried, the plaintiffs and the state reached a settlement of $800 million dollars which would be applied towards repairs, teacher certification, textbooks, and an oversight program. 66 Sadly, this case was about adequacy. It took a class-action court case to win a settlement which may or may not be enough to fix the problems that were raised. In 2007, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involved the issue of student race and school assignment.67 Until this ruling, the school district had used race as a criteria for distributing students around the district. This was a practice made legal by Brown v. Board and was often forced upon schools by court rulings in an attempt to achieve racial balance across residentially segregated districts; but after decades of white flight from urban schools, most districts had already stopped using race

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

as a criteria for school placement. In a split decision, the majority decided that race could only be used by public PK-12 schools when a proven history of racial segregation (de jure segregation) had existed. In Seattle, like most cities outside of the South, proving de jure segregation was impossible.68 In fact, Seattle is the only city to desegregate before being ordered to do so by a court.69 In the majority, Justice Thomas stated that “racial imbalance is not segregation.”70 Justice Roberts said that students should be treated like individuals instead of members of a particular ethnic, religious, or social class.71 In the minority, Justice Breyer noted that more than 5% of public school students attend schools that are 1% white or less, and that nearly 17% of black students attend a school that is at least 99% minority students.72 But like the court majority, 74% of Americans agreed with the decision.73

3.16 Rally for School Choice

SCHOOL CHOICE MOVEMENT The current trend/answer in education reform is “school choice.” The school choice movement is based in the belief that having the ability to choose between schools allows parents to find the best (or a better) school for their child’s needs.74 For families unable to pay for private school and unable to afford relocating into a different school district, school choice might not exist at all; the only “choice” is to attend the school assigned to that family’s address. But today, most low-income families have more than one school to consider.75 As a form of voluntary desegregation, the federal government began the Magnet Schools Assistance Program in 1985. Since magnet schools draw students from the entire district, not just from the closest neighborhoods, magnets have the ability to integrate spatially-segregated student groups. The school buildings are often located in blighted urban areas in an attempt to draw in students, families, and positive attention like a magnet. With district cooperation, inter-district magnet schools have the potential to attract students from multiple school districts.76 The charter school represents a more recent form of public school choice. Charter (or chartered) schools receive public funds and public students, but unlike conventional public schools, charters do not have publicly elected school II: History | 57

3.17 Bill Gates The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Operated by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded social improvement programs all over the world, including several influential education reform programs in the United States. Over $250 million has gone towards funding Small Schools, a program designed to create schools-within-schools and reduce student-to-teacher ratios.81 The New Schools fund provides money to start up charter schools in under-served areas.82 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believes that social philanthropy can provide the innovative spark that conventionally-funded public schools cannot. 3.18 Michael Bloomberg Mayor, New York City After taking office, Bloomberg successfully took control of the New York City public schools. Assuming the power of the disbanded school board, Bloomberg appointed an education chancellor - not a superintendent who operates beneath the authority of a school board.83 Whether or not the district improvements seen under Bloomberg’s watch are replicable, other struggling urban districts (such as Washington, D.C.’s) are looking for fast and bold changes that only mayoral control can implement.

3.19 Michelle Rhee Fmr. Chancellor, Washington, D.C. School District In 2007, Michelle Rhee was installed as the new Chancellor of Washington, D.C.’s troubled school district. Making dramatic changes in her first year, Rhee closed 23 school, fired 36 principals, and cut 121 office jobs.84 A year-long suspension of tenure allowed her to fire 241 teachers in 2010. Rhee brought extreme and unpopular changes that only her fiat-like Chancellor position could deliver. A critic of teacher tenure and an advocate of performance based teacher pay, Rhee’s StudnetFirst organization challenges the positions of most teachers unions.85

Recent Reform Agendas

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

3.20 Randi Weingarten President, American Federation of Teachers The former president of New York’s United Federation of Teachers and the current president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten is a politically powerful supporter of unionized labor. Unlike opponents of teachers unions, Weingarten believes that the AFT can lead education reform efforts without getting in their way. Weingarten acknowledges that teachers must be accountable, but stresses that unions can foster professional improvements while also fighting for fair and dignified working conditions.86 3.21 Waiting for “Superman” Documentary Film, 2010, Director Davis Guggenheim In 2010, Davis Guggenheim’s documentary film Waiting for “Superman” helped bring the conversation of American education to pop-culture status. Through compassionate storytelling, upsetting statistics, and accessible graphics, Guggenheim illustrates the contemporary challenges in public education. The movie follows several students who try to leave their conventional public school in favor of a charter school. The movie was praised for bringing the public’s attention to a national issue, but many have criticized the film for its selectively favorable portrayal of charter schools.87. 3.22 Geoffrey Canada President and CEO, Harlem Children’s Zone In 1997, The Harlem Children’s Zone Project was created to improve the educational and life-long outcomes of children living within a specific zone of Harlem. The program provides a comprehensive set of educational enrichment and social support programs for both students and parents.88 Costing about $5,000 per child per year, the HCZ is a privately funded program that is available for free to residents within the zone’s boarders.89 It remains to be seen if the benefits of the Harlem Children’s Zone, and its private funding apparatus, can be replicated elsewhere.

II: History | 59

boards, are not responsible to a district superintendent, and in some states, do not need to follow the same teacherunion labor laws that other public schools must follow.77 A charter, or contract, exists between the state board of education and the private group running the school. The first charter schools emerged in 1991, and in 1995 the federal government began offering startup grants to assist the formation of more charter schools (acquiring a school facility is not otherwise publicly funded).78 Today, there are an estimated 5,600 charter schools serving over two million students.79 Charter schools claim that being freed from many of the district/union constraints allows them to offer educational services unavailable in conventional schools. Some charter schools have longer school days, different student-teacher relationships, or a curriculum that fosters personal growth and self-discipline. Some charter schools are geographically based, and available to students in particular neighborhoods, while others are available to students from across the district. 80 Another form of choice is the student voucher. Vouchers are state certificates/cash payments that financially assist parents who wish to send their children to a public or private school of their choice instead of the public school to which they’ve been assigned.90 Different states have different rules regarding when and where a voucher can be used. In Sweden, for example, every parent receives a voucher to send their child to any school they wish. Means-tested vouchers (Cleveland, Milwaukee, Colorado) are given to poor families, allowing them to use government money towards a school of their choice. Sometimes vouchers are only given to students who attend “failing” public schools (Florida’s A+ program, Colorado). Vouchers are based in a free-market belief that competition and consumer choice will steer the market towards the best schools and will encourage schools to improve and compete for more consumers.91 Although each new form of choice has given state governments and individual families new options and particular advantages to consider, the school choice movement has not been able to overcome the negative trends in U.S. education that have been at work for several decades. Magnet schools have provided many urban school districts with a high-caliber school with high-achieving

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

students. But most magnet schools require applications and resumes in order for students to qualify; the more successful the magnet, the higher its rejection rate.92 Charter schools face similar problems. As a whole, charter schools have a mixed record of performance, but the schools that have done well receive more applicants than they can accept. Randomized lotteries end up deciding whether a student can attend the school they wish or the school they wish to escape.93 Vouchers would seem to provide poor families with the same ability to choose their schools as more affluent families. But student-vouchers only cover the per-pupil expenditure of the child’s local public school. This is often less than half of the money necessary to afford tuition fees at private schools.94 Despite their individual drawbacks, each form of school choice fails to deal with the same issue. Each option attempts to provide families with an alternative to bad schools. Inevitably, not all families can leave all bad schools. As every concerned parent enrolls their child into a charter school, as ever academically advanced student attends a magnet school, and as every low-income family transfers their money out of their local school district, they all leave the same thing behind: the bad school (and the children unable to escape it) still remain. Even if each form of school choice were to work at its best, it encourages some schools to be better than other school instead of all schools becoming better together.

3.23 Race to the Top 3.24 President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 2010

RACE TO THE TOP In 2008, the United States entered into a severe economic recession. Rising unemployment, falling home values, and a lack of consumer confidence contributed to smaller public revenues.95 In 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a program designed to stimulate the economy during the downturn in economic activity. Within the ARRA is a $4.35 billion program called the Race to the Top Fund, “a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform.”96 Because it is a grant program, states are not guaranteed any money; instead they must devise a strategy worthy of “winning” federal aid. Points II: History | 61

are awarded to the state education improvement plans which best reflect the federal education agenda. For states applying for Race to the Top funding, The Department of Education includes some requirements:97 1. 2. 3. 4.

Adopt testing and standards that prepare students for competitive college and work environments. Create “data systems” that can track student performance and give teachers greater feedback. Recruit, reward, and retain the best teachers and principals. Focus on transforming today’s worst schools.

The Department of Education also includes recommended improvement strategies for states to consider:98   

 

Focus on STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Improve preschool and early education programs. Initiate “longitudinal data programs” which track performance and behavior over time by student subgroups. Create more robust transition programs to seamlessly connect K-12 education with the rest of society. Develop “school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning.”

This last priority in particular opens the door for more charter schools, which are a particular interest of President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.99 To win greater funding, states have changed or modified their education policies to become more competitive. Illinois lifted its cap on the number of charter schools allowed within the state. Massachusetts made it easier for students to transfer from low-performing schools to charter schools. Virginia initiated a “merit pay” system for teacher compensation.100 More consistent with past programs than the Obama Administration would like to admit, Race to the Top is yet another federal program that believes standardized testing, accountability, and school choice are the answers for today’s problems. “Today there is empirical evidence, and it shows clearly

3. Reconsidering Education and Society: 1950-2011

that choice, competition and accountability as education reform levers are not working. But with confidence bordering on recklessness, the Obama administration is plunging ahead, pushing an aggressive program of school reform -codified in its signature Race to the Top program -- that relies on the power of incentives and competition. This approach may well make schools worse, not better.”101 - Diane Ravitch Race to the Top dares States to be winners, challenging them to create long-term plans for their educational future. And what state doesn’t want to be a winner? But a system that creates winners by giving them financial rewards also creates losers that don’t receive any reward. Like any level of government, the federal Department of Education does not wish to fund short-sighted and unintelligent education policies, but even states with “bad” plans have students that could desperately need extra funding. It could be argued that these are the students and the states who need extra funding the most.102 Like too many aspects of American society, Race to the Top has brought competition into an institution which should not be based on the principals of capitalism and market economics. The United States continues to compete against itself, winning and losing against itself, splitting, dividing and polarizing itself. As long as we base educational programs on tired paradigms, the gap that has formed in the middle of the country will only continue to grow.

II: History | 63

Case Study: Public Education in Boston

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Boston, America’s city upon a hill, is one of the oldest cities in the country and has been around for every moment in U.S. history. In fact, Boston has been responsible for many of those moments, especially during the American Revolution. In terms of education, Boston is a city of firsts: the first public school, the first U.S. college, and the first state board of education. While the city can still boast that it holds some of the world’s top ranked universities, the same can no longer be said about its public schools. Primarily through images, this chapter uses Boston’s history to speak of rise and fall to the nation’s education system more generally. The issues that have affected Boston are the same that have affected so many U.S. cities as well. II: History | 65

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Colonial Boston 1640-1770

4.01 Map of Boston, 1640

4.02 Boston Harbor, 1764

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was established in the early 17th century by English Puritans who sought to build a model society free from the hierarchy of England’s aristocracy. These Puritans valued hard work commitment over personal wealth and lineage.1 Founded in 1630 on the Shawmut Peninsula, Boston’s city center is one of the oldest in the United States and still includes an irregular network of streets characteristic of colonial times.2 In 1635, the city founded the Boston Latin School, the first and oldest public school in the country.3 Characteristic of early American’s, Boston Latin encouraged “descent with responsibility,” the same traits that would lead to national independence.4 One year later, Harvard College was created, the first in the new world.5 Current Boston Latin students like to claim that Harvard was only established to provide a college worthy of Boston Latin’s fine graduates.6 In 1647, Massachusetts became the first colony to enact a compulsory education law.7 Boston’s relationship to the water allowed it to boom. Docks grew around the peninsula’s edges, farms expanded into the mainland along the Cambridge River, and the city’s built center grew upon the peninsula’s main hill.8 Through much of the 18th century, Boston was the wealthiest city in Colonial America. This wealth did not go unnoticed by England; taxes levied on Boston would lead the overthrow of English rule.9 II: History | 67

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Revolutionary Boston 1770-1800

4.03 Boston Massacre, 1770 Paul Revere, engraver

4.04 The Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775

Tired of unfair taxation, Boston’s Sons of Liberty (including John Hancock, Paul Revere, Sam Adams) gathered public resistance toward the British. In 1770, Boston rioters armed with loud voices and snowballs were fired upon by British troops. Five were killed and six were injured in the Boston Massacre.10 In 1773, the Sons of Liberty orchestrated the Boston Tea Party; in protest of the Tea Act, a British trade ship was raided and it’s tea was destroyed. The British responded, punishing Boston by sending war ships and troops to close its port.11 With its economic lifeblood cut off, Boston residents only grew more resentful. Minutemen militias formed in every town, preparing for an inevitable conflict with British soldiers. When British troops made their move to arrest the Sons of Liberty, word was spread by Paul Revere’s famous horse ride through the city, warning of the British advance. With the “shot heard ‘round the world” the Revolutionary War began.12 Among the war’s most significant conflicts was the Battle of Bunker Hill. In March of 1776, George Washington expelled the last British troops from Boston, liberating the city. In July, the Declaration of Independence, drafted in Philadelphia, was displayed for the from Boston’s State House. That winder, the decimated city of Boston fell from a population of 20,000 to 6,000 people.13 In 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the war.14 The war started by Boston had finally won freedom for the entire Union. II: History | 69

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Common Era Boston 1800-1870

4.05 Map of Boston, 1852

By the 1820’s, Boston public schools served 7,000 children.15 Around the same time, the city of Boston added the five suburbs of Brighton, Dorchester, West Roxbury, Charlestown, and Hyde Park to be part of Boston city proper.16 The success of the city and its schools were apparent. Boston’s public schools, serving all of Boston’s residents, were becoming the best public schools in the world. In the 1830’s, Harvard Professor George Icknor said, “the best proof of the excellence of the public schools was the fact that the rich could find no better.”17 In 1837, Horace Mann became leader of the Massachusetts Board of Education, the first state board of education in the country.18 From this position, Mann implemented his Common School agenda, which included an 8+4 grade system. In 1848, Boston’s Quincy Grammar School became the first fullygraded public school in the U.S.19 Boston’s progressive attitudes helped build its all-girls high school academy in 1850.20 Also in the 1850’s, the Massachusetts legislature and governor voted to open all of Boston’s public schools to black children. This progressive act was largely due to the “Know Nothings” who held political office. Ironically, the progress made in the 1850’s was undone after the Civil War, when many of Boston’s schools were re-segregated by race.21 II: History | 71

4.06 Smith School, 1834

4.07 Eliot School, 1838

4.08 Latin School, 1844

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

4.09 Quincy School, 1847 The First “Graded” School

4.10 Hancock School, 1847

4.11 Adams School, 1848

II: History | 73

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Industrial Age Boston 1870-1910

4.12 Map of Boston, 1890

4.13 Tower Bridges, 1904 Fort Point Channel

4.14 Dewey Square, 1901 4.15 View from Lincoln Wharf Power Station, 1900

Thanks to the Common Era’s growth, Boston’s school system began to resemble a more contemporary school district. In the 1870’s, Boston’s school system became more complex; the city hired its first superintendent, residents saw their first public kindergartens, and schools began asking more academic testing of their students and teachers.22 Mechanized industry demanded new types of knowledge from its workers. Trade and apprentice schools emerged to train secondary students who had no intension of perusing college.23 But for academically advanced students intending to apply to the nation’s top universities, Boston’s two Latin Schools (Boston Latin School and Boston English High School) were available to any male student who could testin. Blacks, Jews, Chinese, and Germans all attended these schools, the best in New England.24 The Industrial Age transformed the city. As more Irish, Jewish, Italian and other immigrants poured into Boston, the city’s “establishment” began to withdraw. By the 1900’s, the “Yankees” were the first ethnic group to leave Boston’s school district in significant numbers.25 While the “Yankees” would be the first to start leaving, other groups would begin leaving a few decades later. II: History | 75

4.16 North Margin St. School North End

4.17 Girls Latin School, 1872 South End (the most expensive school in the U.S. at the time of its completion)79

4.18 Horace Mann School for the Deaf Allston

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

4.19 Bowditch School, 1890 Jamaica Plain Edmund M. Wheelwright, architect

4.20 Winship School Brighton

4.21 Edward Everett School, 1909 Dorchester E.T.P. Graham, architect

II: History | 77

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

4.22 (opposite) English High School (foreground) (the first public high school) Boston Latin Academy (background) (the first public school) South End

4.24 (right) Teachers, 1892 English High School

4.23 (opposite) Second Year Class, 1892 English High School

4.25 (right) Chemical Laboratory, 1892 English High School

4.26 (right) Assembly Hall, 1892 Boston Latin School

II: History | 79

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

4.27 (opposite) Shop Class, 1892-93 Dahlgreen Hall South Boston

4.29 (right) Forge Room, 1893-1900 Mechanic Arts High School South End

4.28 (opposite) Machine Shop, 1893-1900 Mechanic Arts High School South End

4.30 (right) Young Girls Drawing, 1893 Boston Trade School for Girls South End

4.31 (right) Classroom, 1893-1900 Mechanic Arts High School South End

II: History | 81

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Boston’s ‘Golden’ Age 1910-1928

4.32 Map of Metropolitan Boston, 1923

Between 1900 and 1928, Boston’s population grew by 41% and it’s school population grew by 62%. Even more incredibly, Boston’s high school population (grades 8-12) grew by 335%. The city’s prosperity and industry’s growing demand for more highly skilled workers are what propelled the growth in the urban high schools.26 Naturally, schools continued to add more vocational training to their curriculum. Half of Boston’s high school students attended specialty high schools (Latin, English, Commerce, Trade, etc.) and half attended “district” high schools that served local neighborhoods.27 In 1920, Massachusetts required public schools to provide special education, over 40 years before the federal government would require all public districts to do the same.28 The 1930’s marked the peak of the Boston public school district. In 1932, 133,339 students attended Boston’s public schools, an expansion of 33% in a single generation.29

4.33 Back Bay, Commonwealth Avenue, and Boston Public Garden, 1928

With the help of Mayor James Michael Curley, they city’s services and amenities (including schools) were expanded throughout the city. Parent loyalty in Boston’s schools would never be higher.30 II: History | 83

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Boston in Depression 1928-1940

The Great Depression badly damaged Boston and its school system. Between 1930 and 1940, property valuation dropped by 25%. Schools made several efforts to cut costs:31 4.34 Traffic Tunnel, 1931

instead of hiring new teachers, substitute teachers were hired “full-time” at $5 per day “apprentice” teachers were hired at ¢50 per day so that a full teacher could simultaneously cover multiple classes class sizes were raised no new schools were built (Dorchester’s 1934 high school for girls would be the last Boston public school built for the next 40 years)32

4.35 Boston Proper, 1930

The Great Depression, WWII, and the decline of Boston’s schools combined to alter the city’s demographics. The city services (roads, tunnels, bridges, subways) that helped Boston grow also helped it shrink. By the end of the Depression and the start of WWII, enough “Yankees” had left the district to allow the Irish Catholics to take control. During the war, African Americans moved into Boston to fill wareffort industrial jobs. Within five years after the end of WWII, one-third of Boston’s Jewish population moved west to Brookline and Newton. Boston’s Jews staunchly supported public schools as a means of American assimilation, but their relative economic abilities and the expansion of America’s suburbs promised more space than Boston’s neighborhoods could offer.33 II: History | 85

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Boston in Transition 1940-1960

4.36 Boston’s West End (upper left quadrant) after urban redevelopment

4.37 Western Urban Migration Brookline, Newton, and Other Western Suburbs

In 1943, a $75,000 study (the “Strayer Report”) found massive deficiencies with the district’s schools. The report noted dangerous “tinderbox” wooden school building, redundant schools, inconsistent grade and school organization, and heavy racial segregation. The report recommended that 35 of Boston’s schools be closed to consolidate students and resources.34 After WWII, several conditions contributed to a population exodus from the city. Old industries left Massachusetts for non-unionized states, which created an overall decline in wages for unskilled and semiskilled workers. Federal housing and tax policies encouraged home ownership in the suburbs. A gasoline tax subsidized highway construction, while Boston’s public transportation competed for general tax dollars with other public services. Urban renewal replaced slums with segregated public housing. Racial “red-lining” kept African Americans in a limited number of neighborhoods.35 All of these factors combined to encourage whites to leave Boston and prevented blacks from doing the same. Boston’s population reached a peak in 1950 at 800,000 residents, before a long a steady decline for decades to come.36 In 1958, Boston began the urban renewal of the West End neighborhood; “slums” were replaced with high-rise apartments, condos, and shopping, “to resemble the Upper East Side of New York City.” 2,600 families with 4,000 children were evicted.37 II: History | 87

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Civil Rights Era Boston 1950-1965

4.38 Teachers Strike for Better Working Conditions at Boston’s City Hall 4.39 Feminist Rally Boston Common

4.40 Black Panther Rally Post Office Square, Boston

4.41 School Demolition South Boston 4.42 Local Kids Trash School During its Demolition South Boston

In 1953, Massachusetts finally allowed married women to continue teaching as full-time teachers with wages comparable to men. The same law had been passed by California in 1870 and New York in 1911. In 1957, a single salary schedule made pay equal for both men and women.38 In 1960, public employees were allowed collective bargaining rights. With the threat of an organized strike, the Boston Teachers Union made decisions on hiring, firing, promotions, salaries, and benefits.39 In 1961, 12,800 black students were served by seven schools of at least 90% black students and by eight schools of 80-85% black students.40 On June 18, 1963, “Stay Out for Freedom” was a large and organized protest in which 3,000 black high school students boycotted their schools.41 That year, the district received its first black principals and its first black assistant superintendent.42 The members of Boston’s own school committee fought desegregation efforts most viciously; in 1964, Chairman O’Connor said, “We have no inferior education in our schools. What we have been getting is an inferior type of student.”43 The insistence on “neighborhood schools” kept mandatory busing off the table as a serious desegregation option.44 In 1965, Massachusetts found that 16 of Boston’s racially imbalanced schools were educationally inferior. Instead of redistributing students to vacancies in existing Boston schools, an old Jewish temple and temporary classrooms were enlisted to keep black students in their own neighborhood.45 II: History | 89

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Boston’s Refuses to Integrate 1965-1974

4.43 (top left) “Whites Have Rights” Anti-Busing Rally South Boston 4.44 (bottom left) Two White Students Leave for School First Day of Mandatory Busing Sept. 12, 1974 4.45 (right) “The Hitler of Boston” Louise Day Hicks Boston School Committee Member

4.46 15,000 Person Anti-Busing Rally South Boston

In 1965, at the suggestion of Ed Logue, Operation Exodus gathered private funding to bus 4,000 black students to Brookline and Newton in an effort to relieve overcrowding for one year.46 This lead to METCO (Metropolitan Council for Education Opportunity), a federally funded program (with private assistance) that allowed Boston’s black students to fill vacant seats in participating suburban school districts.47 In it’s first year, METCO bused 240 students to three suburban school districts.48 The Boston School Committee viewed these voluntary transfers as an adequate solution. In 1968, the assassination of Dr. King and the rise of the Black Panthers encouraged reactionary violence by the black community against white businesses and teachers in predominantly black neighborhoods. The few Jewish families remaining in Dorchester and Roxbury, the strongest supporters of school desegregation, chose this opportunity to leave.49 Despite a court order to implement a more effective desegregation strategy, political actions and the School Committee blocked progress. In April 1974, Mrs. Louise Day Hicks, the most vocal member of the School Committee and known as the “Hitler of Boston,”50 organized a 15,000 person anti-busing rally in Boston Common.51 A Boston Globe poll showed that blacks favored busing 2:1 and whites opposed busing 3:1.52 II: History | 91

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

Mandatory Busing 1974-1975

4.47 First Day of Court-Ordered Busing South Boston Sept. 12, 1974

4.48 (left) Police-Escorted School Buses on First Day of Court-Ordered Busing South Boston Sept. 12, 1974 4.49 (upper right) Violent Anti-Busing Protestors 4.50 (lower right) Patriotism Run Amuck

On June 21st, 1974 (the last day of the school year), the case of Morgan v. Hennigan decided that Boston had to implement mandatory busing to integrate its schools. Judge Wendell Garrity found that the Boston School Committee had “knowingly carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting all the city’s students, teachers, and school facilities, and had intentionally brought about or maintained a dual school system.”53 In just 70 days, the school district would need to implement Phase One of Judge Garrity’s desegregation plan, a temporary plan that desegregated 80 of Boston’s 200 schools by busing 14,000 students, and pairing Roxbury’s schools with South Boston’s schools.54 ROAR (Restore Our Alienated Rights) protested the ruling. When school opened on September 12th, protestors in South Boston held signs reading “Kill Niggers,” “Go Back to Africa,” and “KKK.” Despite a police escort, bottles and rocks were thrown at busses bringing black students to South Boston schools. School violence, encouraged by adults, broke out in South Boston and Charlestown, but other areas begrudgingly accepted the busing.55 Phase Two of the court order was implemented the next school year (1975-1976). Busing was increased to 21,000 students. The average busing distance was 1.5 miles and took 15 minutes. Judge Garrity divided Boston in to eight community districts, each balanced at 61% white and 39% black. Each community district had its own superintendent, police, and parental leadership. On the 21st anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, 32,000 supported the desegregation efforts in Boston Common.56 II: History | 93

Integration Fall Out 1975-1980’s When mandatory busing was announced, home values plummeted. Between 1974 and 1978, 10,231 students left Boston’s public schools. In 1974, the district had 95,000 students. In 1980, it had 65,000 students.57 In 1980, only 34,000 blacks lived in Boston’s suburbs, making up just 1.6% of the suburban population.58 Racial isolation became Boston’s version of apartheid.59 In 1980, Boston voters passed “Proposition 2 ½,” a citizen’s ballot initiative that limited the annual increase of property taxes to 2.5%. This citizen protest against taxes resulted in big budget cuts to all public service jobs. Over the next year, 2,000 public school employees were laid off, 25% of the total staff. Union rules limited most teacher firings to the youngest and most recently hired. 27 schools were closed. The total budget dropped to $210 million.60 Only half of Boston’s teachers lived in the city, and only half of them sent their children to Boston’s schools.61 In 1981, Boston’s high schools (excluding its three exam schools) had a 50% dropout rate. On average, one quarter of high school students were absent on any given day, the worst rate in the country.62 The Boston Compact, a 1981 agreement between private business and the Boston school district, provided 800 summer jobs and hired over 1,000 recent graduates in exchange for a 5% improvement in dropout rates each year, improved reading and math scores, and stricter attendance. In another public-private program in the mid80’s, the Boston Plan for Excellence used private money to fund college preparation programs, experimental innovation programs within schools, athletic programs, and early childhood programs.63 Of the 14 schools built since 1967, only William Monroe Trotter, a magnet school, was successful at integrating students; white families rejected the other schools.64 In the mid-80’s, Mayor Flynn implemented “controlled choice,” allowing parents to rank the school they wish their child to attend.65 A conscious effort was made to increase the diversity of teachers. Inferior classrooms were closed. Repairs to existing buildings were made.66 In 1985, the expanded and diversified School Committee elected Boston’s first black superintendent, Laval Wilson. Wilson

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

implemented Project Promise, an award-winning program that lengthened the school day and held Saturday classes for students who needed it.67 Boston Schools in Repair 1990’s In 1993, state reforms created several changes for Boston schools. Boston’s local graduation requirements were replaced with higher state standards. Local teacher exams were also replaced with more demanding state exams and qualifications.68 In the same year, Massachusetts authorized charter schools to co-exist with conventional public schools. As a response to the charters, the Boston Teacher’s Union helped establish a pilot school program, which attempts to combine the unique curriculum and teaching programs found within charter schools with the traditional tenure and benefit package provided by teacher unionization.69 Between 1970 and 1990, Boston had six different superintendents and three interim executives.70 But in 1995, Boston settled on a new superintendent who would help repair some of the damage done to the district’s image. Thomas Payzant, former assistant U.S. secretary for elementary education under Bill Clinton and a five-time superintendent, initiated “Twenty First Century Schools,” a $1.8 million program targeted at improving the classroom instruction of 20 schools through “whole school change” strategies. “Whole school change” asked a school’s entire staff, from assistant teachers to senior administrators, what each person could do to improve their school.71 Other programs were started under Payzant as well: ABC (A Better Chance) sent a few minority students to New England prep schools, and project BRIDGE opened vacant Catholic school seats to minority students.72 In 1995, the Urban Land Use Task Force teamed with Mayor Menino to create the Boston Schoolyard Initiative, a program aimed at improving the school yards and playgrounds of blighted urban schools. Over six years, half of the city’s schools and all of Boston’s neighborhoods participated.73 Payzant and Menino attempted to combat the violent images that many families still associated with Boston schools since mandatory busing. As an indicator of Boston’s funding disadvantage, the city’s 1998 property tax rate was II: History | 95

124% the suburban area average, a stress to city property owners and a detriment to families considering Boston as a potential home.74 Boston is “Best” and “Most Improved” 2000’s In 2000, 77% of Boston’s public students were a racial minority (50% were black).75 One in ten black students participated in METCO, a program that had continued and expanded since its creation in the mid-60’s. METCO opens about 300 suburban school seats to black Boston students every year. The program is very popular; since its participants have a 90% college acceptance rate, there is a 10-15,000 student waitlist. While the program provides enhanced opportunities for the individuals who participate, it also removes some of the best students from Boston’s own schools.76 Several public-private programs helped create new programs for Boston’s schools. An $8 million grant from the Carnegie Foundation allowed Boston to combat “student alienation and withdrawal” by dividing its large district high schools into 39 small “academies.” The Boston Foundation, Harvard University, the mayor and others gave $20 million to support after-school programs. The Annenberg Foundation and local companies gave $20 million to assist Payzant’s “whole school change” program. The National Science Foundation gave $2 million to help schools increase math and science scores, and the Nellie Mae Education Foundation gave $1.5 million to support middle school math programs.77 The influx of private money targeted at specific programs is a sign of the times. Given public deficits and across the board cutbacks, districts are judged in part by their ability to win private funding. In 2004, FORBES magazine announced that Boston offered the best public education of any big city in the U.S. In 2005, Payzant was named both the state and national superintendent of 2005. In 2006, the Eli Broad foundation named Boston the nation’s most improved urban school system.78 Despite a great deal of improvement, Boston’s schools are still extremely challenged. Chapter 8 provides a picture of Boston today; its leaders, its programs, and its continued challenges.

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston

II: History | 97

Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

A full decade into the 21st Century, and over two decades into the “Internet Revolution,” American society is immersed in the Information Age. Wikipedia, smart phones, Twitter, and cloud computing are just some of the most recent signs of the Information Age at work. These devices, their information support systems, and the cultural atmosphere within which they exist have challenged traditional notions of time, distance, site, and space. We no longer need to move to a computer in order to access the Internet, instead, the Internet moves with us. We do not read breaking news when we open our morning newspaper, instead, we are bombarded by e-mail alerts and 24/7 cable news networks. For many of us, the work day is no longer limited from 9am to 5pm; for better or worse, work can follow us from home, to car or subway, to the office, to the cafe, to the soccer game, etc. Although not always comfortable, these symptoms of change are signs of progress, and with the countless improvements that progress brings also come challenges to the status quo. When society chooses to favor the status quo, society chooses to lock itself into a particular era of time, afraid and unwilling to consider the changes that word “progress” might bring. This is where we currently stand with American education; claiming to want progress, but unwilling to accept the change that is necessary to achieve it. II: History | 99

5.01 Ford Assembly Line, 1973

“Our education system looks a lot like the U.S. auto industry in the 1970’s, stuck in a flabby, inefficient, outdated production model.”1 - Michael Bloomberg Mayor of New York City

Industrial Age Mentality

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

Although a young country by many standards, the United States has witnessed three very different social and cultural paradigms. These eras are commonly known as the Agrarian Age, the Industrial Age, and most recently, the Information Age (also known as the Knowledge Age).2 The Agrarian Age (pre-1800’s) was characterized by a society and economy dependent upon agriculture, livestock, and artisans. The Industrial Age (early 1800’s – mid 1900’s) shifted the focus from farm to city. Factories, transportation, and consumerism were embraced by a young United States, allowing it to progress at an incredible (and often unstable) pace. During the Industrial Age, the U.S. became wealthier, more powerful, and more advanced than any country in the world. If one is willing to overlook dangerous working conditions, environmental destruction, and systemic racism, a sense of nostalgia washes over this “Golden Age” of American history.3 On the other hand, the Information Age (early 1990’s - ) has helped distribute knowledge, skills, and resources across the world, making “power” and “international significance” more ubiquitous and less consolidated. This is where the U.S. finds itself today; it is one influential member of a growing international information community. As a reflection of society, public schools have changed (in part) from era to era. Perhaps the most easily recognizable changes can be found in the school buildings themselves. Agrarian Age schools were one-room buildings, with a single teacher and a single class of student. These schools taught the basics skills needed for the perpetuation of democracy: reading, writing, arithmetic, western history, and governance.4 Since a class varied in age and level of existing knowledge, the single teacher provided more individual instruction, moving from student to student throughout the day.5 The Agrarian Age single-room school house was challenged by density and urbanization. Multiple school houses were needed to serve cities and larger towns. The onset of the Industrial Age increased class sizes, urban populations, and student diversity. Industrialized manufacturing actually became the model for solving these new education challenges. Standardization in industry created a predictable and repetitive process of production and assembly. Systems of schools (primary schools, II: History | 101

grammar schools, and high schools) charted a linear sequence of individual steps from start (raw materials) to finish (consumer-ready product). Schools created their own assembly line of education. Students were sorted into grade levels according to age. Different teachings were categorized by subject matter and type. Lesson plans were written down into a sequence of repeatable steps.6 School buildings became factories for learning; students (machines to be assembled) moved from one teacher (assembly worker) to the next, one grade (stage of production) to the next, one school building (assembly plant) to the next. At the end of each stage, students were subjected to standardized testing (quality assurance), to make sure they were taught (assembled) well enough to move on to the next stages. The process was completed by dawning a cap and gown (packaging), awarding a diploma (limited warranty), and holding a graduation ceremony (product display). Industrial Age schooling helped the U.S. meet the ambitious social goal of educating every citizen, no matter what class, ethnicity (with exceptions), or social background. Industrialization created jobs that required a higher level of basic education than in the past. Public education created a workforce of low and medium-skilled workers, meeting the different demands of the growing manufacturing-based economy. The goals of public education accurately reflected the ideals of the production society, and provided an appropriate system for most students to succeed. Modeled on efficiency, economy of resources, and maximization of output units, Industrial Age schools, like Agrarian Age schools before them, served the needs of their time well. But like American manufacturing, the Industrial Age model of education reached its peak sometime in the mid-20th century. A series of challenges and new demands from society asked Industrial Age schools to change. In a remarkable display of forced adaptation, Industrial Age schools modified individual pieces (individual steps of the assembly procedure) to meet the new demands. But even the most extensive “retooling” of a factory can only advance it so far. Eventually, the factory must realize that it is no longer the appropriate solution to its society’s needs... something that our schools have not yet admitted.

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

RESPONSE TO SOPHISTICATED INDUSTRIALIZATION: NEW LEVELS OF JOB PREPAREDNESS The Industrial Age opened up high school to all students, allowing the academically inclined to be prepared for college and highly-skilled jobs.7 High schools became an option for more than just the academically inclined, they became the default. With more types of students in high school, a broader, less specific high school education was introduced, applicable to students who might graduate to become modern farmers or diplomacy majors in college.8 This demanded more of high schools, changing their goal from polishing the education of the smartest students to preparing the next generation of workers for the American economy. RESPONSE TO THE COLD WAR: CONCENTRATION ON MATH, SCIENCE, AND TESTING In 1957, the Soviet Union challenged the United States’ presumed dominance of technology and science. The Sputnik satellite proved that other countries were not only capable of competing with the U.S., they were capable of beating the U.S. in the frontier considered among the most advanced and difficult to explore, outer space. And if the U.S. could be beaten to space, Americans feared that they could be beaten in the Cold War by losing their technological edge. The answer to the Soviet challenge was to increase the focus on math and science in public education.12 RESPONE TO POPULATION GROWTH: ENLARGE THE SCHOOL AND COMBINE DISTRICTS In the midst of USA’s school building boom, former Harvard University President James B. Conant released what would become a very influential book for the planners and builders of schools. Building on growing trends, Conant’s 1959 The American High School Today promoted large schools and consolidated school districts. Base on “economies of scale,” the book explained that the factory could serve as a model for providing education.13 There were approximately 127,000 school districts in the 1930’s. By 1982, there were just 15,000.14 Today, ¾ of today’s high school students attend schools of 1,000 students or more.15 The one room schoolhouse certainly had its restrictions, but it also had its strengths. As the country moved from II: History | 103

5.02 “High School – What’s In It For Me?”

The high school (or the latter half of secondary school) was once for only the best and brightest students.9 Through the Common School movement and into the beginning of the 20th century, states implemented compulsory attendance laws up to age 16 or 18, making at least some high school education mandatory.10 The goal of high school has changed as well. This 1954 illustration shows that just 20% of student were expected to attend college after graduation; 60% were expected to become “sales girls,” “elevator operators,” and “mechanical workers.”11 Today, post-secondary education is fast becoming a minimum requirement for the dwindling middle class. Clearly, times have changed…but have our high schools changed enough?

High School Preparation

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

intimate schools of 50 students to factory schools of several thousand students, it failed to recognize the importance of the individual student and one-to-one connections. RESPONSE TO RACIAL SEGREGATION: MANDATORY INTEGRATION 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling officially made racially segregated schools illegal.16 Through the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s, courts and school districts used different school attendance policies to legally integrate their schools. Pairing, attendance rezoning, and mandatory busing were various changes that districts used to capture a legally balanced student population.17 To various degrees, these changes threatened the traditional and idealized notion of the neighborhood school. Black students attended “white schools” and, for the first time, a small percentage of urban whites were mandatorily assigned to previously “all-black” schools.18 Integration efforts, particularly mandatory busing, were very unpopular among the majority of Americans. But since the court-ordered integration policies only affected individual districts instead of entire metropolitan regions, white Americans had an escape option; white flight from urban districts to suburban school districts was a legal way of keeping schools segregated.19 The white exodus from urban school districts has been so thorough that the schools of many cities are more racially unbalanced than they were before desegregation began.20 A 1975 study found that desegregation measures, while legally necessary and well-intentioned, were ultimately self-defeating since they lead to even greater levels of legal segregation.21 Because of white protectionism and school district Balkanization, a debilitating cap was placed upon the effectiveness of school desegregation. Since an effective, legal, and popular solution still does not exist, urban school districts face the challenges that suburban districts can avoid.22 Even in the 1990’s and 2000’s, white flight still occurred when a school district’s non-white student percentage reached approximately 20%. The rate of white flight is greatest as district student move from 20% to 50% nonwhite. Nearly 60 years after Brown, school districts still lack effective tools to racially integrate schools.23 – American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality II: History | 105

5.03 Classroom with Windows

5.04 Same Classroom, Windows Removed

In the 1970’s, an oil crisis, rising energy prices, and a new interest in environmentalism demanded many schools to be “upgraded”.” The primary targets were the large bays of single-pane windows from the 50’s and 60’s when energy was cheap and modern architecture was in vogue.27 An affordable solution was to replace the glass with solid panels. But this also replaced daylight, natural ventilation, and connection to the outdoors with artificial lighting and centralized air-handling units. As a result, the windowless classroom and the “hermetically sealed” school were inadvertently created, proving that the cost of energy was considered more valuable than the psychological and educational benefits teachers and students received from windows.28

The Windowless Classroom

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

RESPONSE TO NEW PSYCHOLOGY AND GENDER ROLES: EXPAND KINDERGARTEN, PRE-K, AND EXTRAS Studies in the 60’s supported the social, intellectual, and psychological benefits of pre-school and kindergarten.24 Simultaneously, the gender revolution and the women’s rights movement allowed more women to enter the workforce.25 These factors put new demands on public schools to both nurture and look after pre-elementary-aged children. By the 1970’s most elementary schools had added either a voluntary or mandatory kindergarten program.26 Not only was the size of elementary schools altered, but school schedule, furniture dimensions, and emotionally-appropriate behavior of teachers all needed to be adjusted. The role of kindergarten was not just the intellectual preparation of young children for elementary school, but the developmental and social preparation as well; kindergarten helped four and five-year-olds to cooperate well with others. Schools started to be understood as places for developing skills and knowledge and for developing mature and socially responsible personalities. RESPONSE TO PROSPERITY: GREATER COURSE OFFERINGS Americans that were raised following WWII enjoyed some of the highest levels of economic and personal prosperity. In the 1960’s and 70’s, these Americans became parents and naturally wanted their children to have even better opportunities and amenities. Extracurricular activities, band, chorus, physical education, school lunch programs, and summer school were created to enrich student lives. Increased elective options and AP courses allowed students to become both broader and deeper academically. 29 There is no doubt that these added programs positively contributed to the academic environment for students, but it put new demands on school district resources, particularly at the high school level. RESPONSE TO INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION: GREATER EMPHASIS ON EMPIRICAL DATA By the 1980’s, Japan had built-up its economy and industry to the point that it could produce more highly sophisticated consumer electronics than were available II: History | 107

in the United States.30 The 1983 report, A Nation at Risk emphasized “the risk” of losing economic dominance to foreign countries like Japan, and concluded that, once again, public schools must be adjusted to make the country more competitive.31 Standardized testing and the SAT allowed countries to more easily compare student results. Since the 1960’s, U.S. students had been losing their edge over other advanced countries. Simultaneously, U.S. satisfaction with its public schools was also declining.32 A Nation at Risk called for greater levels of standardized testing, concentrating on math, science, engineering, and college preparedness.33 These were once the disciplines in which American students excelled. At the federal level, schools were encouraged to consolidate their course offerings, removing “fun” electives and replacing them with “necessary” core curriculum. Math, science, and engineering were where the U.S. was losing its edge so that is where the emphasis was placed. National Trends in Math and Reading Scores

320

TEST SCORE TRENDS34 280

Math 240

Reading

Age 17 Age 13 Age 9 2008

2003

1998

1993

1988

1983

1978

1973

200

This knee-jerk response fails to recognize some critical aspects of U.S. educational competitiveness in comparison to newly advancing countries. In Disrupting Class, author and Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen argues that countries undergoing rapid industrial growth (USA in the first half of the 1900’s, Japan in the 1970’s, Korea in the 1980’s, China and India in the 1990’s) are extrinsically motivated to study subjects like math, science, and engineering because an advanced education in these subjects can guarantee dependable and economically rewarding jobs within their modernizing society.35 PostIndustrial countries, ones that have matured beyond their industrial peak (the USA and many Western European countries since 1960’s), tend to be more stable and content. Students in these countries gravitate towards subjects that are intrinsically motivating, subjects that do not necessarily

Source: U.S. Department of Education35

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

offer long-term economic advantages but are instead deliver more immediate rewards while being studied.36 This basic concept of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational forces was even realized by President John Adams. “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons aught to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”37 – President John Adams What A Nation at Risk failed to realize was that the United Sates no longer holds the motivational factors that it once did; lifetime careers in blue-collar mechanical manufacturing and lucrative white-collar jobs in engineering and technology can no longer be counted upon by American workers. Those motivational factors have been created in (and exported to) other parts of the globe. A Nation at Risk should not be condemned for emphasizing the importance of math, science and engineering, but it should be criticized for favoring these subjects at the expense of “non-essential” programs such as the visual arts, music, and liberal arts. Subsequent generations of American students have been deprived of the creative and thought-provoking classes that could actually inspire them within our post-industrial economy. A greater emphasis on standardized testing does the opposite. “This poor substitute for a well-rounded education, which includes subjects such as the arts, history, geography, civics, science and foreign language, hits low-income children the hardest, since they are the most likely to attend the kind of “failing school” that drills kids relentlessly on the basics.”38 - Diane Ravitch RESPONSE TO POVERTY: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND By the early 2000’s, the gap between rich and poor Americans had been growing for 50 years.39 Public education was created as a way to equalize the political voice of Americans, no matter their social or economic background. In 2002, No Child Left Behind continued this proud belief, even expanding it, claiming that a quality public education can help families break the cycle of poverty, and achieve upward economic mobility.40 The act reinforced one II: History | 109

of the still-admirable qualities of American public education; all citizens shall be thoroughly educated from grades K-12. This includes every child, of every demographic.41 In this respect, No Child Left Behind set the right goal; but unfortunately, the policies that the act initiated are based on outdated assumptions. A victim of an Industrial Age mentality, a belief that metrics and quantifiable figures provide indisputable evidence of achievement, No Child Left Behind officially made standardized test scores the measure of academic success. Repeating the mistakes of A Nation at Risk, NCLB wants standardized test scores to improve, but does not question the underlying reasons why different students obtain different results. NCLB goes further, by tying school funding directly to test results. As schools continue to struggle, their federal resources are diminished, compounding existing financial difficulties.42 And instead of emphasizing learning, NCLB emphasizes testing...a significant difference. When testing is emphasized, teaching is changed to meet the test.43 This brings to question the reason for testing in the first place. Testing was once a method of assessing how thoroughly a student understood a given subject, helping the student to reinforce the areas that were missed. Testing should be a way of measuring a student against him- or herself, but today, testing is used to compare students against other students, schools against other schools, and districts against other districts. When teacher salaries are tied to testing, the system incentivizes “teach to the test” practices, sticking to the text book, and getting the “right” answer. What is needed are creative teachers who are trained to teach, not trained to read from a script.44 “Education must shift from instruction to discovery - to probing and exploration”45 - Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message, 1967 NCLB doesn’t encourage students to compete for knowledge; it encourages students to compete for federal funding.46 NCLB supposedly holds schools accountable for their performance, punishing the schools that fail their students. Schools do need to be accountable, but at the moment, the federal government is not being held accountable for its destructive legislation.47 If students fail as

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

a result of political incompetence, from whom should money be withheld? RESPONSE TO LACK OF MOTIVATION: PERFORMANCE BASED INCENTIVES Following a greater trend of fiscal and economic conservatism (i.e. the Tea Party Movement), a renewed belief in market-based incentive structures is now the topic of debate within public schools. In 2007, Harvard economist Roland Fryer initiated an experimental program within a few New York City schools. His program used private money to pay students and parents for good test results. The program was later expanded to pay teachers bonuses for better class scores and AP students for excellent test scores.48 The underlying assumption of Fryer’s program is that money is the ultimate motivational factor. In the context of pure capitalism, this is a fair assumption. But should our education system be modeled on free market capitalism? Our public schools are where students learn the skills they will need to succeed. Fryer’s method teaches children to expect money for doing what is right. What happens, outside of school, when money is no longer given away, and the right choices still need to be made? This incentive theory delays a student from learning and developing his or her own strategies for motivation. We cannot pay children to be good citizens, we need to teach them. Schools are places of personal learning, not personal profit. RESPONSE TO UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY: THE SCHOOL CHOICE MOVEMENT The school choice movement has been argued on terms similar to performance-based incentives. Private and parochial schools have been available even longer than public schools and continue to provide some parents with alternative choices, but the school choice movement addresses citizens, most commonly the urban and rural poor, who do not have the financial means to choose a school besides their local public school. Originating with magnet schools in the 1980’s49 and chartered schools in 1991,50 the school choice movement now includes student voucher programs. The movie Waiting for “Superman” has brought new and positive attention to school choice, making it today’s II: History | 111

1998

2003

201X

5.05 Data Source: Disrupting Class

Despite continuing to increase the numbers of computers per student, computers are still primarily used to assist and augment existing teaching practices instead of reinventing and re-conceptualizing teaching itself. When used as teaching supplements, computers add to the cost of education without significant gains. Computers have revolutionized nearly everything theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve touched, but they have not yet had a significantly transformation upon the world of public education.59

Students Per Computer

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

leading front-runner as the “solution” needed to solve the problems faced by public schools. “the discussion has largely taken the current system - with its operations and possibilities - as given. In a variety of other analyses, however, it has been clear that substantial inefficiency exists...An alternative way to view the entire issue revolves around improving the entire system. If, in fact, something could be done to improve the overall performance of the system, policies that also improved the equity would be easier to accomplish. In other words, redistributing a larger pie is generally easier than redistributing a constantsize pie through zero-sum policies.”51 - Eric A. Hanushek The school choice movement appeals to some of the same beliefs that formed the democratic political system and free-market economic system. A system of school choice works by allowing parents to choose the school that is best for their child. Like voting for a congressman, or shopping for a box of cereal, offering school choices to parents lets them pick the best type of school for their child. One school might focus on math and science, another might teach students with hands-on and “real world” examples, and a third could specializes in teaching children with troubled backgrounds. Over a short period of time, the right number of the right type of school in the right locations will reflect the choices of district parents. School choice: a quintessentially American response to a quintessentially American desire: freedom of choice. Today’s iterations of choice cannot overcome the inherent deficiencies of the Industrial Age system within which they exist. Instead of creating a new system, school choice continues to operate within the existing confines of an outdated paradigm. School choice, even student voucher programs, do not change the inherently flawed school funding mechanism; instead they only shuffle limited tax funds from one school to another.52 In both the best and worst school districts, school choice is not effective at bringing meaningful levels of socioeconomic diversity into suffocatingly homogeneous student populations. In fact, both charter and voucher programs tend to create even greater socioeconomic segregation within schools.54 School choice advocates claim that choice forces schools to compete for students, II: History | 113

encouraging schools to improve and become their best.55 This Industrial Age mentality of improvement through competition has served the United States well in the past; the U.S. used its inherent strengths to succeed and advance beyond (and often at the direct expense) of other countries. Is this an appropriate mentality for our public schools? The “us vs. them” way of thinking works in a world of black and white, good and bad, but how can we accept this vicious mentality in our education system? If we truly believe that No Child [Should Be] Left Behind, how can we allow a competitive system of choice that allows winners and losers? If we compete against ourselves, we will guarantee differential results which are exactly what school choice is attempting to overcome. Instead of changing our outdated model of education, school choice allows it to continue in a slightly (and insufficiently) modified form. “So we’re left with the knowledge that a dramatic expansion in the number of privately managed schools is not likely to raise student achievement. Meanwhile, public schools will become schools of last resort for the unmotivated, the hardest to teach and those who didn’t win a seat in a charter school. If our goal is to destroy public education in America, this is precisely the right path.”53 - Diane Ravitch RESPONSE TO LACK OF RESULTS: RACE TO THE TOP Elected on the promise of “hope” and “change,” President Obama’s Race to the Top program intended to provide the financial spark necessary to fund innovated ideas. But Race to the Top borrows most of its ideas from past education reform acts and instead of allowing states to invent their own solutions, the Race to the Top’s funding language is so prescribed that it draws innovation boundaries; states must follow the rules if the wish to compete for funding.56 The “innovations” that Race to the Top steers states towards are accountability, standardized testing, and charter schools. Diane Ravitch, an education historian and author, was once an outspoken supporter of standardized testing measure and greater school choice. But after years of lackluster results, she now admits that she was wrong.

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

The author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, Ravitch has become one of Race to the Top’s biggest critics. Like school choice itself, Race to the Top only creates a vicious system of winners and losers; children that benefit from greater federal funding, and children that belong to states that “lose out” to the competition from other states.58 “Today there is empirical evidence, and it shows clearly that choice, competition and accountability as education reform levers are not working. But with confidence bordering on recklessness, the Obama administration is plunging ahead, pushing an aggressive program of school reform -- codified in its signature Race to the Top program -- that relies on the power of incentives and competition. This approach may well make schools worse, not better.”57 - Diane Ravitch FROM INDUSTRY TO INFORMATION - THE NECESSARY PARADIGM SHIFT Over the past 60 years, we have been trying to adjust a dated system to meet our new needs. Remarkably, the Industrial Age school has been incredibly resilient and has continued to find ways to change itself just a little bit further.60 But as the most recent years have shown, American public education is fundamentally flawed. Not in its ideals, but in its system and practice. It should not be forgotten that our current model of schooling was created over half a century ago. From then to now, society is dramatically different, perhaps even unrecognizable. The Industrial Age school system was created in a time of legalized segregation (“separate but equal”), corporal punishment, and wellpaying U.S. manufacturing jobs…at the time, Detroit was the industrial capital of the world. Decades later, American society has transformed, but American education policy is still an artifact of the past. In too many painful ways, the United States is paralyzed by nostalgia for an Industrial Era that has long since passed: our bloated consumption of energy and natural resources, the inept foresight of the automobile industry, the idealization of the suburban home, and the belief that property values will never fall, just to name a few. We can continue to wallow in our own remorse, nursing ailing industries as they slowly die, hoping that they II: History | 115

might return to their former glory, or we can accept that we need to change in order to truly progress. The best changes that this country has ever seen (Independence, the creation of a democracy, the ending of slavery, civil rights, women’s equality, etc.) have also been some of the hardest changes to make. Once controversial, it is now unanimously agreed that these changes were not only beneficial, they were absolutely necessary for America’s continued prosperity. Collectively, we need to reconsider who we are as a society and what we both need and want to become. Our best jobs are now earned through acquired knowledge, not labor skills. We need an education system that does not produce low, middle, and highly educated workers; we need an education system that produces curious and creative thinkers. We have more single-parent families, dual-income families, and deeply impoverished families in our schools than ever before.61 We claim that we want equal education opportunities for all students but how does a system based in unequal funding practices ever have a chance at creating equal opportunities and a “level playing field?”62 Computers have revolutionized every industry that they have touched, restructuring and even destroying past practices for the sake of progress. Can the same be said for education? Today’s youngest generation will never know a world unchanged by the computer...until they go to school. Most of our schools are time-capsules of outdated teaching methods and ideology. Most classrooms now hold computers, but instead of transforming teaching and learning the way that computers have transformed so many other different fields of knowledge, only a small handful of schools and programs are beginning to realize the capabilities of computers and digital information exchange within public schools.63 At a time when Americans admit that education is more important than ever, federal, state and district expenditures have all been cut. Public schools are virtual monopolies, making the introduction of change challenging. Charter schools have claimed to be this agent of change, but they assume so many of the same practices, and must work within the same funding umbrella. Once again, it is Band-Aid solution when the problem is a broken limb. “Creating a paradigm shift is like converting an entire religious community to a new religion.”64 Americans face

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems

a tremendous disconnect between ideals and practices. If the U.S. actually wishes to solve this, the country must initiate a paradigm shift in education. Refusing to admit that something is broken will never allow it to be fixed. It is time for the United States to become excited by its own need to improve instead of feeling threatened by it. This section, has attempted to briefly trace the history of America’s public education, the challenges that society has placed on the institution, and the education system’s response to those challenges. Although most of the recent “solutions” have been thought of and implemented in earnest, the challenges we face are beyond the capabilities of an outdated educational infrastructure. The next section will focus on the best (and worst) education strategies that are available to us today. An analysis of our current practices, with respect to our current society, reveals the inadequacies of our system of education; but more problematically, it reveals our lack of political will.

II: History | 117

III:

Rea Reality

ality

Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

This chapter uses common school district benchmarks (average class size, budget per pupil, graduation percentage, etc.) to compare the public school districts of Greater Boston. This chapter also includes other socioeconomic data to compare the region’s residents. The extent of socio-spatial segregation across the region can be seen when the statistics are tied to geographic locations. Despite the great differences that exist between district geographies, the largest source of a school district’s funding comes from within its own socio-spatial bubble. Because public education is so directly tied to its locality, it is easy to understand why such large differences between school districts continue to exist. III: Reality | 121

20 Miles

6.01 METROPOLITAN BOSTON: This satellite photo displays the school districts that belong to the municipalities of Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Metropolitan Area Planning Council, a planning agency that serves 101 cities and towns that make up Greater Boston.* Source: Metropolitan Area Planning Council (11/12/2011)

2010 POPULATION: 3,174,123 people, +3.1% (U.S. Census 2010) 2000 POPULATION: 3,078,217 people (U.S. Census 2010) MUNICIPALITIES: 103** (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 84 unified school districts, 15 elementary school districts, 8 secondary school districts (U.S. Census 2010)

* The municipalities of Lancaster and Bolton are not members of the MAPC, but are included in this map (and subsequent maps) since they share a school district (Nashoba) with Stow, a member of the MAPC (see http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/ files/MAPC_Subregions.pdf). ** This includes Lancaster and Bolton.

Metropolitan Boston

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

METROPOLITAN BOSTON The metropolitan area of Boston is home to 3.17 million people, making it the 10th largest metropolis in the United States.1 Including its commuting radius, “Greater Boston” holds 7.6 million, ranking Boston 5th highest among Combined Statistical Areas in the country.2 The city of Boston is only home to 617,594 residents, which means that about 80% of the metropolitan area lives outside Boston proper.3 Founded in 1630,4 Boston’s city center is one of the oldest in the United States and still includes an irregular network of streets characteristic of Colonial times. Later urban expansions, such as Back Bay in the South End, were built on reclaimed land and use orthogonal street grids. The city of Boston is immediately surrounded by mature cities and suburbs, such as Cambridge, Brookline, Chelsea, and Quincy. Newer suburbs, characteristic of 20th century growth, have filled-in metropolitan Boston to connect the city with once (and still) rural towns and villages. Home to North America’s first public school (Boston Latin School, 1635)5 and college (Harvard, 1636), Boston is now a world-renowned center for higher-education, home to over 250,000 students at over 100 colleges and universities.6 Higher education has contributed to Greater Boston’s $363 billion economy (12th largest in the world), attracting hightechnology, science, and financial jobs to the region.7 III: Reality | 123

20 Miles

495

6.02 HIGHWAY NETWORK: This map of metropolitan Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s highway network includes Federal, State, County, and Municipal, toll / limited access, and free roads and highways. Source: MassGIS (MassDOT Roads, Oct. 2009)

MAJOR HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

MAJOR ROAD

Highway Network

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

HIGHWAY NETWORK The growth of Boston’s highway network resembles most mature American cities; the car, the suburban dream, racial segregation, and the Interstate Highway System shaped the patterns of urban growth through the 20th Century. Commuter highways expand radially outward in all directions (I-90, I-93, Route 2), connecting Boston’s business core with suburban residential communities. Eventually, concentric highway “belts” connected the radial lines. An inner-belt inscribes Boston and its immediate suburbs (I-95, a 10 mile radius) and an outer belt which defines the outer-limits of metro Boston (I-495, a 25-mile radius). III: Reality | 125

20 Miles

6.03 POPULATION DENSITY: Population density is determined by dividing a municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential population by the municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land area (measured in people per square mile). Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> 45,000 people / sq. mile 30,000 - 45,000 15,000 - 30,000 5,000 - 15,000 < 5,000 people / sq. mile

Population Density

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

POPULATION DENSITY Boston’s population distribution is typical of an old American city. Boston was founded in the 17th century and experienced its greatest growth before the age of the automobile. Boston’s oldest communities are its most dense and most centralized. In general, density diminishes the further one travels from Boston’s center. Satellite cities and towns exist immediately outside Boston’s borders and along the Atlantic coast. A few spots of density exist beyond Boston’s inner suburbs, existing at highway intersections and surrounded by exurban communities. III: Reality | 127

20 Miles

6.04 POPULATION CHANGE: Population change measures the change in residential population (growth or loss) within a districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundaries over the last ten years (2000 to 2010). Source: U.S. Census (SY 2010)

Students (Percentile Distribution) > 7.8% growth

99th

4.5% - 7.8% 1.6% - 4.5% 50th < 1.6% growth negative growth

Population Change

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

POPULATION CHANGE: From 2000 to 2010, the vast majority of municipalities within the greater region grew in population. The metro region grew by 160,000 people, or 3.7%. As a whole, the region is growing much slower than the national average of 9.7%. For a comparison, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta all grew by over 20%. The small growth that the region saw is largely due to a continued influx of immigrants, especially Hispanics (an additional 28,000 Hispanic residents to the city of Boston alone). Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 4.8% growth rate means that for the first time in decades, the city is growing faster than the state.8 The region lost 6% of its white population. Now, Latino/Hispanic, Asians, and Blacks combine to make up one quarter of the entire region, however minority population growth was concentrated to just a few areas.9 III: Reality | 129

20 Miles

Ipswich Masconomet

Rockport

Topsfield HamiltonWenham

Middleton North Reading

Danvers

Manchester Essex

Gloucester

Beverly

Wilmington Littleton

Reading Lynnfield

Carlisle

Acton Boxborough ActonBoxborough

Bedford

ConcordCarlisle

Woburn Stoneham

Concord Maynard

Sudbury Weston

Wayland

Marlborough

Salem Marblehead Swampscott Swampscott

Medford Malden Nahant Arlington Revere Everett Belmont Chelsea Somerville Waltham Cambridge Winthrop Watertown

Lincoln Lincoln-Sudbury

Hudson

Lynn Saugus

Melrose

Lexington Winchester

Nashoba

Peabody

Wakefield

Burlington

Newton Northborough-Southborogh Southborough

Brookline

Framingham

Boston

Wellesley Natick

Hull

Needham

Ashland Dover Sherborn Dover-Sherborn

Hopkinton Holliston

Medfield

Dedham

Canton

Medway

Braintree Weymouth Randolph

Hingham Scituate

Norwell

Walpole

Holbrook Sharon

Norfolk Bellingham

Cohasset

Norwood

Millis Milford

Quincy

Milton

Westwood

Stoughton

Avon

Rockland

Hanover

Marshfield

Franklin King Philip Wrentham

Foxborough

Pembroke Duxbury

6.05 SCHOOL DISTRICTS: This map includes unified, elementary, and secondary public school districts that belong to metropolitan Boston. School districts often (but do not always) include a single municipality/town/city. Source: MassGIS (Public School Districts)

Boston School District

Secondary School District Name

School District Name

BOSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

SECONDARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT / ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

School Districts

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

SCHOOL DISTRICTS With the Boston Public School District at its core, the metropolitan areaA includes ninety-eight different public school districts;B 83 are unified (P/K-12) and 15 districts are elementary school districts (P/K-5/6/7/8) who share or combine into eight secondary school districts. Of the 101 cities and towns that make up Metro Boston, only six have combined into a larger unified district.C Boston is one of the oldest cities in the United States, and the political boundaries of its municipalities reflect hundreds of years of growth and settlement. A The metropolitan area considered here includes the municipalities that belong to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), a planning agency that serves 101 cities and towns that make up greater Boston (see website: http:// www.mapc.org/). The municipalities of Lancaster and Bolton are not members of the MAPC, but are included in this map since they share a school district (Nashoba) with Stow, a member of the MAPC.

B For statistical tracking, the eight secondary school districts will not be counted as their own district; instead, secondary school district statistics (such as high school graduation rate) will be attributed to the constituent elementary school districts.

Bolton + Stow = Nashoba School District, Hamilton + Wenham = HamiltonWenham School District, Manchester + Essex = Manchester Essex School District C

III: Reality | 131

20 Miles

87 62 100

150

75 41

28 82

167

85 30

116

113

257

98 179

110

49 160

130

420 20

294

-3,245

156 58

141

13 6

105

39 58

48 142

66 26 49

6.06 SCHOOL DISTRICT CHOICE: Students Enrolled in METCO and/or Massachusetts School Choice. Source: Massachusetts Department of Education (SY 2004-2005)

-3,245

BOSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT: Number of students in METCO

6 - 420

METCO

3 - 150

MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL CHOICE

6 - 420

BOTH PROGRAMS

School District Choice

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

SCHOOL DISTRICT CHOICE Within Greater Boston, two interdistrict programs exist to give public school students the choice of attending a school district other than their local district. Both programs are voluntary, and open up available seats in the participating school district to students from outside the municipality. METCO is a state-funded program that allows students of color within the Boston school district to attend the schools of a participating suburban district. In the 2004-2005 school year, 3,245 minority students voluntarily left Boston’s schools to attend one of 32 different suburban school districts. METCO is a highly desired program for Boston students, with an active waitlist between 10-15,000 students. The other voluntary interdistrict choice program is Massachusetts School Choice, which allows any student of any district to attend the schools of any participating district (provided there is a seat available). According to state law, student aid travels from the “sending” district to the “receiving” district. While voluntary choice programs provide unique opportunities to students dissatisfied with their home district, critics argue that choice programs drain the sending districts of funding and committed students, giving resources and diversity to already desirable districts.10 III: Reality | 133

20 Miles

6.07 SCHOOL BUILDINGS: This map includes the public, private, and (public) charter schools in the metro region as of November 2010. Not shown are “collaborative program” schools or “approved special education” schools. Source: MassGIS (Schools – Nov. 2010)

PUBLIC SCHOOL PRIVATE SCHOOL CHARTER SCHOOL

School Buildings

57,494 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

SCHOOL BUILDINGS Generally speaking, the distribution of school buildings over Greater Boston roughly reflects the region’s population distribution; there are far more school buildings clustered in Boston and its densely populated adjacent towns and cities than exist on the region’s perimeter. Public schools are most common. Private schools are found in most areas as well from the city, to the suburbs, to the exurbs. What stands out is the distribution of public charter schools. Over half of the region’s charter schools can be found within the city of Boston. The remaining charter schools tend to be found among existing nodes of school building density. III: Reality | 135

20 Miles

6.08 TOTAL ENROLMENT (UNIFIED): A districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total enrollment counts the total number of enrolled students (in every grade, in every district school) in a given year. Only P/K-12 (unified) school districts are included in this comparison. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Enrollment By Grade Report)

HIGH / BOSTON: 57,494 students (Boston)

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 4,539 students LOW: 722 students (Avon)

Total Enrolment (Unified)

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

TOTAL ENROLMENT (UNIFIED) It is clear how large Boston’s public school system is when it is compared to the other districts in the region. At over 57,000 students, Boston’s school district is four times larger than the next biggest district (Lynn) and over thirteen times larger than the metro average. We can see that larger districts tend to surround Boston and the smaller districts are among the furthest away. Districts like Lynn, Framingham, and Franklin act like miniature satellite cities with their own large school districts. To create a comparison based on equal terms, only unified districts (including all grades from P/K-12) are displayed. Data and calculations based on: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Enrollment By Grade Report)11 III: Reality | 137

20 Miles

6.09 BUDGET PER STUDENT: Per Pupil Expenditures are calculated by dividing a district's annual operating costs by its total pupil enrollment. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2009-10 Per Pupil Expenditures Report)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: $25,737 / student (Cambridge)

BOSTON: $16,666 / student

99th

50th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: $13,098 / student LOW: $9,743 / student (Wrentham)

Budget per Student

69,415 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

BUDGET PER STUDENT Too often considered an adequate measure of financial equity across districts, an analysis of a district’s budget per student raises more questions than it answers. Roughly speaking, the most centrally located districts seem to have the highest per student budgets, particularly the suburbs immediately northwest of Boston. What jumps out is Cambridge’s high or $25,737 per student, especially when compared to Wrentham’s low of $9,743 per student. Likewise, Boston’s per student budget is comfortably above average, nearly matching the per student budget of neighboring Brookline. But even the most cosmetic of comparisons between Boston’s schools and Brookline’s schools would suggest that Brookline has a lot more money at its disposal than Boston. Without examining the different spending challenges that each district engages (busing expenses, special education programs, teacher salaries), it is difficult to draw conclusions from per student budgets alone. III: Reality | 139

20 Miles

6.10 AVERAGE CLASS SIZE: Average Class Size is calculated by dividing the total number of students in classes by the total number of classes. Students taking multiple classes will be included in multiple class size averages. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Class Size by Gender and Selected Population Data Report)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 31.8 students (Scituate)

99th

50th AVERAGE DISTRICT: 20 students 88,228 students BOSTON: 17.6 students LOW: 15.2 students (Bedford)

Average Class Size

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

AVERAGE CLASS SIZE Class size alone is not a telling indicator of school district resources or performance. As a benchmark, the National Education Association states that a class size of less than 20 is ideal.12 Even within a single school, class sizes can vary greatly depending on the subject matter, degree of difficulty, age of the students, and learning abilities of the students. Conventionally speaking, small class sizes are best used for students with learning disabilities or behavioral problems; average class size is a less important criterion when classes are made up of non-problematic students.13 *Nahantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elementary school district (of only 235 students) represents an outlier (49 students per class) and was not included in the analysis. III: Reality | 141

20 Miles

6.11 STUDENTS PER COMPUTER: Indicates the number of students for every "modern" computer available for student use. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2009-10 Technology Report)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 6.4 students / computer (Burlington)

99th

50th BOSTON: 3.3 students / computer AVERAGE DISTRICT: 3.2 students / computer

LOW: 1.2 students / computer (Concord)

Students per Computer

67,762 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

STUDENTS PER COMPUTER Like the upkeep and image of school buildings themselves, a districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s student to computer ratio can be an assumed measure of a districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s financial prowess. The district of Concord has nearly reached one modern computer for every student. While this is good news for Concord students, the student to computer ratios are not radically different or segregated across the region (a good sign). But less important than the reported student to computer ratio is the less reported student access to said computers and the degree to which districts utilize and incorporate computers into their curriculum. III: Reality | 143

20 Miles

6.12 STUDENT TO TEACHER RATIO: The student to teacher ratio is determined by dividing the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total enrollment by the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total number of teachers. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Teacher Data Report)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 18.4 students / teacher (Acton)

99th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 13.9 students / teacher BOSTON: 13.2 students / teacher

50th

LOW: 9.8 students / teacher (Lincoln)

Student to Teacher Ratio

63,483 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

STUDENT TO TEACHER RATIO Like average class size, a district’s student to teacher ratio is often considered a critical indicator of the quality of a district’s teaching and learning environment. Student to teacher ratio speaks better to a district’s ability to provide individual attention to students than average class size. With a low of 9.8 students per teacher, the Lincoln school district (presumably) boasts of this statistic. But student to teacher ratio can be skewed by districts with large special education and English Language Learners populations, programs that devote more teachers to fewer students. Teachers devoted to these programs favorably increase a district’s student to teacher ratio, but can mask the higher student to teacher ratio that regular students experience. III: Reality | 145

20 Miles

6.13 AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY: Total teaching salaries, divided by the number of full-time equivalent teachers, equals the average teacher salary. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2009-10 Teacher Salaries Report)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: $92,058 (Sherborn)

99th 57,498 students

BOSTON: $84,894

50th AVERAGE DISTRICT: $69,304

LOW: $57,405 (Holbrook)

Average Teacher Salary

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY Always a contentious issue, teacher salaries are affected by varying levels of cost-of-living, supply and demand, and certification and educational requirements. A surface reading of the region’s average teacher salaries is less helpful than a more careful analysis that would control for differences such as cost-of-living. We can note the large difference between high and low salaries (a difference of $34,653), and that Boston’s average salary is quite a bit higher than the region’s average. III: Reality | 147

20 Miles

6.14 CHURN PERCENTAGE: The churn rate measures the number students transferring into or out of a public school or district throughout the course of a school year. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2011 Mobility Rate Report for All Students)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH / BOSTON: 21.2% (Boston)

99th

50th

AVERAGE: 7.6%

LOW: 2% (Dover)

Churn Percentage

57,494 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

CHURN PERCENTAGE A district’s churn rate counts the number of students transferring into or out of a public school or school district over a school year. There are positive and negative reasons for individual transfers, however, all transfers represent challenges to district administrators and teachers. With the availability of “choice” schools in Boston (charters, pilots, magnets, METCO, and regular public schools), private schools, and moving out of the district boundaries, 21.2% of Boston public school students transfer to a different school or transfer into or out of the district. That is one student out of every five. Perhaps more surprising, is the high percentage of churn in districts such as Canton, Everett, Lincoln, Manchester Essex, all of which have churn rates over 19%. An interesting alternative measurement would be the churn frequency experienced by the individual students within each district. III: Reality | 149

20 Miles

6.15 WHITE STUDENT PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percent of white student enrollment (white: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa). Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Enrollment By Race/Gender Report)

White Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 98.9% (Manchester Essex)

99th 17,596 students

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 78.1%

50th

BOSTON: 13.1% LOW: 8.3% (Chelsea)

White Student Percentage

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

WHITE STUDENT PERCENTAGE White students make up the vast majority of Greater Boston’s public schools, but there is a striking difference between the percentage of white students in perimeter districts compared to percentages found in the public schools of Boston and Chelsea. There are positive reasons for this; Boston is a diverse city enjoyed by whites and non-whites alike. But there are negative reasons for this difference too; so many of Boston’s suburbs and exurbs grew in reaction to the growing minority presence within the city of Boston (through racism, cultural biases, and a disproportionate ability to relocate). White student percentage indicates that Boston’s schools are dramatically non-white. In terms of diversity, this is a concern on its own. Also, there are far more white residents in Boston than white students in its schools. III: Reality | 151

20 Miles

6.16 MINORITY RESIDENT PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percent of non-white residents by block group (African American or Black, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, Multi-race, Non-Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> 80% minority residents 60% - 80% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% < 20% minority residents

Minority Resident Percentage

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

MINORITY RESIDENT PERCENTAGE Although one in four residents of Greater Boston is a minority, relatively few municipalities have significant minority populations. The city of Boston is now majority-minority, with 53% of its residents considered non-white. Chelsea and Lynn, both to Boston’s north, are also majority-minority communities.14 If trends continue, the region’s minority percentage will continue to increase as more immigrants choose to make Boston their home and fewer white residents stay in the Northeast. III: Reality | 153

20 Miles

6.17 MINORITY STUDENT PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percent of non-white student enrollment (African American or Black, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, Multi-race, Non-Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Enrollment By Race/Gender Report)

Minority Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 91.7% (Chelsea) BOSTON: 86.9%

99th

49,962 students

50th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 21.9%

LOW: 1.1% (Manchester Essex)

Minority Student Percentage

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

MINORITY STUDENT PERCENTAGE Public school districts tend to have a higher minority student percentage than their municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s minority resident percentage. This is because minorities attend public schools at higher rates than whites. For example, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential population is 53% minority,15 however its student population is 86.9%, almost a 34% increase in relative representation. What is clear from the map is how unevenly minority students are distributed across Greater Boston. And since the highest minority student percentages are found in the largest school districts, the real number of minority students spread across the region is even lower. But this is consistent with national figures. In 2004, 73% of African American students and 77% of Latino students attended majority-minority schools, compared to just 12% of whites.16 III: Reality | 155

20 Miles

6.18 SPECIAL EDUCATION PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percent of enrollment who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Class Size by Gender and Selected Population Data Report)

Special Education Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 22.8% (Salem)

99th 11,641 students

BOSTON: 18.5%

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 15.1%

LOW: 7.2% (Nahant)

50th

Special Education Percentage

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

SPECIAL EDUCATION PERCENTAGE A challenge for many districts, providing special education for the students who need it can be a strain on personnel, facilities, classroom atmosphere, and the budget. Often times, urban districts with larger and more diverse student body, have a higher percentage of special education students than surrounding districts. A bit surprisingly, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s percentage of special education students is just a little more than average, ranking 10th highest in the region. III: Reality | 157

20 Miles

6.19 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY: Indicates the percent of enrollment who are limited in English proficiency, defined as "a student whose first language is a language other than English who is unable to perform ordinary classroom work in English." Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Class Size by Gender and Selected Population Data Report)

Limited English Proficiency Students (Percentile Dist.) HIGH / BOSTON: 28.2% (Boston)

99th

16,213 students

50th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 3.7% LOW: 0% (Cohasset, Duxbury, Nahant, Norfolk)

Limited English Proficiency

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY Not surprisingly, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban school district has the highest percentage of students who struggle using English in the classroom. The spatial distribution of this statistic is clearly clustered in Boston and the communities immediately north of Boston. The difference between Boston and neighboring Brookline (to the west) and Milton (to the south) is especially apparent. Also interesting is how low the average is across the metro area. The distribution of limited English proficiency seems to be the inverse of the distribution of white students. The challenge of educating students who do not fully comprehend English falls most heavily on the Boston Public Schools, a burden unmatched by any other surrounding district. III: Reality | 159

20 Miles

6.20 FAMILIES IN POVERTY: Indicates the percent of families that are at or below the poverty rate by block group. Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> 50.9% 30.2% - 50.9% 15.3% - 30.2% 4.9% - 15.3% < 4.9%

Families in Poverty

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

FAMILIES IN POVERTY In 2011, the federal threshold for poverty was $22,350 for a family of four.17The majority of families in poverty are found in the city of Boston. More specifically, the Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester, Roxbury, the South End, and South Boston have the highest concentrations of families in poverty. In general, the highest concentrations of families in poverty can be associated with the areas of highest residential density. However, this map also shows that areas of low-density, well outside of Boston and its inner suburbs, also have a moderate levels of poverty. 30% of households headed by a single female are in poverty or just above it, compared to just 4% of married couple households.18 III: Reality | 161

20 Miles

6.21 LOW INCOME PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percent of enrollment who meet ANY ONE of the following definitions of Low-income: the student is eligible for free or reduced price lunch; the student receives Transitional Aid to Families benefits; the student is eligible for food stamps. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010-11 Selected Populations Report)

Low Income Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 81.9% (Chelsea)

99th

BOSTON: 73%

50th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 18.5% LOW: 1.1% (Littleton)

Low Income Percentage

46,574 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

LOW INCOME PERCENTAGE The percentage of low income students is heavily clustered in Boston and the communities immediately to the north. Across the entire region, 18.6% of students are considered low income. If distributed evenly across all the districts, 2/10 students would be a low income student. But since poverty is so heavily concentrated in relatively few districts, 8/10 students in Chelsea and Lynn and 7/10 students in Boston, Everett, Revere, and Somerville are considered low income. That is the large majority of their entire district. Schools have programs designed to help students and families in need of financial assistance. But for several districts, nearly the entire school community is in need of assistance. While most of Greater Boston’s students do not face the life challenges of poverty, low income students must deal with poverty in addition to school curriculum. Schools with high concentrations of low income students have lower levels of academic achievement across all students, regardless of socioeconomic status. Fewer highly qualified teachers, lower national test scores, higher dropout rates, lower college attendance rates are all more common among “poor” schools.19 III: Reality | 163

20 Miles

6.22 INCOME PER CAPITA: Income per capita is the amount of money that is earned per person by block group. Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> $87,200 $53,725 - 87,200 $36,500 - 53,725 $23,500 - 36,500 < $23,500

Income Per Capita

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

INCOME PER CAPTIA Metro Boston households earn an average of $69,000, significantly higher than the national average of $52,000.20 However, household income varies greatly across the metro region. The income “donut” is a wealth distribution theory that predicts alternating rings of wealth and poverty around most American cities, particularly older cities in the Northeast.21 Boston is a good example. Boston’s downtown is a core of concentrated wealth. Surrounding downtown, the rest of Boston and its adjacent communities to the north display the region’s largest belt of low income per capita. There are literally hundreds of contiguous urban blocks that have average per capita incomes below $23,500. For reference, the federal threshold for poverty in 2011 was $22,350 for a family of four.22 But immediately beyond this ring of low-income is a ring of high-income communities, particularly to the west. Brookline, Newton, Wellesley, Weston, Wayland, Lincoln and Concord. In the Greater Boston region, these names are synonymous with fantastic public schools. Over decades of urban migration, Boston’s wealth (and the quality of its schools) moved west into the suburbs. Incomes vary by race as well. Asian ($79,900) and White ($74,200) household median incomes are about twice that of Latinos ($38,500) and African Americans ($42,400).23 III: Reality | 165

20 Miles

6.23 GRADUATION PERCENTAGE: Indicates the percentage of students who graduate with a regular high school diploma within 4 years. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010 Graduation Rate Report for All Students)

Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 98.9% (Duxbury)

99th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 88.9%

50th

57,494 students

BOSTON: 63.2% LOW: 53.3% (Chelsea)

Graduation Percentage

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

GRADUATION PERCENTAGE On average, 88.8% of the region’s high school students graduated in four years. Of course, everyone would like to see a 100% graduation rate, but there is much worse than nearly 89%. In fact, Boston’s schools are much worse. Boston only graduates 63.2% of its students in four years, and the Chelsea school district barely graduates half of its students in four years, just 53.3%. The distribution of this demographic is troubling as well; the lowest graduation rates are experienced by Chelsea, Boston, and some of the communities immediately to the north. When a district consistently graduates only half of its students, the future prospects of its graduates will be much lower than a district graduating nearly 100% of its students. It is challenging enough to find a job with a high school diploma, let alone without one. If current trends continue, the region’s economy will face a shortage of workers with high school diplomas.24 III: Reality | 167

20 Miles

6.24 DROPOUT RATE: Dropouts are defined as students who leave school prior to graduation for reasons other than transfer to another school. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2010 Graduation Rate Report for All Students)

Minority Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 25.1% (Chelsea)

99th

57,494 students

BOSTON: 15.9% 50th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 5.0% LOW: 0% (Duxbury, Lynnfield, Medfield, Wellesley) 0

Dropout Rate

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

DROPOUT RATE The clustering of dropout rates across Greater Boston is remarkably intense. Boston, Chelsea, Somerville, Malden, Everett, and Revere blend into one giant dot of student drop outs. Clearly, there is a strong socio-spatial relationship between dropout rates and urban location. The dropout rates among Blacks and Latinos are over three times higher than the rate for Whites and Asians. Brookline, an exception, actually has lower dropout rates among its African American and Latino students than the district average. Aside from race, students in special education and English language learners are much more likely to dropout than other students. Students held back a grade are also much more likely to dropout.25 The prospects for students who choose to leave high school early are not promising. On average, dropouts earn 48% less money than those who have a high school diploma or greater. Studies have shown that male dropouts are fourty-seven times more likely to become incarcerated than males who earn a four-year college degree.26 III: Reality | 169

20 Miles

6.25 AVERAGE SAT SCORE: The SAT Performance reports provide SAT data (mean scores) at the district level and school level for selected populations as well as for all students. SAT Max. Score = 2400 | Section Max. Score = 800 Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2009-10 SAT Performance Report)

SAT Test-Taking Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 1894 SAT (Lexington)

99th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 1600 SAT

50th

2,517 students BOSTON: 1340 SAT LOW: 1271 SAT (Chelsea)

Average SAT Score

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

AVERAGE SAT SCORE While some districts concentrate on improving their graduation rates, other districts, concentrate on improving SAT scores and placement percentages into Ivy League colleges. Mirroring graduation rates, average SAT scores are distributed unevenly across the region. While the municipalities to Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s west enjoy the highest scores, once again, Boston, Chelsea, Everett, and Revere have the lowest average scores. Students in Lexington score an average of 1894 on the SAT, while students in Chelsea score an average of 1271, 623 points and 33% lower (for reference, Lexington students average 622 points on the reading section of the SAT alone). When students compete against one another for college and university acceptances, the average Boston and Chelsea student is overwhelmed by the odds (and scores) stacked against them. III: Reality | 171

20 Miles

6.26 MEDIAN HOME VALUE: The median home value is the price at which half the block groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homes are sold for more and half the block groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homes are sold for less. Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> $757,425 $495,600 - 757,425 $320,675 - 495,600 $152,260 - 320,675 < $152,260

Median Home Value

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

MEDIAN HOME VALUE Despite the national housing trouble, Boston’s real estate continues to remain highly priced and stable. In fact Greater Boston’s housing is now less affordable than it was before the national housing crisis. In the communities of Chelsea, Revere, Lynn, and Everett, more than half of the households pay greater than 30% of their income on housing.27 The price distribution of median home values is very similar to distribution of income per capita. Boston’s segregated housing market has shaped Boston’s segregated schools. Fair housing tests continue to show that racial discrimination still effects mortgage qualifications and rental agreements. The poor pay relatively more for property tax than the rich.28 III: Reality | 173

20 Miles

6.27 PLANS FOR COLLEGE (FOUR YEAR COLLEGE): Indicates high school graduates who intend to enroll in either a four-year public college or a four-year private college. Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2009-10 Plans of High School Graduates Report)

Graduating Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH: 100% (Malden)

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 75.11%

99th

50th 57,494 students

BOSTON: 51.2%

LOW: 29.7% (Chelsea)

Plans for College

6. Case Study: Comparing Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School Districts

PLANS FOR COLLEGE This map is another example socio-spatial segregation. In Chelsea, less than 30% of high school graduates even intend to attend a four-year college. Most districts average over 75%. In predominantly white school districts (75% white students or greater), a third of the students had plans to attend a four-year public college, compared to a quarter of the students in diverse districts (25% minority students or greater). Similarly, 43% of students attending majority-white schools planned on attending four-year private schools compared to 35% of students in diverse school districts. The trend is reversed for two-year public colleges; 20% of students in diverse schools planned to attend compared to just 10% of students in predominantly white schools. These numbers do not necessarily reflect college acceptance rates, only student plans and intensions. These figures are selfassessments by the students, reflecting the belief in their own educational potential.29 III: Reality | 175

20 Miles

6.28 FUTURE PLANS UNKNOWN: Indicates the post-graduate intentions of high school graduates who responded “unknown.” Source: Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (2009-10 Plans of High School Graduates Report)

Future Plans Unknown Students (Percentile Distribution) HIGH / BOSTON: 24.3% (Boston)

99th

50th

AVERAGE DISTRICT: 3.5% LOW: 0% (14 districts)

Future Plans Unknown

13,971 students

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

FUTURE PLANS UNKNOWN Among the most bleak and discouraging figures are the number of graduating students who have no plans for their future. Of the options available to students taking this survey were four-year private college, four-year public college, two-year public college, two-year private college, other post-secondary education, work, military, other, and unknown. This is troubling. It is not surprising that a lot of students don’t know what they want to do “for a living” right after high school, but not knowing what to pursue or where to go next is failure in high school preparation. The average district has very few students (3.5%) who have unknown plans, but nearly one out of every four Boston high school graduates is unsure of what will come next. Additionally, this percentage only includes high school students who graduate; Boston’s 24.3% does not even include the students who fail to graduate. III: Reality | 177

20 Miles

6.29 VIOLENT CRIME RATE: Sum of Violent Crimes - Murder, Rape, Robbery Aggravated Assault Rates per 100,000 Population. Source: MassGIS (Crime Statistics by Municipality â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dec. 2005)

> 972 incidents (per 100,000 people) 562 - 972 304 - 562 119 - 304 < 119 incidents (per 100,000 people)

Violent Crime Rate

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts

VIOLENT CRIME Here again, Boston stands out for the wrong reasons. Crime rates do not just effect individual victims, they eat away at trust, wellbeing, and social cohesion. Many women, seniors, and parents will simply not consider living in a neighborhood with a reputation of violence and crime. And for families already living in areas of crime, the fear of violence has been shown to limit the time children spend outdoors. “Crime is recognized as both a consequence and determinant of community socioeconomic status, with high crime rates creating conditions that may facilitate crime.”30 III: Reality | 179

An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

If we hope to improve public education, we must understand where it currently stands. There are a host of alternatives, modifications, and trends currently employed by school districts across the country. Each option has its own set of benefits, but even today’s “best practices” are limited (and ultimately undercut) by the same flawed system. As this chapter will demonstrate, today’s options only appease public education’s inequities instead of combatting them altogether. III: Reality | 181

Non-Segregated District

District Boundary School #1 [mixed student population] Attendance Zone #1 Neighborhood [mixed family population]

Neighborhood [mixed family population] School #2 [mixed student population] Attendance Zone #2

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Segregated District

District Boundary School #1 [predominantly white] Attendance Zone #1 Neighborhood [predominantly white]

Neighborhood [predominantly minority] School #2 [predominantly minority] Attendance Zone #2

III: Reality | 183

Voluntary Transfers

District Boundary School #1 [predominantly white] Attendance Zone #1 Neighborhood [predominantly white] Voluntary Transfer [white student]

Neighborhood [predominantly minority] School #2 [predominantly minority] Voluntary Transfer [minority student] Attendance Zone #2

A “majority-to-minority” voluntary transfer program allows any student to transfer between schools if the movement improves both schools’ racial balance.1 PRO’s  cost effective  no student is forced into transferring

CON’s  the majority of white students will not choose to transfer  transfers are limited by the number of available seats

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Attendance Rezoning

District Boundary Previous Division Attendance Zone #1 School #1 [integrated] Neighborhood [predominantly white]

Neighborhood [predominantly minority] School #2 [integrated] Attendance Zone #2

Contiguous attendance rezoning redraws the geographic attendance boundaries around district schools. A more balanced school population is achieved by capturing a more balanced mixture of neighborhoods.2 PRO’s  cost effective  students still attend a school that is relatively close

CON’s  creates winners and losers, those who can attend their familiar school and those who must attend a newly assigned school3 III: Reality | 185

Two-Way Busing

District Boundary School #1 [predominantly white] Attendance Zone #1 Neighborhood [predominantly white]

BUSING Neighborhood [predominantly minority] BUSING

School #2 [predominantly minority] Attendance Zone #2

Two-way busing breaks up segregated attendance zones by busing minorities into majoritywhite schools and by busing whites into majority-minority schools.4 PRO’s  can quickly desegregate schools  busing levels directly correspond to integration levels

CON’s  very controversial option  removes some students from their “neighborhood” school  in the long-term, mandatory two-way busing contributes to greater interdistrict segregation through “white flight”5

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Paired Schools

District Boundary

K-3

Attendance Zone

4-6

Primary School [integrated]

Neighborhood [predominantly white]

4-6

Neighborhood [predominantly minority] Elementary School [integrated]

A type of non-contiguous rezoning, pairing combines two or three schools of different racial compositions and reorganizes the grade structures of each school. Each school is assigned particular grade levels forcing all students within the same grades to share the same school.6 PRO’s  can quickly desegregate schools  does not create winners and losers - all students must change schools by grade level, not by attendance neighborhood

CON’s  very controversial option  removes some students from their “neighborhood” school for certain grades  in the long-term, pairing contributes to greater interdistrict segregation through “white flight” III: Reality | 187

Magnet School

District Boundary School #1 [predominantly white] Attendance Zone #1 Neighborhood [predominantly white] Voluntary Transfer [white student]

Magnet School [integrated] Neighborhood [predominantly minority] School #2 [predominantly minority] Voluntary Transfer [minority student] Attendance Zone #2

Magnet schools offer specialized curriculum or unique themes to attract students of all backgrounds and from all neighborhoods within a district. A type of school choice, magnet schools are only attended by students who apply.7 PRO’s  provides high-quality schools for urban students  attractive curriculum draws students of all racial and economic backgrounds  a voluntary option only for students who wish to attend

CON’s  attracts the best students away from regular public schools  limited seats prevent every student from attending  not a “neighborhood” school

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Controlled Choice

District Boundary

Average School [avg. student performance]

2nd

1 3

1 2

Attendance Zone

“Lucky” Student [assigned to 1st choice school]

3rd

3 1

Most Desired School [highest student performance]

1st

Least Desired School [worst student performance] “Unlucky” Student [assigned to 3rd choice school]

A mixture of both mandatory and voluntary attendance techniques, controlled choice allows parents to rank the schools they wish for their children to attend. A lottery is used to assign students to their ranked schools. Some lotteries consider race, and some lotteries consider distance from home to school.8 PRO’s  gives everyone a chance at attending their preferred school

CON’s  requires a lot of busing – expensive  some students attend their first choice (the best schools), but other students are stuck attending the worst schools in the district  not necessarily a “neighborhood” school III: Reality | 189

Limited Controlled Choice

District Boundary School #1 [90% minority students] Attendance Zone #1

Choice Transfer [minority student] “Failing” School

Attendance Zone #2 School #2 [80% minority students]

Attendance Zone [“failing” school]

Limited controlled choice gives options to parents whose students attend “failing” schools. Neighborhood schools are the default attendance method, but students who attend failing schools are allowed the option of attending a different school within the district, so long as space is available.9 PRO’s  allows parents to remove their children from “failing” schools

CON’s  the “failing” school is not fixed - some students still attend  students can only transfer to another school if there are empty seats

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Charter School

District Boundary School #1

Choice Transfer Student

Attendance Zone #1

Charter School

School #3 Attendance Zone #2 School #2

Attendance Zone #3

Charter schools are publicly funded schools operated by private companies. Most charter schools are free from the oversight of an elected school board and unrestricted by teachers unions. This gives charter schools greater latitude to offer unique curriculum, teaching methods, and teaching schedules.10 PRO’s  offer alternative teaching methods  gives families an alternative school choice  fewer bureaucratic limitations

CON’s  like any small business, many charter schools fail  charter schools draws public money away from conventional public schools  not all charter schools can serve students with disabilities  charter schools can increase student segregation11 III: Reality | 191

Student Vouchers

Suburban School

Parochial School

District Boundary School

-$ $

Attendance Zone

Suburban School

$ $ -$$$ $ Choice Transfer Charter School

-$ Private School

Vouchers are state certificates/cash payments that assist parents of public school children in sending their children to a public or private school of their choice instead of their normal public school. Vouchers can be made available to all parents (universal vouchers), parents whose students attend failing schools (under-performing vouchers), or parents who have low incomes (means-tested vouchers).12 PRO’s  gives families greater school choice  includes school outside of the public school system

CON’s  does not desegregate student populations – can fund further “white flight”  diverts public money away from the public system  cannot cover the cost of most private school tuition

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Private School

District Boundary School #1

$ Attendance Zone #1

$ $

Private Tuition Student Private School

$ $ School #3

Attendance Zone #2 School #2

Attendance Zone #3

Private schools are privately operated and funded by the tuition of accepted students. PRO’s  a form of school choice  can offer controlled academic settings  can provide the best facilities and amenities

CON’s  financially unobtainable for many families  segregates out the poor – and more minorities as a result  can concentrate “like” students III: Reality | 193

One-Way Busing Interdistrict

District Boundary

One-Way Busing [Urban to Suburban] Non-Participating Suburban School District

Urban School District [85% minority students] Suburban School District [10% minority students]

Suburban School District [1.5% minority students]

Suburban School District [5% minority students]

One-way busing voluntarily transports minority students from majority-minority districts to participating majority-white school districts.13 PRO’s  a cost-effective desegregation option  voluntary option that forces no one to move unwillingly  adds diversity to suburban schools

CON’s  removes some of the best students from urban schools  does not desegregate urban schools  cannot provide enough seats for all the minority students who wish to participate

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Magnet School Interdistrict

District Boundary Voluntary Transfer [white student from suburban district]

Voluntary Transfer [minority student from urban district]

Urban School [85% minority students]

Suburban School District [5% minority students]

Interdistrict magnet schools offer specialized curriculum to attract students from the entire metro region (as long as they belong to a participating school district). A type of school choice, magnet schools are only attended by students who apply.14 PRO’s  provides high-quality school options for urban and suburban students  attractive curriculum draws students of all racial and economic backgrounds  a voluntary option only for students who wish to attend

CON’s  in majority-minority settings, magnet schools have difficulty drawing in white suburban students  limited seats prevent every urban student from attending  not a “neighborhood” school III: Reality | 195

Controlled Choice Interdistrict

District Boundary Non-Participating Suburban School District

Urban School District

Suburban School District Urban-toSuburban Controlled Choice Transfer

Urban-to-Uban Controlled Choice Transfer Suburban-toUban Controlled Choice Transfer Suburban-toSuburban Controlled Choice Transfer

Interdistrict controlled choice allows parents to rank their favorite public school, including the public schools of near-by districts.15 PRO’s  gives more school/district choices to parents  adds diversity to districts who accept incoming students

CON’s  does not offer an incentive for most suburban students to attend urban schools  limited by empty seats in participating districts  does not give everyone their preferred choice

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options

Two-Way Busing Interdistrict

District Boundary

Suburban School [20% minority students]

Neighborhood [85% minority students] Neighborhood [10% minority students] Urban School [50% minority students]

Two-Way Busing [mandatory]

Interdistrict two-way busing transports students across district lines to break up municipallysegregated populations. Interdistrict two-way busing is the closest thing to a metropolitan school district short of combining all school districts into one.16 PRO’s  can overcome deeply engrained urban segregation  makes desegregation impossible to escape – white flight would require moving to another city  busing levels directly correspond to integration levels

CON’s  very controversial and politically unfeasible  requires lots of busing – expensive  forces some students to leave the “neighborhood” school

III: Reality | 197

Case Study: Boston Public Schools

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

Boston’s public school district is one of the most highly regarded large urban school districts in the entire country, but at the same time, Boston’s is among the worst performing districts in the Greater Boston region. Boston’s schools compare favorably to schools hundreds and thousands of miles away, but compare dismally to schools just a few miles or even just a few blocks away. A closer look at Boston’s school district (its schools, its student population, and the demographics of the immediate urban region) reveals the challenges that are concentrated within Boston’s city limits. III: Reality | 199

8.01 Superintendent Dr. Carol Johnson

8.02 Mayor Thomas Menino

8.03 Governor Deval Patrick

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS: TODAY In 2007, Dr. Carol Johnson become Boston’s new (and current) superintendent. Previously the superintendent of Memphis and Minneapolis, Johnson spent her first 100 days touring Boston’s schools and neighborhoods listening to the community’s concerns.1 Johnson developed a five-year (2009-2014) “Acceleration Agenda” to build upon the district’s recent improvements under Superintendent Payzant:  All students should achieve “proficiency” or greater in the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) reading and math exams.  The “access gap” to academic programs and classes, which are unavailable in many schools, must be closed (AP courses, arts programs, athletics, etc.).  The achievement gaps between races, genders, English Language Learners, and special needs students must be diminished.  All graduates from high school should be prepared for college.2 Johnson set lofty goals by Boston’s standards; these goals, however, barely qualify as “average” by the standards of most suburban school districts. In response to the 2008-2010 economic recession, the stimulus package passed by Congress granted $100 billion to states to save teaching positions, primarily at public schools. Boston received $21 which helped prevent layoffs in the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years.3 At the same time, the Obama administration introduced Race to the Top, a $4.35 billion federal program aimed at sparking innovation in education. The program works by awarding federal grants to states that adopt a “Common Core” of English and mathematics skills, use rigorous school evaluations, and generate plans to turn around the worst performing schools.4 Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick introduced an education reform bill targeted at the education achievement gap; the bill encourages the formation of “Innovation Schools” that can employ the same experimental freedoms that charter schools and pilot schools use.5 Patrick’s 2010 Act to Reduce the Achievement Gap competed for Race to the Top grant money with a proposal that doubled the spending cap for charter schools, required underperforming schools to “turnaround” III: Reality | 201

BPS 2011 Budget ($821,382,404)

Employee Benefits ($125,230,397)

General Administration ($24,317,979)

3.0%

Transportation ($77,527,287)

Physical Plant ($54,994,076) Safety ($4,525,742) Student/School Support Services ($47,835,064)

Regular Education ($267,667,498)

15%

9.4%

32%

6.7% .6%

5.8% 5.5%

21% Special Education ($174,482,867)

English Language Learners ($45,287,929) Career & Tech. Education ($4,982,185)

.6%

8.04 Source: BPS Communications Office

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

much of its staff and its principal, and proposed a “Fresh Start” program that would entirely replace the teaching staffs of Massachusetts’s worst performing schools.6 The Boston’s Teachers Union (BTU) did not approve of the Governor’s proposal. Increasing the number of charter schools increases the number of non-unionized teachers. In response to the “turnaround” and “Fresh Start” proposals, BTU President Richard Stutman said, “I don’t think you have a fair chance of improving a school by brooming out more than half the people and starting over…I find it insulting and counterproductive.”7 Teacher wages is another ongoing other issue that have pitted the BTU against state and city school leaders.8 In 2010, the BTU opened its own pilot school to demonstrate that unionized teachers are also capable of education reform efforts.9 In 2010, a Northeastern University study found the school districts of Boston and Springfield to have the most racially segregated schools in the state.10 In 1940, Boston held 23,000 African Americans, just 3% of the city’s population.11 Today 53% of Boston’s residents are ethnic minorities: 24% are black, 17% are Hispanic, and 9% are Asian.12 Although 47% of Boston’s residents are white, just 13% of the Boston’s public school students are white.13

III: Reality | 203

Boston’s School Buildings

Boston Public School (BPS) Pilot School (BPS) Special Education School (BPS) Collaborative Program School Charter School (Public) Private School N

4 Miles

8.05 Source: MassGIS (Schools – Nov. 2010)

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Schools (134 school)

Exam Schools: (3 schools) 7-12 Middle & High Schools: (2 schools) 6-12 Middle Schools: (10 schools) 6-8

Pilot Schools Spec. Education Schools Alternative/ At-Risk Program

High Schools (29 schools) 9-12

Elementary High School (8 schools) K-12

Elementary & Middle Schools: (23 schools) K-8

Early Learning Centers (6 school) K-1

Elementary Schools (53 school) K-5

8.06 Source: BPS Communications Office

III: Reality | 205

Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School-Age Children (75,100)

Do Not Attend Boston Public Schools (18,040 students)

Attend Boston Public Schools (57,060 students)

24%

76%

8.07 Source: BPS Communications Office

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

Alternatives to Boston Public Schools 1%

Home School (470 students)

Spec. Education (non-BPS) (470 students)

METCO (Suburban Schools) (3,080 students)

17%

32%

Parochial Schools (5,790 students)

21% Attend Private Schools (3,770 students)

26%

Public Charter Schools (4,730 students)

8.08 Source: BPS Communications Office

III: Reality | 207

METCO N

20 Miles

41 82

167 37

85 30

116

113 257 93

98 179

64 160

130

420 20

294

-3,245

156 58

141

40 44

39 58

-3,245

6 - 420

BOSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT: Number of students in METCO

METCO

8.09 Source: Massachusetts Department of Education (SY 2004-2005)

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

METCO METCO (Metropolitan Council for Economic Opportunity) was established in 1966 as a voluntary desegregation effort.14 It is a state-funded grant program that allows students of color within the Boston school district to attend the schools of a participating suburban district. In the 20042005 school year, 3,245 minority students voluntarily left Boston’s schools to attend one of 32 different suburban school districts. METCO is a highly desired program for Boston students, with an active waitlist between 10-15,000 students.15 The program has an overwhelmingly positive academic impact on those who participate, including a 90% college acceptance rate. Nearly half of Boston’s African American students would leave the Boston school district to attend METCO if the space was available. The majoritywhite setting of suburban schools better reflect the working world. Suburban schools provide more homework, offer greater college preparation, and expose urban minorities to a more affluent student body, increasing participants’ social capital.16 But is METCO’s success a credit of its program and suburban school participation, or is it an incitement of the gross disparities that continue to exist which METCO only appeases? METCO’s “solution” to urban school district inadequacy is to remove a small number of students from the problem, only aggravating the problem itself. At the level of the individual, METCO is a terrific opportunity, but at the level of an urban region, METCO only aggravates existing disparities; suburban school districts import diversity; Boston’s school district exports some of its most determined students. Without a better alternative, METCO is a contemporary example of state-sponsored “black flight.” III: Reality | 209

Boston Students Who Attend BPS (57,050)

Other/Multi(180 students)

Asian (722 students)

White (6,675 students)

9% 13%

Hispanic (2,345 students)

41%

36% Black (8,298 students)

8.10 Source: BPS Communications Office

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

Boston Students Who Do Not Attend BPS (18,040)

Other/Multi(180 students)

4% Asian (722 students)

Hispanic (2,345 students)

13% White (6,675 students)

37% 46% Black (8,298 students)

8.11 Source: BPS Communications Office

III: Reality | 211

School District Zones Charlestown East Boston Downtown Alston/Brighton Back Bay

NORTH Mission Hill

South Boston South End

Roxbury

CIRCLE OF PROMISE

Jamaica Plain Dorchester

EAST

WEST

Roslindale Mattapan

West Roxbury

Hyde Park

8.12 Source: BPS Strategic Planning, BPS Student Assignment Policy

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

STUDENT ASSIGNMENT POLICIES The district is divided into three geographic zones: West, North, and East. Using a method of controlled choice, parents rank schools that are within their local zone or within walking distance of their address. Many schools are also available to all students citywide, regardless of zone or distance. A computer program combines parent preferences with other priorities to determine school assignments. Other priorities that are considered, in order of importance, are: 1. Sibling + Walk Zone 2. Sibling 3. Walk Zone (a priority for 50% of a school’s seats) 4. Random Number The priorities first attempt to let siblings attend the same school, then compose schools of neighborhood residents, and finally resort to randomized assignments. Students not assigned to their first choice can remain on a waitlist (up to three) even after the school year begins. Intradistrict transfers take place in designated batches in mid-November and late January.17 In 1999, the district stopped using student race as a criterion for school assignment.18 CIRCLE OF PROMISE The “Circle of Promise” is a collaborate plan that was initiated by Mayor Thomas Menino and Superintendent Carol Johnson in February or 2010. The circle encompasses five square miles of Roxbury, North Dorchester, and the South End and includes ten of Boston’s twelve lowest performing schools. The plan combines the efforts of 140 government agencies, community organizations, and nonprofits. Loosely modeled after the Harlem Children’s Zone, Circle of Promise helps deliver “wraparound” services from infancy through high school for families living within the circle’s boundaries. $27 million from the Boston Foundation helped establish the Opportunity Agenda which aims to deliver after school and summer school programs to the circle. $500,000 from the Obama administration is targeted at two high schools within the circle, declaring a miniature “war on poverty.”19 III: Reality | 213

BPS Demographics

Mild-Moderate Needs (6,132 students)

10.6% 8.4%

Special Education Students

19%

Low-Income Students

74%

English Language Learners

74% 45%

30%

Severe Special Needs (4,818 students)

Free & ReducedPrice Meals (42,217 students) Food Stamp Eligible (25,673 students)

Limited English Proficient (LEP) (16,960 students)

30%

8.13 Source: BPS Communications Office

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

BPS Demographics

Average SAT Score

1327

Writing

433

Reading

434

Writing 85% the state average Critical Reading 85% the state average

Mathematics

460

Mathematics 87.5% the state average Private Special Ed. Students $46,414 Severe Special Needs $30,007

Average Budget Per-Pupil

$14,524

Mod. Special Needs $19,118 ELL Student $13,241 Reg. Education Students $11,525

2011 BPS Enrollment

PK-12

9-12 18,050 students 32%

9-12 PK-5 6-8

PK-5 27,420 students 48% 6-8 11,580 students 20%

8.14 Source: BPS Communications Office

III: Reality | 215

8.15

Income Per Capita > $87,200 $53,725 - 87,200 $36,500 - 53,725 $23,500 - 36,500 < $23,500 School District Boarders

8.16

Minority Population < 20% 20% - 40% 40% - 60% 60% - 80% > 80% School District Boarders

8.17

Families in Poverty < 4.9% 4.9% - 15.3% 15.3% - 30.2% 30.2% - 50.9% > 50.9% No Data School District Boarders

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

8.18

Students Enrolled in Private School > 80% 60% - 80% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% < 20% No Data School District Boarders

8.19

Adults (25+) without High School Diploma or G.E.D. < 6.3% 6.3% - 14.7% 14.7% - 26.4% 26.4% - 41.8% > 41.8% No Data School District Boarders

8.20

Adults (25+) with Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Degree or Greater > 69% 49% - 69% 33% - 49% 18% - 33% < 18% No Data School District Boarders

III: Reality | 217

8.21

Population Density < 5,000 people / sq. mile 5,000 - 15,000 15,000 - 30,000 30,000 - 45,000 > 45,000 people / sq. mile School District Boarders

8.22

Average Household Size < 2 persons 2 - 2.43 2.43 - 2.85 2.85 - 3.45 > 3.45 persons No Data School District Boarders

8.23

Households with Public Assistance Income < 2% 2 - 6.5 6.5 - 13.5 13.5 - 25 > 25% No Data School District Boarders

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

8.24

Median Home Value > $757,425 $495,600 - 757,425 $320,675 - 495,600 $152,260 - 320,675 < $152,260 School District Boarders

8.25

Renter-Occupied Housing < 14.6% 14.6% - 32.8% 32.8% - 52.4% 52.4% - 74.3% > 74.3% No Data School District Boarders

8.26

Homes Less Than $300K < 14.8% 14.8% - 34% 34% - 55.2% 55.2% - 78.7% > 78.7% No Data School District Boarders

III: Reality | 219

All Demographic Maps Combined

BROOKLINE BOSTON

MILTON

8.27 Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools

This map overlays the twelve preceding demographic maps into one combined map. The areas of intense cyan (blue) and magenta (pink) represent areas that repeatedly demonstrate the extreme ends of individual demographic conditions. This combined map shows just how much municipal boarders define social, economic, and educational differences across urban areas. The border between Boston and northern Brookline stands out as an area of intense demographic contrast across a very small geographic distance. Similarly, Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s border with Milton stands out. It is only natural for differences to exist across urban regions, but even among man-made landscapes and political boundaries, there is something incredibly unnatural and artificial about the abrupt nature of such extreme and concentrated differences. America regards itself as the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s melting pot, but through its own political manifestations, America has drawn lines that limit greater levels of social cohesion. After examining the graphic differences of this map, it becomes easier to understand why Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s school district is so different from its immediate neighbors. III: Reality | 221

Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Paradox: Capitalism, Public Education, and Democracy

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

The United States suffers from a severe case of schizophrenia. Americans hold deep seated beliefs that are ultimately inconsistent. Capitalism, public education, and democracy are the three most important systems of American society. But each system requires the others to always be working. Within the compromised setting known as reality, the systems are at odds. Public education was created to prevent unfair political representation, but todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s democratic decision making has been co-opted by wealth. If the United States ever hopes to rebuild its system of education, it must shed its contradictions and create system relationships that acknowledge reality. III: Reality | 223

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF DISTRICT SEGREGATION Although Brown v. Board of Education focused on public education, the case was really an indictment of American society. Racially segregated schools were not just about separating black and white children; they were about economic dominance, political power, and white supremacy.1 For the first time since the abolishment of slavery, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the unjust paradox of “separate but equal.” It admitted that deeply ingrained social stigmas were responsible for continued inequalities, and that even if separate school systems could achieve equal conditions on paper, the very notion of separate treatment is unfair. “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”2 - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, 1954 A sweeping moral victory, Brown made it illegal for every school in the country to discriminate students by race. But Brown was a much weaker victory in action; the ruling made segregation an issue for each district to address, not all districts simultaneously. While school districts were ordered to break up their racially divided attendance zones, Brown did not specify how this should be done.3 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg ruled that mandatory busing could be used by districts to meet their legal desegregation requirements. Although mandatory busing was certainly a strong action for urban districts, it was weak solution overall because it did not apply to suburban districts with homogenous populations. 4 By the 1950’s, segregated residential patterns had already been established on the basis of both race and economic class. Civil rights laws finally made racial discrimination illegal, but this did not instantly undo decades of socioeconomic disadvantage. Protected by their lack of diversity, the suburban school districts avoided the issues of racial integration. Even after Civil Rights, the racist advantages that allowed the suburbs to become affluent

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

and white remained; suburban homes and schools could no longer deny entry to minorities, but real estate prices could.5 The Milliken v. Bradley ruling protected suburban districts from inter-district solutions; the court chose to value local district control over greater civic integration.6 Through the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, as urban districts struggled to equalize decades of institutionalized difference, urban whites chose to escape the issue as well. By and large, those who could afford to move did. And who could blame them. Parents wanted the best education for their children, and the homogeneous suburban school districts were never asked to face the same burdens as urban districts.7 As a result, suburban districts could offer advantaged schools, advantaged students, and advantaged families. Whites fled urban schools, cities lost affluent families, and the disadvantages faced by urban districts only became more concentrated. Today’s racial disparities now exist between districts and not within them.8 Brown and subsequent desegregation rulings had positive long-term effects in the South, but over time, the rulings lead to re-segregation in the North. Today, New York, Michigan, and Illinois have the three most segregated school systems in the country.9 Although racism has not been eradicated, it has been diminished. Federal courts in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s dealt with racial segregation and outlawed racist school district policies, but left uncorrected was the inherently discriminatory funding apparatus that continues educational segregation today. At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States is no longer torn apart by racism but by socioeconomic isolationism. State courts have tried to handle school finance disparities, but provincial loyalties and municipal competition have kept states from developing sound and equitable tax policies.10 The white middle-toupper-middle class voter is the most politically powerful group in America.11 Primarily located in the suburbs, it is this group which benefits most from the inequities of the current system. In a country that claims equal rights for all its citizens, how can such an unequal education system still exist? Why do local property taxes still make up half of every school district’s budget?12 The political, social, and economic reasons behind financially segregated schools must be acknowledged. An examination of these arguments reveals III: Reality | 225

how present-day advantages are used, kept, and sustained. In an act of democratic sabotage, the concepts of equity, fairness, and social harmony, are seen as threats to those who enjoy the status quo. It is time to challenge those who protect it. It is time for the status quo to be understood for what it truly is. THE POLITICAL REASONS FOR DISTRICT SEGREGATION Since the 1980’s, support for the notion of integrated education has hovered well above 90%.13 But in practice, affluent Americans have established political mechanisms that prevent broad levels of social integration from occurring. Decided by each municipality, “strict building codes, exclusionary zoning, minimum lot sizes, refusal to allow public or subsidized housing, banning apartment buildings, and so on” allow local voters to indirectly choose who is able to live in their town.14 Residential policies can become so specific that towns are able to legally “fine tune” the income range of their residents. Many restricted communities have used these tools to build “dams” around their local boarders, protecting them from the “rising tide of mediocrity” (quoted from A Nation at Risk).15 Despite supporting the notion of integrated education, residents in the suburbs are actually the least supportive of equal education reforms.16 Suburban residents are most afraid of losing their local decision making; only when equal education reforms are not put in direct competition with local control does suburban support for education reform rise.17 Smaller suburban communities can offer some families a sense of greater democratic participation and selfgovernance, but structurally speaking, local decision making and tax collection are what guarantee inequality across metropolitan regions.18 It is important for an urban region to have a range of community types and atmospheres; diversity of place makes cities accessible to greater segments of society. But when it comes to schools, no one wants a range of school quality; whether one lives in a wealthy exurb of giant single family homes or whether one lives in a tiny apartment in the city, every child needs a good school. Today, over half of the U.S. population lives in the suburbs, and an even greater percentage of voters live in

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

the suburbs.19 Because American democracy has moved away from a system of political leadership towards an institutionalized competition for taxpayer money, the suburbs continue to benefit from the current and favorable system of property-tax-based school financing. As long as the majority of a district’s budget is based on its local tax pool, real-estate weak districts will be challenged and real-estate rich districts will have an easier time financing their schools.20 “One of the frustrations of city leaders is the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mentality that many neighborhood residents express when proposals for new housing and public facilities arise...concerned about property values, traffic patterns, and “undesirable” populations, residents often reject reasonable proposals - and politicians concerned about reelection bow to their concerns.”21 In the 70’s, the constitutionality of property-tax-based education was challenged. Since equality of education is not guaranteed nationally, it was up to individual states to determine the degree to which property taxes should be used in district funding.22 Many states decided that some level of state aid should be given to districts with proportionally smaller tax pools.23 But the effectiveness of state aid was undercut by a concern over financial reform; affluent districts feared losing a percentage of their tax dollars towards the funding of other school districts. State aid, essentially a form of tax redistribution, was proposed as a method of bringing greater equality across a state’s schools, but it was interpreted as a threat to fiscal autonomy.24 Solipsism is defined as egocentricity to the point that other perspectives and concerns are inconceivable.25 This is the term that best describes today’s feeling towards taxes. As long as taxes directly benefit the tax payer, they are tolerable. If the benefits of taxes are subtle, indirect, or distributed to others, support plummets. Politicians at the local level feel the greatest pressure; they are elected on the premise that they will bring tax money back to local constituents, even at the expense of neighboring municipalities. “Capital mobility,” the movement of jobs, residents, and business to other towns, is a threat to local politicians.26 Anything that “redistributes” capital outside of the municipality is a political failure.27 For these reasons, III: Reality | 227

state congressmen feel the need to protect their loyalties (and their job) by catering to their own constituents even at the expense of the state’s greater welbeing. “Because Americans typically do not live in integrated neighborhoods, our educational institutions will be segregated to the extent that they reflect our housing patterns. Municipal and school district boundaries function rather effectively as racial and economic sorting mechanisms, and abandoning efforts to overcome those sorting processes necessarily yields greater school segregation.”28 The premise and belief in local control is so strong because “academically concerned” communities claim that they can create an educational environment that is best suited to their own children. What goes unmentioned are all the educationally significant ways that local autonomy has been diminished. Since the 50’s, student assignments, spending, curriculum, testing, staffing, and teacher hiring have been compromised or forfeit at the local level.29 For better or worse, federal and state policies have largely standardized these educational criteria from district to district. This diminishes the argument that local school control comes from purely academic concerns. Undeniable is the degree to which local autonomy guarantees advantageous conditions for affluent communities; lower taxes, greater resource efficiency, superior facilities, desirable teaching positions, and economic competitiveness are all advantages of school district resource inequality.30 These reasons, based in competitive advantage and personal benefit, are the true arguing points for local control. It must be recognized that today’s system of public education is not helping to diminish unfair political advantages; instead, it is only making them stronger. THE SOCIAL REASONS FOR DISTRICT SEGREGATION When asked, the average American will proudly affirm the social importance of public schools. In survey after survey, Americans claim to support desegregation, integration, and social diversity within their schools. Sadly, today’s public schools do not reflect the rosy picture that public surveys would suggest. A 1999 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll showed that 93%

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

of Americans believe that schools should teach “acceptance of people of different races and ethnic backgrounds.” In the same survey, 71% said that schools should also teach “acceptance of people who hold unpopular or controversial political or social views.”31 What a positive message. Teaching acceptance of difference is one thing, but practicing it is another. American schools are more selfsimilar than ever. Districts with diversity exist, but they are surrounded and outnumbered by districts of homogeneity.32 In 1961, just 63% of Americans approved of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. By 1994, approval had improved to 87%.33 And nearly 20 years later, one can assume that public approval would reach at least 90%. But approving of a legal ruling and carrying out its social and moral intensions are two separate things. When desegregation plans were implemented in 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, the first response from many white families was to flee. At that time, there was a much higher level of accepted racism. Additionally, the Civil Rights movement created a great deal of social turbulence. Demonstrations, vandalism, and violence were seen across the country. Within the context of those decades, the contemporary observer can understand the knee-jerk desire to leave urban districts. But today, we benefit from hindsight. Americans are more tolerant than ever before and much more willing to accept and even embrace diversity. Right? Despite society’s claim of social progress, even in the 90’s and 2000’s, white flight still occurred when a district’s non-white student percentage reached approximately 20%. One in five students; that’s all it takes for the rate of white flight to skyrocket – and as districts transition from 20% to 50% minority students, the speed of white flight peaks.34 There are reasons why white families leave school districts at the same time as non-white families begin to increase. Despite public attitude surveys, racism does still effect our schools but in a much more subtle way than in the past. Overt racism, the kind that was responsible for violence and hate rallies, is considered unacceptable; elected officials and public policy can no longer stand on a foundation of overt racism. But a racist residue still exists; symbolic racism associates negative stereotypes and prejudices with certain ethnic groups. Many believe III: Reality | 229

that “black values,” “Asian values,” “Hispanic values,” and “white values” are not only different but have the potential poison one another.35 Everyone is aware of these racial stereotypes, both positive and negative, but when these stereotypes influence residential patterns and school district enrollment, it should be understood that race is still changing school outcomes. Even 60 years after Brown and with a multi-ethnic president in office, public education does not exist in a “post-racial society.”36 Many young Americans, particularly white Americans in homogenous suburbs, will be fortunate enough to grow up without ever experiencing acts of overt racism first hand. But what message are these same impressionable Americans being taught when majority-minority urban school districts have weaker academic results, staggering dropout rates, and more incidents of student violence and behavioral difficulties? Given the statistical associations with race and their own family’s avoidance of racially diverse districts, young Americans are still growing up with symbolic racism all around them. Schools are concentrated collections of young vulnerable minds. When the school acts as a model of social segregation, it should be no surprise that prejudicial attitudes continue into the future. This helps to explain why desegregation proposals are still fought (or more likely, never even suggested) today. History has shown us that mandatory integration plans, such as mandatory busing, create greater initial interracial exposure, but lead to even higher levels of segregation in the long run.37 Voluntary plans have become the only realistic hope for racial diversity. Voluntary plans that allow urbansuburban transfer students are supported by both white and minority families, however only a very small fraction of suburban/white parents would even consider sending their child to an urban school, particularly a predominantly black school. Voluntary plans end up adding diversity and interracial exposure to suburban districts, but provide urban districts with no reciprocal benefits. In fact, urban districts end up losing many of their best and most diligent students to the suburbs, removing positive influences from the city. Just like public attitude surveys, voluntary transfer policies are nice in principle, but lack the participation of suburban parents to make them truly effective.38

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

“Studies of juvenile delinquency and high school drop-out rates demonstrate that a child is better off in a good neighborhood and a troubled family than he or she is in a troubled neighborhood and a good family.”39 - Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference “Americans recognize that public schools are the heart of their communities. They are at least five times more likely to cite public schools than churches, hospitals, or libraries as their most important local institutions.”40 But if the “heart” of the community is broken, Americans tend to buy a new one instead of taking the effort to fix the one that is broken. An incredibly mobile society, the average family relocates every six years.41 Naturally, schools are one of the biggest reasons to move. Parents will often stay in a city until their first born child reaches kindergarten, at which time the family moves to a better performing and more attractive school district.42 Affluent families have the capacity to buy their way into a better community, neighborhood, and home. And when mobility is expected and built into the notion of the American dream, white families capable of choice are largely unwilling to accept becoming the minority within a public school. 2025% minority status tends to be the tipping point for white flight; a percentage that would still let whites hold the vast majority. This is the threshold at which there is a perceived loss of control, a challenge to an unquestioned cultural dominance, and a perceived decline in quality of student, teacher, and academic environment.43 But if racism was public education’s only problem, the United States would have already reached enough of a consensual tolerance to turn things around. As both overt and symbolic racism diminish, another prejudice rises; classism. In the same way many people assume certain stereotypes about ethnic groups, too many people assume certain stereotypes about social class. In 1954, the Supreme Court made it illegal to discriminate by race. But well into the 21st century, our public education still discriminates by income. Given America’s not so distant past, race and socioeconomic status are far too intertwined. The biggest reasons for continued social segregation in today’s schools are actually economic. Public education was created to prevent economic discrimination, but if that is ever to be realized, the economic motivations for school district segregation must be uncovered. III: Reality | 231

THE ECONOMIC REASONS FOR DISTRICT SEGREGATION In addition to the political and social reasons for school district segregation, the economic reasons are perhaps the most intractable. Building off the ideas of Marxism, in their book Schooling in Capitalist America: Education Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life (1976) economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis argue that U.S. schools produce inequity because the capitalist economy needs inequality to survive.44 Over the past 200 years, public education has changed in response to the capitalist demands of the economy job market. 76% of Americans consider it important for schools to “help people become economically self-sufficient.”45 But when the American economy includes jobs of such extreme difference (from millionaire CEO’s to minimum wage cashiers) does the American school system also need extreme differences in order to fill jobs at every level? This is a cynical understanding of the reasons behind school district inequity, but it is worth considering. The academic achievement gap between high and low income students is now twice as large as the achievement gap between black and white students.46 The black-white gap was consciously created through deliberate inequality. Even after slavery, America kept mechanisms of prejudice in place to keep that gap alive. The public school system no longer segregates educational opportunities on the basis of race, but as today’s growing achievement gap demonstrates, public schools have adopted a new method of segregation based on income. School district revenue is determined by local property taxes, local school boards, local housing market, and local political leaders.47 These are the local factors which can be modified and addressed by the local voter. But there are other factors that influence district revenue at a much larger scale. During the 80’s and 90’s, Reagan and Bush cut federal funding to urban programs by nearly 70%. Decades of state budget deficits have forced cutbacks to local governments. The global economic recession has affected tourism, spending, and the mortgage lending market. The ever-rising costs of pension plans, wages, and health care continue to demand greater public resources.48 Local

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

districts benefit or suffer from macro-level influences that are beyond the control of any local voter. At the whim of such large-scale influences, communities are often left with only one option for increasing district revenue: raising property tax rates. And of course, when a poor community raises its taxes, the financial burden is proportionally higher and the returns in revenue are proportionally smaller when compared to tax increases in wealthier communities.49 School districts were once funded entirely by local taxes.50 Through court battles in the 1970’s, most states found that funding based entirely upon local taxes was too unfair. State aid programs were created to “pad” or “soften” local differences.51 But 50% of today’s district funding still comes from local property taxes.52 Only in the most progressive states have supplemental aid programs that have been able to actually achieve the goal of district-todistrict funding parody. The urban school district of Boston, for example, has a per-pupil budget that is on par with its neighboring suburban districts and even above the average of the metropolitan area.53 Conventional funding strategies are based on the theory of horizontal equity – if students in every district receive equal funding, educational equity will be restored.54 By “funding-over” local differences, states can equalize per-pupil spending and achieve equity on paper. But this is a fallacy. If horizontal budget equity actually worked, it would mean that money is the only factor that contributes to differences in education. Of course, this is not true. Property tax revenue is just one difference that exists between poor and affluent school communities:  High-income families have proportionally more access and ability to use educational resources available to everyone.55  High-income infants and toddlers spend an extra 4.5 hours per week in “novel” places, such as parks, playgrounds, churches, and shopping centers when compared to low-income infants and toddlers. At preschool age, the difference is still 3.7 hours a week. This adds up to nearly 1,300 more hours of time spent by high-income 6 year olds in novel places versus their low-income peers.56  On average, low-income children spend 3 fewer hours per week talking with their parents when compared against high-income children.57 III: Reality | 233

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

 By age six, high-income children have spent 400 more hours of time on literacy activities than their low-income peers, an average difference of 1.5 hours per week.58 “Providing equal resources to unequal groups will never close the achievement gap. Instead, funding formulas must go beyond mere comparability to provide substantial funds in addition to leveling the playing field.”59

9.01 The Military-Industrial Complex The Education-Residential Complex

Title I (of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) is the largest funded program for aiding disadvantaged children. Its goal is to help “level the playing field,” assisting children with services that are too expensive for a weak tax base to provide. Title I’s funding formula attempts to equalize the amount of funding across various services, so that all necessary services are available to every child. But the premise of the funding formula is flawed. Adding services to students ill equipped to make the best use of them can waste time and money.60 A simple example of this is Nicholas Negroponte’s “One Laptop per Child” initiative which aimed to equip every child in the developing world with a $100 laptop. Negroponte’s theory was that the inability to afford the laptop was what prevented poor children from utilizing the laptop’s educational potential. But after a three-and-a-half year test, the poor students showed no academic improvement.61 Similarly, a six-year study of technology use in local public libraries showed that public computers actually contributed to growing the gap between affluent users and low-income users. Poor children used the computers to watch movies, spending less time on their academics. The money spent to “equalize” technology may have actually contributed to greater inequality.62 Title I targets the economically disadvantaged with $13 billion per year; it has the right intensions but the wrong strategies.63 No Child Left Behind also targets a specific group, directing “supplemental services” to children who attend failing schools.64 These programs acknowledge the fact that students should not be held responsible for their circumstances; whether it is parents in poverty or struggling schools, a disproportionate financial compensation should be directed towards the students in challenged circumstances. Again, this is the right intension, but it is not executed with the full financial commitment that is necessary to prove effective. III: Reality | 235

There are programs that operate with the same intensions but have proven much more successful thanks to the whole-hearted commitment with which they were carried out. “The ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] requires employers to supply extra resources to disabled workers so that their productivity better reflects their effort.”65 As a country, the United States decided that disabled Americans should not unduly suffer from their circumstances; instead, they should be disproportionately compensated to approach an equal life opportunity as those born without disabilities. In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act applied this same principal of disproportionate compensation and resource allocation to education.66 In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) realized that traditional special education programs had a segregating effect on disabled and non-disabled student populations. Through extra support and funding, IDEA encouraged the greater inclusion of disabled students within non-disabled curriculum.67 Today, every public school district is required to assist physically, mentally, and psychologically disabled students at substantial extra costs. In Boston for example, the average special education student costs $13,000 more per year to educate. Depending on the disability, some students can cost up to $45,000 per year more than a nondisabled student.68 As a society, Americans decided that citizens should not be punished for their inherent and uncontrollable differences. But in a complete contradiction of principals, Americans refuse to reform the basis of public school financing. School districts revenues are based on uncontrollable differences: property taxes. Instead of restructuring the financial formula, weak reforms have only supplemented the existing formula, applying a little make-up to hide the ugly disparities that exist beneath. Because supplemental aid programs like state aid and Title I have not produced equal academic results, many misguided researchers have concluded that there is no strong link between district funding and student performance.69 Most Americans are not ready to admit that equal funding is not the same as funding equality. “Well-funded school districts may be poor educational environments, but poorly funded districts will rarely be centers of excellence.”72

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

Professors Julian R. Betts and John E. Roemer define equal education opportunity as the following: “Roughly speaking, the equal opportunity policy is the value of the instrument that ensures that an agent’s expected value of the objective is a function only of his effort and not of his circumstances. Thus, educational finance, if it is to equalize opportunities for future earning capacity, should ensure that a young person’s expected wage will be a function only of his effort and not of his circumstances.”71 “I am asked to speak sometimes in towns like Princeton. I tell them, ‘If you don’t believe that money makes a difference, let your children go to school in Camden, Trade with our children - not beginning in high school. Start when they’re little, in the first or second grade.’ When I say this, people will not meet my eyes. They stare down at the floor...”70 - Principal, Camden High School, Camden, NJ Just like the ADA demands greater spending for disabled citizens to be included in the workplace, and just as IDEA demands greater spending to provide adequate and inclusive education for students with mental/physical/ psychological disabilities, the United States need to recognizes that students born into low-income environments face disproportionate challenges to their educational attainment. Through no fault of their own, low-income children need to be disproportionately compensated to make up for their disadvantaged environment. “Even where the urban-suburban spending differential has been erased, the far greater needs of inner-city public schools suggest that much more funding is required to reduce the gap in academic achievement.”73 Because America’s economic advantages are all too closely linked with race, studies have found just how much extra spending it would take to equalize opportunity across ethnicities. If overall education spending was kept constant, funding would be radically redistributed to African American students, increasing their per-pupil budgets by 1800% (18x). Of course this would dramatically reduce the money distributed to white students. If white student budgets were kept constant, African Americans would need 9x the level of funding ($293,000/student) for them to reach an equalized opportunity. This would increase average per-pupil spending to $34,500 per year.74 This study does not suggest III: Reality | 237

that African Americans are inherently more expensive to educate, it just emphasizes the financial effort it would take to allow today’s African American students to overcome the socioeconomic disadvantages faced by the average black American. The researchers are not advocating these spending levels, but using them to demonstrate that a policy of horizontal equity is woefully inadequate. “even though court battles on educational finance have typically centered on the goal of equalizing spending across schools, our analysis suggests that this alone will do little to equalize opportunity, especially across races...We estimate that full equalization of spending per pupil would increase the weekly earning of workers along the lower envelope by only $1.10 or about .2 percent.”75 Schools are indicators of a community’s health. When a school reaches a certain level of poverty, middle-class parents choose to leave the school and choose to leave the city. School children are the community’s next generation. When middle-class children are removed from the city, the city’s ability to maintain its middle class is diminished.76 Money cannot make up for bad parents, lack of motivation, or reckless behavior. But money, in the form of equitable financing, adequate school facilities, and interdistrict cooperation can make a difference for children born into circumstances beyond their control. “If we can bail out banks, automobile companies, major corporations, and the next-door neighbor, we can also provide a stimulus incentive for our failing urban schools.”77 As the wealthiest nation in the world, the United States has the ability to equitably finance its public schools, but it does not have the political will. As long as the holders of wealth refuse to look beyond their own picket fence, America’s middle-classs, America’s cities, and America’s public schools will remain inequitably disadvantaged. ATTEMPTS AT MEANINGFUL REFORM Today’s political, social, and economic factors make school district reform difficult, especially since these factors exist at multiple levels of government and society. But despite the entrenched system, some districts have attempted to make changes. Mayoral control is one strategy that a few urban school

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

districts have attempted to initiate. Mayoral control replaces the elected school board and assigns their power to the mayor and/or the mayor’s appointed committee. Mayoral control centralizes authority and decision making and holds a single person accountable for the district’s success or failure. This process de-democratizes public schools, by removing group consensus from the equation. But mayoral control is attempted only when confidence and effective leadership in the school board has been shattered.78 With mayoral leadership, school districts see a greater alignment in city budgets and school budgets; efforts can be coordinated instead of being carried out independently. Mayoral control was first seen in Boston in 1992, and allowed Boston’s mayor to appoint a school committee (accountable to the mayor) who then selected a new superintendent.79 In 2002, New York City allowed Mayor Bloomberg to assume control of the nation’s largest school district.80 In 2007, mayoral control let Mayor Fenty to install Michelle Rhee as chancellor of Washington, D.C.’s public schools. As chancellor, Rhee enacted bold and dramatic policies (for better or worse) that could never have happened with the school board in place.81 While mayoral control is less idealistically democratic than publicly elected school boards, the centralization of power is perhaps the only way that large urban districts can take sharp and clear changes in direction. But “power plays” such as mayoral control, are not easy to enact within democracies. Short of “regime change,” another school district strategy is called separation. Separation allows different points of view to exist simultaneously within the same district. Charter schools and pilot schools are two examples. Separation allows for a different school model to operate side-byside with the conventional school model. Charter schools are run by private companies and are not responsible to the superintendent and elected school board the way conventional schools are. But charter schools do follow state-wide standards and are made as an alternative option for district parents. In the sense that it allows differences in opinion to exist and lets parents choose (or vote) for their personal preference, separation is democratic. But separation strategies can also create competition and make coordination between differences difficult. By its definition, III: Reality | 239

separation is a strategy for challenged circumstances; it is not a perfect solution in itself.82 Mayoral control and separation strategies can only make changes within a single district; urban schools and students are still limited to what can be found within district boarders. A few somewhat recent attempts have been made at dissolving the rigid barriers that exist between districts. In 1985, a federal district judge took partial control of the Kansas City school district on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally segregated. Decades of white flight changed the city’s schools from three-quarters white to three-quarters minority, drastically reducing the tax pool in the process. The judge believed that attracting white suburban students into the district would be the only way to desegregate the schools. To achieve this, the judge ordered a multi-year $1.5 billion tax increase that would finance several new top-notch magnet schools. The strategy was based on the “if you build it, they will come” theory. The new schools and their amenities were built without regard to cost, and may have given Kansas City the most advanced stock of school buildings in the country. But despite the truly unique magnet programs, the exceptional school buildings, the lowest student-to-teacher ratios in the state, and the highest per-pupil budget in the country, suburban white enrollment temporarily peaked at 1,500 students, far short of the 10,000 students the judge had hoped for.83 The district’s scores did not see significant improvements either. By 1997, the program was considered a failure.84 Kansas City’s magnet improvement plan believed that the best schools could draw-in affluent white students. But the vast majority of white suburban residents found their adequate school buildings and majority-white setting more favorable. Even the best buildings and tremendous financial backing could not create a lure attractive enough to desegregate the district’s schools. But even after Kansas City’s failed attempt, the hope in magnet schools and interdistrict choice still exist. In 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Hartford’s racially isolated public schools were inherently unequal. Connecticut’s governor created a twenty-onemember panel of political leaders, educators, lawyers, and civil rights activists to recommend a desegregation strategy.

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

The panel’s plan was passed by the state legislation and now affects all of Connecticut’s major metropolitan areas. The adopted remedy proposed interdistrict magnet schools, charter schools, and both an interdistrict and intradistrict school choice program.85 Open Choice, is Connecticut’s combination of interdistrict and intradistrict controlled choice. It allows parents to rank their most desired schools, including schools in neighboring districts with available seats. This enables urban students to attend suburban school and vice versa.86 To further entice suburban students into urban schools, an extra $200 million was devoted to creating highquality interdistrict magnet schools particularly near urbansuburban boarders.87 A 2003 progress report showed promising results from the interdistrict magnet school program. When compared against the state average, schools of affluent communities, and schools of low-income communities, the interdistrict magnet schools were by far the most racially integrated school type (57% minority, 43% white). The interdistrict magnet schools were also the most economically integrated (37% of students were eligible for free/reduced lunch, compared to 66% in low-income schools, and just 1% in affluent schools). The interdistrict magnets also beat state averages in dropout rates, college prep course enrollment, and college attendance.88 Connecticut’s Open Choice, essentially a voluntary interdistrict choice program, and its interdistrict magnet school programs are not new concepts; they benefit, however, from state-wide support and a much broader financial backing. Broadening the support, including more districts in potential solutions, and making state-level interdistrict policies are the only ways that significant desegregation can occur. States readily accept the responsibility to administer the same test to every student in the state, but states are much too timid when it comes to matters of student segregation. Coordination across district lines, not just within them, is what states need to facilitate. Michigan Governor John Engler increased his state’s financial presence to diminish local differences. Michigan’s 1994 legislation, Our Kids Deserve Better, reduced school districts’ reliance on property taxes by 50%. The reduction in local property tax revenue was made up for by a state-wide III: Reality | 241

tax increase. This resulted in a 30% budget increase for the poorest school districts and only a 4% decrease in budget for the wealthiest schools.89 Just because towns want local control of their schools doesn’t mean the state should not intervene. The U.S. Constitution allows states to control issues of education.90 Without the state’s incorporation, individual municipalities would not have any political recognition at all. Because education is still a state issue, it is time that greater statewide funding strategies are adopted. SUGGESTIONS FOR ENDING DISTRICT SEGREGATION Although today’s political power has shifted away from urban centers to their surrounding suburbs, America’s dependence on its cities is undeniable. Even in the 18th Century, when over 90% of the country lived in rural areas, everyone relied on cities for trade, information, centralized resources.91 Of course today’s reliance is much greater. Even in a world of wireless fidelity, where information is available anywhere, the concentration of human capital and knowledge still happens in cities. Efficiency of resources alone, will one day demand that everyone contribute to the efficiency of cities.92 Turning one’s back to the problems of the city is digging a grave for tomorrow’s generation. “The American ideal of equality of opportunity meets its greatest challenge in the inner city. Even those who maintain that many individuals mired in inner-city poverty are there because of their own faults would have to acknowledge that many others - young children, to take just one obvious example - are innocent victims.”93 Schools can save cities. Schools can save countries. But first, Americans must save their schools. All of them. The past fifty years of education reform have made obvious improvements, but they are not enough. Since the 1960’s, student-to-teacher ratios have reduced by 1/3. Teachers are more highly educated than ever; over half have a master’s degree or greater. The average level of teacher retention and experience has increased as well. All of these improvements have been worthwhile, but they have not been cheap. Over the same period of time, per-pupil spending has tripled.94 The cost of education will no doubt continue to grow.

9. A Question of Will: A Challenge to Americans with Choice

Americans have shown that they are willing to spend money on education, but not on the public’s education. Too many Americans are unwilling to equitably share their wealth with the whole public, the public that exists beyond their own municipality’s political boarder. “The problem of poverty is the paramount problem of the city - from poverty flow all kinds of other social problems including education, public health, housing, and crime - and poverty itself results from the extreme isolation of certain groups from jobs and other opportunities.”95 Ironically, today’s Catholic schools are more racially integrated than America’s public schools.96 Hispanics who attend private schools, removed from the public system, are actually more likely to become politically active.97 Political activity was one of the sole reasons why public education was first created. The spirit, the urgency, and the necessary role of public education must be recaptured by the voters. Equality in education needs to be considered a civil right, not a financial privilege. “What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must be what the community wants for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; it destroys our democracy.”98 - John Dewey While one district builds a new football stadium, another district lays off its last art teacher. As one high school sends a dozen graduates onto Ivy League colleges, another high school sends a dozen dropouts into the state penitentiary. A common language of responsibility and goals must be developed, one that includes affluent and poor residents alike.99 Affluent America blames bad school districts on bad parents…but they lob these charges from the comforts of their high-achieving, high-income, and high-privilege school district.100 Experts continue to tell us that the only significant way to combat the district-to-district differences in education is to attack the divisions that keep them in place: the district boarders.101 Only by crossing the border (sympathetically, economically, and physically) can public education become truly public.

III: Reality | 243

IV:

Sch School

hool

10.

The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

America’s schools have been at their best when their architecture matches society’s needs and desires. In the Agrarian Age, singleroom schoolhouses were built where and when they were needed, giving young children the basic skills they needed. During the Industrial Age, school buildings became bigger and more complex to handle the huge growth in population and urban density. After WWII, spacious and easy-to-build modern schools provided America’s growing suburbs with open and day-lit classrooms. But conflicting priorities and outdated ideals have also produced and/or perpetuated buildings that fail to meet society’s needs. This chapter briefly traces the evolution of the American school building from Colonial times to the present. IV: Change | 247

The One-Room Schoolhouse | Late 18th – Mid. 19th Century In the first decades of independence (commonly known as the Jeffersonian Era), public schools attempted to reach every young American, no matter where they lived. The one-room schoolhouse could be placed within a city, town, rural village, or even the open frontier. Children traveled by foot, so schoolhouses needed to be placed within walking distance of families. When larger distances or larger populations demanded it, additional schoolhouses were built.1 Schoolhouses typically held between 50 and 100 students within a single room. A six-year curriculum accommodated children of different ages and abilities, teaching the basic skills needed for citizenship within a democracy: reading, writing, and arithmetic.2 A single teacher worked with one to four students at the same time, moving from group to group, teaching directly to each individual throughout the day. Being in the same room, students of all ages were exposed to all lessons; advanced students could pick up the material of the older students, moving up at their own pace and at the teacher’s discretion.3 In more urban areas, many schoolhouses evolved into the Lancastrian schools, named after the English educator Joseph Lancaster. In this model, a single teacher trained student monitors, each directly responsible for up to 10 students. This system therefore allowed one teacher with 50 monitors to teach a single class of 500 students.4 The Common School | Mid. 19th – Late 19th Century By the middle decades of the 1800’s, Horace Mann and the Common School movement had begun to influence school design. Rapid industrial growth, greater levels of urbanization, and a constant flow of new immigrants forced the public education system to adapt. New schools needed to assimilate different cultures and prepare the next generation for machine-based jobs.5 Mann helped to implement an 8-4 program: eight years of grammar school followed by an additional four years of secondary school (high school) for the academically advanced. Mann helped to build an appreciation for the liberal arts within school curriculum, adding sciences, foreign languages, arts, and physical education. Schools increased their programmatic responsibilities to educate the mind, body, and character of each student.6

10.01 One Room Schoolhouse

10.02 Lancastrian-Style School Early 1800’s

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10.03 / 10.04 First Fully-Graded School Boston Quincy School (1848)

10.05 Early Industrial School Bowditch School (1890) Edmund M. Wheelwright, architect

Boston’s Quincy Grammar School (1848) was the first fully-graded public school in the U.S.7 Common Era schools tended to be built in rapidly growing urban centers, typically a single symmetrical block, one or two stories high, with identical classrooms extending from a central corridor. Using the same logic as factories, schools of this era valued standardization, efficiency, and predictable plan-layouts to house hundreds of students, sometimes thousands, within a single building. Individual classes could reach 50-60 students each.8 Along with new stresses, industrialization also brought technological changes as well. Load-bearing brick walls, punched by tall, narrow windows, were internally framed with wood beams and floors. Mechanical and ventilation systems became integrated into school construction. Common schools were treated like a public utility and therefore only received minimal decoration.9 The Industrial Age School | Late 19th – Early 20th Century At the end of the 1800’s, growing health concerns lead to even greater standardization of school materials, construction, classroom layout, and building organization. Classrooms typically measured 32’ by 28’ with fixed rows of desks arranged perpendicularly to the exterior wall. High ceilings of 12-15’ were necessary to spread daylight into the room through the tall and narrow windows. Into the 1900’s, concrete began to replace wood, improving safety against fires, however the requirements for additional means of egress incase of a fire further systematized interior circulation patterns.10 With American society continuing to industrialize at full-speed, cities grew both in area and in density. Schools placed in less-dense settings were built as sprawling one-story buildings, while schools built in existing urban settings needed to rise to three and four stories to accommodate growing programs and student populations. Greater specialization within industrial jobs required greater specialization within schools; kindergartens, science labs, sewing-rooms, wood and metal shops, gymnasiums, large and small auditoriums, and cafeterias were increasingly becoming standard features within public schools. The junior high school (grades 7-8 or 7-9) emerged as places for IV: Change | 249

students transitioning into adolescence, some exiting public education at grade 9, others continuing to high school.11 New extracurricular activates demanded larger common spaces and athletic facilities such as sports fields, swimming pools, and spectator seating.12 Exam, Latin, and English schools (precursors to the contemporary magnet school) attracted highly qualified high school students of all races and city locations who shared a similar academic focus.13 In the 1860â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, the United States contained just 300 high schools, but by 1900, there were over 6,000 high schools across the country.14 As the program demands grew, societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regard for the Industrial Age school building grew as well. Beaux Arts expression and organization allowed schools to remain symmetrically stable while demonstrating hierarchy and civic monumentality. Modern plumbing, electrical wiring, lighting, and audio-visual equipment began to become more common in the classroom. Nonstructural walls allowed many schools to experiment, albeit conservatively, with re-configurable rooms and multi-use spaces.15 The advancements of the Industrial Age school coincided with the advancements of American society; the two allowed each other to succeed. Due to this success, the Industrial model school building would remain popular for several decades, even outliving its educational and architectural appropriateness. The Progressive Era and Modernism The Progressive Era began influencing American society and public education in the first decades of the 20th century. Progressive educators, most notably John Dewey and William James in the U.S., introduced new ideas that challenged the conformity, standardized models, and dictatorial teaching methods that had been engrained into public education and its buildings through decades of Industrial Age thinking.16 Industrial schools had allowed millions of students to receive an education, but it had done so by treating every student the same: an identical pile of raw materials that would be manipulated into the same finished product. Progressive educators believed in a child-centered model of education, a philosophy that assumes every child is a unique learner and therefore deserves a teaching program capable of responding to every individual.17

10.06 / 10.07 Industrial Age School Stephen A. Hayt Elementary School (1906) Dwight H. Perkins, architect

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

Progressive teaching methods included self-directed learning, activity-based learning, interdisciplinary learning, education of the whole child (mind, body, and character), and the encouragement of lifelong learning after leaving the school setting.18 The emergence of progressive education strategies coincided with the emergence of modernism within architecture and over several decades, progressive teaching methods were given newly designed spaces and building models by modern architects. Yet today, in the second decade of the 21st century and one hundred years after the original ideas emerged, progressive education practices and modern architecture principals are still challenges to much of the status quo; lecture-only teaching, rigidly configured classrooms, and daylight-starved buildings still have a large presence in American public education. Although thousands of early 20th century (and earlier) Beaux Arts school buildings are still used today, more recent school buildings (and modifications to older buildings) have been influenced by several waves of innovation and pedagogy throughout the 20th century.

10.08 / 10.09 Early Modern School Hillside Home School (1902) Frank Llyod Wright

The Early Modern School | 1900 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1930 Even during the â&#x20AC;&#x153;heydayâ&#x20AC;? of the Industrial Age Beaux Arts school building, the seeds of modern school architecture were being sewn. The Arts and Crafts movement influenced many American architects, most notably Frank Lloyd Wright, to reconsider scale, symmetry, and materials.27 More architecturally progressive schools had functionally driven plans that did not rely on symmetrical composition or classical proportions. The educational use of outdoor spaces and the relationship between classroom and exterior environment gained new importance within school organization. Some architects reconsidered the scale of the child, designing rooms with lower ceiling heights and newly proportioned furniture. Classrooms, which typically included fixed-in-place desks and seats, began to include moveable furniture; this simple change allowed different room configurations and different socio-spatial education models (i.e. group-based learning or round-table discussions) to emerge. Domestic elements such as fireplaces and bay windows began to make some schools feel less like industrial buildings and more like home. Building materials IV: Change | 251

10.10 Francis Parker (1837-1902) An educational egalitarian, Colonel Francis Parker believed that education, not economics, was what separated the social classes. Parker taught that “there is no reason why one child should study Latin and another be limited to the three R’s.”19 A shortcoming in education allows one to be exploited by others and alienated from society. Serving as the Superintendent of Schools in Quincy, Massachusetts, Parker had the opportunity to test many of his progressive education beliefs within his own schools. Parker removed “spellers, readers, and grammar textbooks” from the English language curriculum, which resulted in teaching students “words and sentences, not the alphabet.”20 Lessons from different subjects were integrated into a single curriculum, allowing students to use math, history, and reading skills simultaneously. Finally, Parker’s “Quincy System” was based on the belief that different children possess different abilities, attributes, and preferred learning styles; a philosophy that would influence progressive reformers in subsequent generations.21 10.11 John Dewey (1859-1952) America’s most prolific progressive education reformer, John Dewey published 40 books, 500 articles, and taught at multiple universities over a 60 year career. Trained in philosophy, Dewey objected to the “drill-and-recitation” practices that were so common (and still are) to public education during the Industrial Era. Dewey believed that students could only find true motivation from within, not from external rewards or punishments; education should therefore be based on the interests of each student, not on the prescribed facts found in a textbook. Dewey also stressed that education should connect students with real life experiences found in the real world. As a building, the school should become a democratic society in miniature.22

Progressive Era Educators

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10.12 Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) In 1919, Austrian philosopher and architect Rudolf Steiner founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, Germany. The Waldorf approach educates the “whole child” (spiritual, mental, psychological, and physical).23 Early childhood education does not include “academic subjects”; instead, young children are taught by example and then allowed to experiment, create, and explore sensory-medium on their own. Teachers “loop” with their students, staying with the same class for several years. Middle childhood incorporates “academics” through the arts, music, and other creative methods. Later childhood (adolescence) emphasizes conceptualization, abstraction, and ethical judgment. Academic subjects are allowed to exist on their own, independent of creative mediums, however the arts are still present as subjects of their own. Waldorf education also includes nature into every day’s curriculum.24 10.13 Maria Montessori (1870-1952) The first women to enter an Italian medical school, Maria Montessori reacted against her own experiences in conservative Italy and traditional schools to form a teaching method of her own. As a young doctor working with mentally retarded children, Montessori came to believe that retardation would be best treated pedagogically rather than medically. Montessori developed a teaching method that allowed her retarded students to pass the regular state exams. Her method was then applied to “normal” students and became so popular that over one hundred European schools were using the Montessori Method within just eight years.25 Based on the belief that students are “innately self-motivated,” Montessori teachers serve as organizers of the classroom environment, providing students with physical tools and objects that engage the five senses. Teachers present the problem, provide the object, and allow the child to find the solution themselves. Montessori teaching allows students to become self-directed, confident, and capable of working with children of different ages. Although Montessori’s teachings were well known among U.S. educators in the 1910’s and 20’s, Montessori schools have become popular only recently. It is estimated that the U.S. now has over 5,000 Montessori schools, almost all of which are privately operated.26 IV: Change | 253

also became more “comfortable” and naturally inspired; terra cotta, brick, and wood were used in more tactilely appropriate ways.28 The Modern Functionalist School | 1930 – 1945 The Modern movement in architecture began in earnest in 1920’s Europe. Modern architecture based itself on empirical evidence and social improvement. Buildings with everyday functions (homes, schools, offices, factories, and hospitals) were given forms calibrated by economy and efficiency.29 “Functionalist” schools emerged in Europe and the U.S. in the 1920’s and 30’s. Improving upon the conditions found in existing buildings, modern schools concerned themselves with the health of the student as well as their educational setting. The Open-Air School movement attempted to eradicate new and mild cases of tuberculosis within schoolaged children.30 These schools did so by harnessing the architectural solutions presented by modern design; large expanses of operable windows allowed indoor classrooms to be filled with sunlight and fresh air. Modern schools considered solar orientation and views towards nature much more than their Beaux Arts counterparts.31 Because classrooms demanded natural lighting and uninterrupted views towards the landscape, the orientation and organization of the entire school began to change. The pavilion- and finger-plan schools are typically one-story with single-loaded corridors that place classrooms on a single side. Corridor and classroom fingers are arranged parallel to each other, and separated by an outdoor space for exposure to sun and nature. The opposite of compact, finger-plan schools have an extremely high ratio of exterior wall to indoor area, a ratio that is acceptable in temperate climates but would prove problematic in the 1970’s within increased energy costs.32 Steel-reinforced concrete, exposed columns and beams, hanging curtain-walls, steel-framed windows, larger panes of glass, cantilevered overhangs, and flat roves helped give architects the technology and formal expression they desired. Longer and more exposed hallways also began to perform social roles, providing access to programmed outdoor-spaces and including places for less formal social interactions. Not surprisingly, modern schools arose in sites that had at least some outdoor space and exposure to light.33

10.14 / 10.15 Finger-Plan School Acalanes Union High School (1939) Franklin and Kump / Earnest J. Kump

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10.16 / 10.17 / 10.18 Courtyard-Plan School Underwood Elementary School (1957) Caudill Rowlett Scott

The Modern Postwar School | 1945 – 1960 Material rationing during WWII paused the construction of new school buildings in the United States. Following the war, the combination of reconstruction (in Europe) and the predicted “baby-boom” lead to a huge wave of new school construction.34 With a roaring economy, mature industries, large middle-class, and rising standards of living, this was perhaps the most exciting time for school architecture within the U.S. Design innovations from the 1930’s combined with new technology and production methods developed in WWII to create affordable school buildings that could suit both small and large student populations.35 Thanks to a growing societal need, economic advantages, and a reduced esthetic prejudice, postwar schools help advance modern architecture within the United States. Light-weight modern schools (steel, aluminum, and glass) did not last as long as the brick and stone schools of past generations, but America’s consumer-culture justified shorter building life spans considering the unpredictability that existed within society in general (i.e. ballooning birth rates, shifting urban growth patterns, greater social mobility).36 The School Construction Systems Development (SCSD), based in California, was one of the most notable efforts at promoting a streamlined approach to school design and construction. It’s research in school flexibility and prefabrication remains influential today.37 The spread of modern schools reflected the spread of middle-class families throughout American cities; suburbs became the home to most new school buildings. Horizontal, sprawling, and low in density, the modern school and the American suburb seemed perfectly suited for each other.38 Benefitting from generous tracts of unbuilt land, postwar schools took on new planning strategies that reflected three trends: cheap energy prices, a greater desire to interact with the outdoors, and shifting teaching practices. The courtyard-plan school surrounds a large exterior multiuse courtyard with classrooms.39 The campus-plan school combined several smaller buildings with exterior walkways to make a single school, most often found in warm climates where outdoor environments could be enjoyed year-round. Schools-within-schools emerged during this period, as a strategy to divide a larger school into separate zones of IV: Change | 255

sub-buildings by age.40 Similarly, the cluster-plan also breaks down the scale of an entire school by grouping (clustering) classrooms by age or by subject area (often called “houses”). The separate groups are connected to a shared zone of common programs and social spaces.41 The more innovative modern schools also implemented changes within the classroom. The open-classroom, connected/shared-classroom, and the slit-level-classroom were introduced into some U.S. schools during this time. Within each of these new rooms, the idea of a “flex” space, an unprogrammed or multi-programmed space used for group or individual work was introduced as an extension of the classroom. Flex spaces were either incorporated into or added-on to more conventional classrooms. Flexibility was also applied to school programs besides the classroom. By sharing some of the most expensive and soughtafter facilities, some public schools tried sharing (during certain hours) some portions of the building with the larger community. These schools attempted to gain community support (and tax-payer dollars) to deliver greater services to both the students and the local residents.42 The Civil Rights / Integration Era School | 1960 – 1980 America’s baby boom students began to tail off in the 1960’s, marking what would become a three-decade decline in student enrolments.43 As boomers left K-12 education, many architectural firms specializing in school design shifted their attention to facilities for higher education.44 The Civil Rights movement, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, generated social unrest, forced racial integration, and an increased concern over school safety. The nature of urban demographics and the limited extent of new laws meant that most suburban schools saw relatively few changes. Urban schools were the site of student integration and were therefore given architectural attention once again. Unfortunately, the architectural “solution” to the challenging social environment has left this era of school buildings with a bad reputation.45 The “windowless school” was introduced as a method of providing a safe and protected interior environment that could attempt to ignore the social strife that existed outside. The windowless school and the windowless classroom were “justified”

10.19 / 10.20 Cluster-Plan School Heathcote Elementary (1953) Perkins and Will

10.21 / 10.22 The “Windowless Classroom” Before and After Renovation

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10.23 / 10.24 / 10.25 Forum-Plan School Southside Junior High School (1969) Eliot Noyes

10.26 Open-Plan Teaching Space Royal Wanstead Junior School Bryan Westwood

on educational terms as ways of eliminating distractions from the educational environment. These schools undid the physical and psychological gains achieved by modern schools in the prior decades. Additionally, the argument of reduced distractions was undercut by experimental teaching methods that also emerged in the 1960’s. Team-teaching required classrooms to open up to one another, making the open-plan school more popular. One type, the loft-plan, organizes many separate school functions (different classes, different subject areas, different activity types) under one roof with far fewer dividing walls than most conventional schools.46 A less open arrangement, the forumplan, places classrooms around large multi-use / shared program space often two or more stories tall (essentially a programmed atrium) that was a combination of circulation space, social space, and programmed space.47 New school layouts were direct challenges to the traditional classroom; open layouts, movable partitions, video-based instruction, and carpeted floors all contributed to much less formal settings.48 Through the 1970’s, open schools and the “opening” of existing schools were widely implemented, so much so that they became impractical. A philosophy of self-directed and self-motivated students promoted spaces that allowed children to have greater choice in their setting. But class environments became so free that they made teaching difficult. Teachers and students had difficulty adjusting to the lack of formality and increased visual/acoustic distractions.49 By the late 70’s and through the 80’s, most open-plan schools were subdivided into traditionally sized classrooms with soundproof walls and often with no windows or connection to the outside.50 The 70’s raised additional challenges to school architecture. A greater interest in the environment and an oil/energy crisis demanded that many existing schools, especially the modern schools from the 40’s and 50’s that featured large expanses of single-pane glass windows, receive renovations. In many cases, glass windows were replaced with solid walls, reducing energy bills, but negatively impacting (if not destroying) the benefits of natural light and ventilation. The ineffective use of windows, in terms of energy combined with improved HVAC technology. Schools began to rely on centralized heating IV: Change | 257

and air-conditioning systems that work most efficiently when completely sealed off from the outside environment. The “hermetically-sealed school,” the antithesis of open-air schools, had emerged.51 The Contemporary School | 1980 – 2000’s The backlash against modern schools, designed in decades that enjoyed cheap and “limitless” energy, also extended to modern architecture. Schools in the 1970’s looked to regionalism and contextualism for esthetic inspiration.52 This trend continued into the 1980’s with Postmodernism. Postmodern schools recalled familiar school motifs and classical decoration elements that attempted to reconnect the new school building with its fictionalized traditions.53 This regression in architecture perfectly characterized the overall regression in society and public education. As student numbers continued to fall, many districts consolidated their students into fewer school buildings. And despite the growing need to modernize decadesold facilities, shrinking budgets and shrinking studentbases made it hard to justify even basic renovation efforts.54 Teaching pedagogy was consolidated as well. A conservative political atmosphere and the 1983 report Crisis in Education,55 lead to a “back-to-basics” campaign. Curriculum was reverted to the “core” subject areas and classrooms transitioned back to the rectangular box with teacher in front and students lined up in perfectly spaced rows of identical desks.56 For the first time in three decades, the 1990’s saw a significant increase in student enrollments,57 thanks to the children of the baby boomers known as the “Echo Boomers” or America’s “Generation Y.”58 Perhaps because of the increased need, perhaps because a less conservative atmosphere, or perhaps because of a growing faith in technological innovations, the new school buildings of the 90’s trended back to modern planning principals and architectural solutions, a trend that has continued into the 21st century with an added interest in “sustainability” and environmentally responsible school buildings. Once again, glass, transparency, daylight, and natural ventilation, key themes in the modern architecture of the 30’s and 40’s, has returned to the more progressives schools built in recent years.59

10.27 Postmodern School Desert View Elementary School (1988) Perkins and Will Partnership / Ralph Johnson

10.28 Contextual School Tenderloin Community School (1999) Esherick Homsey Dodge and Davis / Joseph Esherick and Jennifer Delvin

10.29 “Green” School Greenwich Academy Upper School (2002) Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) / Roger Duffy

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends

10.30 / 10.31 / 10.32 / 10.33 Transparent School Burr Street Elementary School (2004) Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) / Roger Duffy

IV: Change | 259

11.

The School: Built Ideologies

11. The School: Built Ideologies

The school building is both the physical and symbolic embodiment of public education, simultaneously experienced and remembered as both a building and a feeling. Public education is an ambitious attempt at joining two separate entities: the public and education. The stronger the link between the public and the pursuit of education, the stronger public education becomes. Similarly, when a school building fails to unite physical organization and symbolic messages, schools become weaker. The following chapter includes school buildings that unite a progressive social, political, or ideological agenda with an equally progressive built form. Every environment we build says something about our societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s priorities, and as these buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demonstrate, there should be no excuse for allowing our schools to become anything but the perfect forms of our social ideals. IV: Change | 261

11. The School: Built Ideologies

School for Public Health Open-Air School for the Healthy Child Jan Duiker Amsterdam, Netherlands 1928 Program / Pedagogy: Open-Air Primary School

At the beginning of the 20th century, doctors realized the health benefits of natural daylight and fresh air. Through modern architecture, sanatoriums were able to effectively treat young children suffering from tuberculosis. But sanatoriums did not provide them with an education. The Open-Air School movement helped solve this problem by building schools that could treat children with mild cases of TB within the academic environment.1 Architecture was once openly ambitious enough to take on the task of eradicating disease. Architecture attempted, and architecture succeeded. Jan Duiker, part of the Dutch New Movement, believed that architecture should have a social agenda towards the improved health and wellbeing of society.2 As a piece of architecture, the Open-Air School for the Healthy Child reads as a bold object, with dramatic lines, cantilevered corners, and exposed concrete structural elements. Duikerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health-driven school celebrates and brings attention to the power of architecture to serve societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most pressing needs.

11.01 (opposite) View from Courtyard Open-Air School 11.02 (top left) Exterior Patio Open-Air School 11.03 (right) Glazed Stairwell Open-Air School 11.04 (bottom left) Day-Lit Classroom Open-Air School

IV: Change | 263

N W

E S

Inside Out and Outside In The Open-Air School was designed to serve 240 students (boys and girls) with a kindergarten and seven classrooms, one room for each grade, 1-7. The school is designed to treat the physical and intellectual development of the child with equal weight, therefore environmental conditions needed to be appropriate for both a classroom and an openair health facility.3 The schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s diagonal orientation (relative to both its context and to the cardinal directions) allows it to receive the maximum amount of sun and air exposure. Enclosed classrooms occupy the east and west corners of the floor plates. Each classroom is a truncated square: the four largest sides are glazed from sill to ceiling while the smallest side serves as the roomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entrance and teaching wall. Every pair of classrooms shares a less-formal outdoor-classroom that points south to receive the most sun.4

11.05 Upper Level Plan Open-Air School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Architecture Worthy of its Program To allow natural ventilation even in the winter, special ceiling panels heat the concrete floors, keeping the rooms mildly and evenly heated with no draughts or blowing air.5

11.06 Cross Section Open-Air School

Diagonal lines of brightly painted exposed concrete further set the freestanding building apart from its neighbors. Exposed columns become progressively more slender as they move up the building’s floors. Tapered concrete beams help launch the viewer’s eye off the sharp cantilevered corners.6 Jan Duiker’s building is worthy of architectural recognition because its eye-catching lines are so critical to its ability to deliver a healthy educational environment to its users. The Open-Air School proves that society’s practical demands can inspire (and not stifle) compelling architecture. IV: Change | 265

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Creating a Second Home Crow Island School Eliel & Eero Saarinen with Perkins, Wheeler & Will Winnetka, Illinois 1940 Program / Pedagogy: Child-Scaled Elementary School

“It must be democratic. That above all is necessary. School must not create an illusion, otherwise children will fail in more mature life.”7 - A Letter to the Architects, Frances Presler, Director of Activities Sited by Architectural Record as the twelfth most influential building in the last one hundred years,8 the Crow Island School arrived in the United States just before the post-war school boom. A unique school that resulted from a unique collaboration, Crow Island was a decided shift in American school design. Not a “monument to the taxpayer” and not concerned with its own “architectural self-importance,” the school was designed from the classroom out, focusing on the needs and desires of its young students. Humanizing ornamental bricks, custom-designed furniture, cornerwrapping windows, reduced ceiling heights, and ageappropriate hallways made this school unique for its time. An intense pre-design research phase and an equally important user-feedback stage resulted in architectural innovations that would influence thousands of schools for decades to follow.9 .

11.07 (opposite) Main Entrance Crow Island School 11.08 (top right) Outdoor Classroom Crow Island School 11.09 (bottom right) Primary Play Terrace Crow Island School

IV: Change | 267

Shared Axis

Primary Axis

Elementary Axis Kindergarten

3 K

Modern Plan: Linear Axes “What evolved was a string of one-room schools, each unit containing a rectangular classroom, a workroom in the L extension with counter tops, sinks, gas jets for science experiments, and a small bathroom, accommodating ‘within one enclosure’ the varied requirements of [superintendent] Washburne’s educational philosophy.”10 (56) Crow Island School was designed in the 1930’s, a time when the Beaux Arts style and planning dominated most school buildings.11 Asymmetry and axial organization was much less common and allowed for future expansion without ruining the building’s organizational principals. Classrooms are linearly arranged by age, connecting to a central corridor that holds facilities used by the entire school.

11.10 Ground Floor Plan Crow Island School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Wood-Panneled Walls Built-In Lockers CLASSROOM Window Seats Window Wall OUTDOOR CLASSROOM UTILITY ROOM Toilet Room Storage Closet Corridor

1 2

4 3

6 7 8

Designing the “Perfect” Classroom “and as for the classrooms, they are, I think, as perfect as they could be made. A sure and deep understanding of youth and of the teacher’s way of working formed these theaters for becoming and unfolding which, unmarred by grown-ups affections or by recollections of outmoded disciplines, have captured so much of that friendly dignity, that serous joy in living and creating, which are among the beautiful attributes of childhood”12 – Joseph Hudnut, Architectural Forum

11.11 Typical Classroom Crow Island School

Designed from scratch, the L-shaped classrooms were made to be self-sufficient units, each one possessing an internal square classroom, an adjacent utility room, and a protected external classroom.13 Instead of standard 12’ ceilings, 9’ ceilings created an intimate and “homelike atmosphere” and saved enough cubic footage to afford the attached workroom for every class.14 IV: Change | 269

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Classroom | Grid | Replication

Munkegaard School Arne Jacobsen Copenhagen, Denmark 1957 Program / Pedagogy: Primary and Secondary School (ages 7-16)

Designed for Denmark’s post WWII student population, the Munkegaard School is a simple and logically-organized building. Arne Jacobsen sets up a gridded-mat of identical classrooms. When an exception (a program other than the identical classroom) is inserted into the grid, it becomes clearly formalized as an exception, disrupting the pattern and standing out. The building’s sawtooth roofs are inspired by modern factories, which deliver natural daylight in an efficient and controlled manner. Each classroom is treated as a home for its children, organized along orderly streets and complete with custom-designed furniture and semi-private terraces. A true example of “Gesmtkunstwerk,” Arne Jocobsen’s school is thoughtfully considered and designed at all scales: from building, to room, to furniture.

11.12 (opposite) Aerial View Munkegaard School 11.13 (right) Desk and Chair Arne Jacobsen, designer Munkegaard School 11.14 (top right) Two Classroom Courtyard Munkegaard School 11.15 (bottom right) Clerestory and Window Wall Munkegaard School

IV: Change | 271

A Grid for Equal Conditions The Munkegaard School’s modular layout is based on the dimensions of the two-classroom-plus-courtyard unit; this is the building block that sets the dimensions of the entire school. Every unit is autonomous from its neighbors, sharing just a few common programs elsewhere in the building. The rigid grid of classrooms, courtyards, and corridors is broken only once by the school’s auditorium, the single space where the entire school can gather at once. This break in the grid also marks the school’s entrance.15

11.16 Site Plan Munkegaard School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

The Identical Unit Each classroom is composed of the same three elements: a square classroom, an attached group workroom / cloakroom, and an exterior courtyard (shared by one other classroom). The classroom includes a window wall and clerestory, both facing south, bringing light into both the front and the back of the room. Openings in the workroom allow for cross-ventilation. The intimate courtyards act as an outdoor classroom, recess area, and common social space for each pair of classrooms.16

11.17 Classroom Plan Munkegaard School 11.18 Classroom Cross Section Munkegaard School

Each classroom takes advantage of the same design logic and site orientation so that the physical setting for learning is always at its most ideal; at the Munkegaard School, no classroom is better than another and no studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s setting is better than another. Each student also takes advantage of modern steel and plywood chairs and tables, custom designed by Arne Jacobsen.17 IV: Change | 273

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Problematic Architecture Hunstanton Secondary School Alison and Peter Smithson Hunstanton, England 1955 Program / Pedagogy: High School

“The building is an architectural thrill but a practical failure.”18 – RIBA Journal, 1997 The Hunstanton Secondary School, designed by Peter and Alison Smithson, is celebrated by architects for bringing New Brutalism (economic / multi-functional use of materials, exposed structural elements, lack of decoration) into greater recognition.19 The open competition to design the school was held in the late 1940’s, a period of food rationing and material shortages during WWII. To their surprise, Alison (age 21) and Peter (age 26) won the competition with a proposal focused on saving materials, minimizing circulation space, and developing a new modern aesthetic and formal agenda appropriate for the time.20 But what was gained in architectural innovation was lost in school-based building usage and functionality. While the school is still in use today, it has received extensive modifications. The school has continued due to its generic qualities and in spite of its specific “innovations.” For better or worse, Hunstanton Secondary School was designed to be a great piece of architecture instead of a great school.

11.19 (opposite) Facade and Water Tower Hunstanton Secondary School 11.20 (near right) Alison (Age 21) and Peter (Age 26) Smithson Hunstanton Secondary School 11.21 (far right) Interior Perspective Hunstanton Secondary School 11.22 (right) Overall Perspective Hunstanton Secondary School

IV: Change | 275

Area Devoted to Circulation

Steel Frame Floor Plan “Indeed, in that this building seems often to ignore the children for which it was built, it is hard to define it as architecture at all. It is a formalist structure which will please only the architects, and a small coterie concerned more with satisfying their personal design sense than with achieving a humanist, functional, architecture. It is likely to prove an expensive venture into a blind alley.”21 – Architects’ Journal, 1956 The planning module is based on standard steel beam sizes appropriate for classroom dimensions; classrooms fit perfectly but auxiliary program spaces are forced to negotiate with an uncompromising module.22 The classrooms are reached by stairs therefore eliminating the need for “unnecessary” corridors on the second level. This space-saving approach would later isolate classrooms from one another, making teacher-to-teacher collaboration difficult.23 Exposed concrete floors and ceilings, beautiful in their austerity, contribute to terrible acoustics that can rival the teacher.24

11.23 Second Level Plan Hunstanton Secondary School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

An Exercise in Utility and Reduction

11.24 (top) Window Detail Photo Hunstanton Secondary School 11.25 (top right) Window Detail Drawing Hunstanton Secondary School 11.26 (above) Classroom Interior Hunstanton Secondary School

“Tomorrow will inherit only space. Our ultimate responsibility is therefore the creation of noble space. Consider, therefore, the Hunstanton School as having two lives: an everyday life of teaching children, noise, furniture, and chalk dust, as equals with the building elements all of which add up the word ‘School’. And a secret life of pure space, the permanent built Form which will persist when School has given way to Museum or Warehouse, and which will continue to exist as idea even when the Built Form has long disappeared. It is through built form that the inherent nobility of man finds release.”25 - Peter Smithson, 1954 Great efforts were made by the Smithson’s to unite structure, window framing, and weatherproofing. The glazing details, seen above, were custom designed; glass panes were set between structural steel, helping to eliminate independent window frames. This saved material, initially, but lead to tremendous thermal bridging. The huge expanses of vision glass that contributed to the building’s modern image became environmental detriments, leaking heat in the winter, trapping heat in the spring and fall, and creating harsh and unbalanced lighting conditions throughout the classrooms.26

IV: Change | 277

11. The School: Built Ideologies

School Modeled After Society Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School Hans Scharoun Lünen, Germany 1958-1962 Program / Pedagogy: All-Girls Secondary School

The Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School was designed as a school to prepare and orient young-women to Germany’s post-WWII German society. A type of “associational school,” the building is meant to reflect the social relationships that exist in the real world, housing them in an ideal setting that lets students discover their own relationship with society.27 The physical scales of the school are the classroom (house), age-group school (neighborhood), and common programs (main street and community centers).28 The building’s unique plan and formal logic is an example of Organisches Bauen or the German Organic Building Movement. Architect Hans Scharoun is celebrated for his unconventional buildings, but the Geschwister-Scholl School does not simply mimic organic shapes; its layout is rigorously determined by both function and context. Scharoun believed that buildings need not follow arbitrary planning conventions. Instead, buildings should flow and grow naturally, from the inside out.29

11.27 (opposite) School Courtyard Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School 11.28 (near right) Typical Classroom Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School 11.29 (far right) Garden-Courty Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School 11.30 (right) Aerial View Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School

IV: Change | 279

Upper School (second level)

Lower School Middle School

Lower School, Middle School, Upper School The school is organized by age into three “neighborhoods.” The lower school is most adjacent to the main entrance and to the outside play area. The middle school’s classrooms are more tightly arranged along a double-loaded corridor; this school is more inward-focused for greater concentration and fewer distractions. The upper school is located on the second level. Its classrooms are arranged on a single-loaded corridor lit by north light, creating a tranquil area for individual contemplation.30 A central hall connects all three school neighborhoods, providing space and settings for spontaneous social encounters (a cluster of drinking fountains, multi-level seating, a milk bar). The central hall also connects the students to the library, common room, exterior courtyard, and assembly hall.31 The assembly hall, the school’s designated space for large gatherings, is organized in the round – “a nonhierarchical organization that works to democratize use of the space” and further prepare students for society and social participation outside.32

11.31 Ground Floor Plan Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Typical Classroom (Lower and Middle School)

11.32 Classroom Plan Geschwister-Scholl Secondary School

Each classroom (or “class-home”) consists of the same four elements: central classroom, vestibule, group room, and outdoor space.33 The central classroom and teaching area is a slightly rounded rectangle; it has an organizational axis, but is shaped for multiple desk arrangements including forward-facing, groupings, and circular / inward-facing. A continuous clerestory collects light from all sides, further enabling a flexible layout. The classroom’s vestibule is a utility area and transition space from the more public hallway to the more private classroom. The group room allows for small-group or individual activities that can still be monitored and connected to the main classroom. Windows look out to the south-facing courtyards (in the lower and middle school classrooms) and terraces (in the upper school classrooms). The semi-enclosed courtyards and terraces act as extensions of the classroom, with perimeter seating that accommodate group activities.34 IV: Change | 281

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Making Undefined Space Delft Montessori School Hermen Hertzberger Delft, Netherlands 1960-1966 (later additions) Program / Pedagogy: Montessori Elementary School

“The designer seems rather to fantasize that his buildings contain every possible provocation for clashes, which may subsequently be resolved through consultation in a more or less reasonable way…contested spaces”35 The Delft Montessori School is one of Herman Hertzberger’s finest buildings. A prolific architect of schools, Hertzberger is a thoughtful and socially conscious designer who understands how the physical manipulation of space can influence social behavior. Hertzberger has been described as a “dyed-in-the-wool egalitarian,” a designer determined to create environments that foster equality…not by treating every user the same, but by acknowledging difference and treating different users equally.36 The Montessori education philosophy recognizes differences in students too; not preferring those differences but accounting for them equally. Hertzberger’s Montessori School in Delft creates space for students of all needs and abilities. By breaking down the division between classroom and hallway, the Delft Montessori School creates new social and academic spaces that allow for user choice without resorting to an undifferentiated free plan.

11.33 (opposite) Aerial Photograph Delft Montessori School 11.34 (right) Exterior Patio Delft Montessori School 11.34 (far right) Interior Windows Delft Montessori School

IV: Change | 283

Hallway as Communal ‘Street’ “Corridors do not belong in schools…Completely eliminating corridors and adding corner areas, making the space suitable for communal use by diverse groups of pupils, created greater social cohesion and more places for smaller groups, while whole-class instruction could continue to take place in classrooms.” - Herman Hertzberger37 To Hertzberger, the conventional school corridor has the potential to become an urban street, a devise not just for public circulation but a devise that becomes a place in itself. By treating the “hall” as a “space” a range of programs can exist within a communal setting (from semi-private individual instruction to public group assemblies). Only by adding “extra,” “inefficient,” and “un-programmed” spaces can such a range of potential activities exist. By including nooks, steps, depressions, and window walls, small and large activities are allowed to take place without isolating them from the school’s greater community.38

11.36 Ground Floor Plan Delft Montessori School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Sectional Shifts and User-Defined Space

11.37 (above) Hallway Podium Delft Montessori School 11.38 (top right) Elevation Diagrams Sketches 11.39 (above right) Classroom Steps Delft Montessori School

Like many of Hertzberger’s schools, the Delft Montessori Schools defines spaces not in plan but in section. Open and connected plans unite different zones, while steps in elevation and shifts in section set the zones apart from one another. Within the middle of the communal street is a simple square podium, extruded up from the otherwise continuous floor. By “being in the way” the podium demands to be used, appropriated, and gathered around.39 It is intentionally unspecified in its function, allowing it to be “claimed” by different users at different times to perform a host of different tasks. “We therefore ensure that each school design includes a central square...to produce a single spatial entity. This becomes a space that everyone can use, space in which the different sections are confronted with one another in a natural way, thus merging with one another. What each contributing section relinquishes in terms of territorial claims is amply offset by the benefit of having a far larger collective area at their disposal, which provides scope for confrontation and meeting ‘others’. This reinforces the association with the city to such an extent that it is unlike to escape anyone’s attention.”- Herman Hertzberger40

IV: Change | 285

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Under a Single Roof Public School 219, Satellite Building Caudill, Rowlett & Scott Queens, New York, New York 1965 Program / Pedagogy: Non-Graded Primary School, School without Walls, Loft-Plan School

In the 1960’s, American schools were reconsidered; the desire for student-determined spaces, less formal spatial relationships, and more fluid teaching environments encouraged the “schools-without-walls” movement.41 Among the most notable of these schools is Caudill, Rowlett & Scott’s P.S. 219 in Queens, New York. The most defining feature of the school is its domed roof and its exposed structural ceiling. The large dome allows an uninterrupted floor plan beneath. Structurally and symbolically, the allencompassing roof is the most appropriate solution for this non-graded school.

11.40 (opposite) Interior View Public School 219 11.41 (top, near right) Teaching on the Stairs Public School 219 11.42 (top, far right) Exterior View Public School 219 11.43 (right) Dome Interior Public School 219

IV: Change | 287

One Room Schoolhouse Revisited The schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s single space is actually a composite of four different spaces. A large open-plan classroom area is the largest space. This column-free space is defined by a depression in the floor, subtly demarcating its territory without separating it from the rest of the building. Surrounding the classroom area are alternating sections of glass window walls and solid-walled rooms. These rooms are the most conventional spaces in an otherwise unconventional school. Toilets, remediation rooms, an observation room, and an office are located here. Located within the classroom area is the learning area, an enclosed gathering space with stepped seating to create an informal auditorium. Above the learning area, on the second level, is the library, used for small group teaching and independent study.42

11.44 Ground Floor Plan Public School 219

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Rebelling Against the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Squareâ&#x20AC;? Classroom

11.45 (above) Learning Area Public School 219 11.46 (top right) Informal Classroom Area Public School 219 11.47 (bottom right) Gathering on the Step Public School 219

Since PS 219 has no defined grades, every part of the school belongs to each student. The classroom area can be reconfigured on-the-fly. Storage cabinets and blackboards act as temporary patricians. Moveable desks and chairs are repositioned when as needed. Carpeted floors, pleated glass perimeter walls (to deflect noise), and special ceiling panels dampen the noise. The carpeted floor also encourages intimate and informal seating arrangements, especially on stepped depressions of the floor.43 IV: Change | 289

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Shrinking the Scale of School

Chicago Public School Small School Competition Winner, South Side Marble Fairbanks Chicago, Illinois 2001 (competition) Program / Pedagogy: Elementary School, Small Schools, Schools-within-Schools

“Bootstrapping describes a process of growth in which a small amount of energy triggers the evolution of a larger system. We believe a school building can act as a bootstrap for the growth of communities within a classroom, within the school itself, and within the neighborhood at large”44 – Marble Fairbanks Chicago’s public school design competition, “Big Shoulders, Small Schools,” sought creative proposals for large public schools with smaller and student-centered qualities. Schoolswithin-schools are single school buildings that are divided into smaller sub-schools, breaking down the building’s overall scale. The competition winner for Chicago’s South Side school site was the proposal by Marble Fairbanks; it successfully balances large school community and small school autonomy. The school for 800 elementary students is divided into four small schools, connected by shared facilities and a central “street.” Integrated into the landscape, the proposal features green roofs, wind-protected courtyards, over-hanging shading devices, and photo-voltaic panels.

11.48 (opposite) Competition Model Chicago Public School 11.49 Longitudinal Section Chicago Public School 11.50 Elevation Chicago Public School

IV: Change | 291

Small School #4

Small School #2

Interior Street

Small School #3

Small School #1

Level One

Level Two

Four Schools in One The single school building is divided into four “small schools” by age. An interior “street” runs the length of the lower level and connects to ramps which lead to each of the small schools. Pre-school, kindergarten, and shared programs are on the lower level. Classrooms and “generative spaces” are on the upper level. The generative spaces are large multiuse spaces located within each small school. They provide each small school with a place to gather and display their identity to the larger school.45 Exterior courtyards are bound within the classrooms and hallways of each small school. Between the small schools are semi-protected exterior spaces for outdoor activities. Because the weaving building is positioned in the middle of the site, the classroom wings can extend into the landscape if future additions are necessary.46

11.51 / 11.52 Level One / Level Two Plan Chicago Public School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Entrance Ramped Paths Interior Street Upper-Level Walkway

Streets and Ramps

11.53 Circulation Model Chicago Public School

Designed for complete accessibility (including physically disabled children), the school uses 1:20 ramps to connect levels and landscape elevation changes. A central â&#x20AC;&#x153;streetâ&#x20AC;? becomes the most public portion of the building. Accessible ramps connect the street to classrooms and entrances. Bound courtyards are located between the public street and the ring of classrooms; as students move throughout the day, they encircle their courtyard and define it through motion. An upper-level path connects the classrooms of each small school with administrative areas.47 IV: Change | 293

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Space Made by Students

Hellerup School Arkitema Copenhagen, Denmark 2002 Program / Pedagogy: Elementary School, Open-Plan

In 1993, Denmark passed one of the most progressive public school laws in recent history. Among other requirements, the law required that all subjects be taught to the â&#x20AC;&#x153;abilities, developmental level and potentialâ&#x20AC;? of the individual student.48 The newly required space for teaching needed to accommodate both large and small groups, team teaching, and modern audio-visual equipment. This rendered the traditional classroom inadequate, forcing most schools to renovate two or three classrooms into one single space.49 The Hellerup School is the flagship of the new Danish education teaching practices and standards. A newly built school, Hellerup was not forced to renovate existing conditions to meet new standards. Instead, the Hellerup School was designed to exceed the new legal standards and developed a new educational culture to match.

11.54 (opposite) Communal Activity Space Hellerup School 11.55 Exterior Elevation Hellerup School 11.56 Playground Hellerup School

IV: Change | 295

‘Home Area’ Replaces the Classroom Like all contemporary Danish schools, the 550 pupil Hellerup School has replaced the traditional 45-55 sq. meter classroom with much larger and more flexible spaces.50 Hellerup calls these spaces “Home Areas” which both a physical and emotional departure from the past. Each home area can accommodate 75-100 students within the same space, or use moveable partitions to make smaller group areas for 15-20 students. Additionally, corners, nooks, and steps provide areas for individual students to find their own space and perhaps a bit of privacy.51 Not only spatially flexible, the home areas also contain a range of building textures, materials, seating arrangements, table sizes and configurations, and sensory media. The space and the objects that make it up contribute to the belief that children are unique and benefit from learning in unique ways.52

11.57 First Floor Plan Hellerup School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Materializing a New School Culture Although the building’s exterior is underwhelming, it’s interior is bright, warm, open, and exciting. Immediately upon entering, students and teachers remove their shoes, shedding a physical and psychological barrier, spending the day in socks or slippers.

11.58 (top) Cross Section Hellerup School 11.59 (left) Internal Atrium Hellerup School 11.60 (middle) Multi-Level Negative Space Hellerup School 11.61 (right) Communal Atrium Hellerup School

“Without shoes, you have discarded a shield against reality: You are closer to the floor, and you can feel your feet in a different way. Without shoes, you feel at home.”53 Culturally, the Hellerup School is no longer an institution for public education but a home. Except for a few dedicated rooms, the entire building is open. The central stairs are a place for circulation and movement, but also a place for pause and collection. Despite it’s open and interconnected atmosphere, the wood interiors create a greater warmth and calm.54 IV: Change | 297

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Inserting an Ideal Inner-City Arts Michael Maltzan Architecture Los Angeles, CA 1993-2008 (3 phases) Program / Pedagogy: Public School Arts Center

Inner-City Arts is not actually a public school, but an arts complex that that serves thousands of Los Angeles Unified School District students who no longer have arts programs offered at their own schools; 10,000 students from 30 elementary schools, three middle schools, and four high schools are bussed to Inner-City Arts to dance, paint, sculpt, act, and fire ceramics.55 The project’s primary goal is to increase graduation rates, keep students in school, and positively impact young lives through art. Following a fiveyear study by the U.S. Department of Education, graduation rates and academic performance have both increased thanks to the Inner-City Arts program.56 “I wanted to create a compressed urbanism”57 – Michael Maltzan

The complex is located in the Skid Row neighborhood of downtown Los Angeles, on a site “surround by auto parts shops, single-room-occupancy hotels, wholesalers and social service agencies.”58 Inner-City Arts intentionally calls attention to itself, using bright white paint to stand in stark contrast to the challenged surroundings. This is not an act of superiority, but an act of generosity; the complex is for the site and its constituent students, not isolated from them. “Such concern for both the symbolic and quotidian reflects the ethos of Inner-City Arts as it helps change society one child at a time.”59 – Architectural Record

11.62 (opposite) Aerial View in City Context Inner-City Arts 11.63 (right) View into Courtyard Inner-City Arts

IV: Change | 299

Visually Accessible, Physically Secure “I felt it was important to create some cracks between the buildings and let the city flow in” – Michael Maltzan60 Crime and violence have profoundly affected the image and security measures of so many of today’s urban schools. Inner-City Arts intentionally locates itself in a tough neighborhood but manages to successfully protect its campus without isolating its activities from the community outside. The buildings have solid walls, but there are visual “gaps” that allow views inside. There are protective gates, but they are visually permeable and attractive, refusing to look like prison doors. “By the standards of Los Angeles, [the] gated-community capital of the world…seemingly minor architectural gestures change the whole personality of the campus’s exterior, turning what could have loomed as a series of protective walls into something more pliant - plaster into origami.”61 – Architectural Record

11.64 Ground Floor Plan Inner-City Arts

11. The School: Built Ideologies

A Bright Beacon Inner-City Arts improves academic outcomes, re-inserts art and creativity into the lives of students, and physically symbolizes the positive change that any neighborhood (or any student) is capable of achieving. The complex does not only serve the students who enter; it also serves the community through its presence, bringing positive attention and a brand new mental association to a neighborhood known as Skid Row. “In a neighborhood full of people and buildings that are essentially invisible, reluctant to do much more than line up in anonymous bunches, the proudly conspicuous ICA is teaching kids to stand up and eventually stand out.”62 11.65 Ceramics Tower Inner-City Arts 11.66 Cross Section Inner-City Arts

“When Maltzan painted the original buildings white, he made a striking statement - marking the complex as a place of hope, a clean slate for troubled kids. Although treated with an antigraffiti coating, the buildings have rarely been defaced, says the architect. Local people have embraced the campus as a critical part of the community, and homeless men often act as unofficial crossing guards and tour guides”63

IV: Change | 301

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Security without Isolation

Gerardo Molina School Mazzanti Arquitectos Bogatà, Colombia 2004-2008 Program / Pedagogy: Prefabricated Elementary School

Like the cities of United States, the schools of Bogatà, Columbia must deal with social stratification and spatial segregation. School children are located in all parts of the city, both privileged and not. The Gerardo Molina School serves a challenged area; enclosing and protecting the school’s facilities from the compromised world around it would be the simplest way to protect its students. But the Gerardo Molina school takes a less traditional and ultimately more successful approach; by integrating the community through careful inclusion, the school actually becomes something that everyone, not just the students, want to protect. “However, the Gerado Molina High School in one of Bogotà’s outlying, marginal districts is innovative because it has been explicitly designed as a mechanism for social integration lying fully open to its surrounding. Communal services such as the library, auditorium and cafeteria are used to support local activities in the district...designed to be used by local people.”64

11.67 (opposite) Community Edges Gerardo Molina School 11.68 (right) Aerial View Gerardo Molina School

IV: Change | 303

COMMUNITY

STUDENT

COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY STUDENT

Student Courtyard, Community Perimeter “As the Project will be winding and turning it will be opening to the city, leaving space for small squares and exterior parks for public usage, leaving behind the bars and walls that stereotyped education institutions as closed spaces.”65 A civil architect, Giancario Mazzanti believes that social infrastructure (the combination of social policy, and built facilities) is what will deliver the social equity needed throughout so much of Latin America.66 Too often, public perception of socially motivated projects is ignored, diminishing the project’s positive impact.67 The Gerardo Molina School confronts these issues head on, becoming a school and a community center at the same time. The design is not naïve and student safety is maintained without rejecting the community around it. An interior courtyard protects students, exterior gathering areas provide the community with public space, and dedicated entrances offer public access to facilities during non-school hours.68

11.69 Ground Floor Plan Gerardo Molina School 11.70 Cross Section Gerardo Molina School

11. The School: Built Ideologies

Modules Classrooms 90° Connector 130° Connector 30° Connector Completion Modules/ Community Modules

Potential Combinations

Adaptability through Modularity “The module seeks to value the entire scholar space as a place for educational training. This presupposes the search of creating pedagogic environments instead of architectures.”69 – Giancario Mazzanti

11.71 (above) Checklist of Modules Gerardo Molina School 11.72 (above right) Checklist of Potential Combinations Gerardo Molina School

Like any other type of infrastructure, the Gerardo Molina School is made up of pre-assembled units combined in a specific configuration to serve the topographical, urban, or programmatic circumstances of its particular site.70 Since Bogatà is in need of not just one new school, but several, Mazzanti Arquitectos designed a kit of five different modules that could be reconfigured to form different school combinations for different school sites. IV: Change | 305

12.

The Next Curriculum: “Flipping” Education

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

The shift to the Information Age has displaced low-skilled (and increasingly middle-skilled) jobs overseas; there is no longer a sustainable job market for inadequately educated workers. But today’s practice of public education still produces and guarantees low-, medium-, and high-educated students. Instead of allowing each student’s natural academic abilities determine his or her academic achievements, America’s districts, schools, and curriculum apply labels to students in order to justify vastly different student outcomes. To shrink the gap between today’s high- and low- performing students, curriculum models must stop driving wedges between students. Thanks to student-centric teaching models and 21st century technology, academically segregation can be greatly diminished. IV: Change | 307

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

TEACHER-/TEST-CENTRIC CURRICULUM Today’s academic curriculum is based on standardized tests that determine student placement, school district funding, and even teacher compensation. Today’s standardized tests compare students against “norms” instead of comparing students against their understanding of the given material.1 Tests are being misused to the gross neglect of the individual student. High stakes tests are the “tail that wags the dog,” narrowing teaching methods for the sake of student scores instead of student knowledge. Today’s focus on testing and “results” should allow teachers and students to identify the material that needs time and attention; instead, a student who scores 70% is given a “pass” and allowed to advance to the next unit, course, or grade. Despite the fact that 30% of the previous material was not effectively learned, today’s education has the disappointingly-low expectation of “adequacy.” The Industrial Age school follows an uncompromising schedule. Each student has a fixed number of days to learn the same unit, a fixed number of weeks to pass the same test, a fixed number of months to complete the same course, and a fixed number of years to earn the same diploma. Treated like a product on an assembly line, the same amount of time is given to each student, a process that assumes each student is the same. Schools attempt to accommodate differences in students by tracking the “fast” students into advanced classes (with the best teachers) and the “slow” students into remedial classes (who end up, statistically, with the worst teachers).2 Aside from the problematic system of labels, even within “smart” or “remedial” classes, individual differences in students still exist. Traditional teacher-centric teaching methods do provide ways for individual attention and assistance, but at great costs (special education, honors programs, tutors, English enrichment classes, etc.). Like a factory, customization is the exception.3

12.01 The Shoulder Carrel Classroom Technology in 1968

MASTERY LEARNING Even in the 1960’s, the inadequacies of fixed-time and variable-result education were understood. Professor Benjamin S. Bloom at the University of Chicago spent years researching normative (group-based) and experimental (individually-based) teaching methods and compared their results. Like traditional IV: Change | 309

teaching methods, Bloom advocated breaking larger curriculum down into small units of information, testing each student’s understanding of the unit before introducing new material. But unlike traditional teaching methods, Bloom believed that tests should be more than just an evaluation (a grade); Bloom believed that tests should only be used to direct future teaching efforts, focusing on the material the student still needed to be learn before moving to the next unit. Only when students demonstrate “mastery” of the material should they be allowed to move on.4 In 1971, Bloom’s “Mastery Learning” strategies positioned testing within the middle of a unit’s curriculum, not just at the end. Short tests have the ability to create a formative assessment, a type of learning-feedback, which can inform the next teaching effort. Because the test is based on an individual student’s results, the subsequent teaching method and material can be based on the specific areas of attention needed most by that student.5 Mastery learning does not dismiss the differences that exist between students, but it believes that most children are capable of mastering or fully-understanding challenging material if given the proper time and the proper teaching feedback. MULTIPLE INTELLEGENCES The proper teaching “feedback” or method for each and every student was the topic of Howard Gardner’s 1983 Theory of Multiple Intelligences. For nearly 30 years, the Harvard psychologist has attempted to convince educators that there is no such thing as a single intelligence; instead, students are predisposed to one (or a combination) of eight different types of intelligences: linguistic, logic-mathematical, spatial, bodilykinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist.6 Gardner believes that if students are taught in a manner best suited to their natural intelligence(s), students will not only understand the material more completely, students will become more intrinsically motivated to continue learning. Intrinsically motivated students are much easier to teach and less effort is needed to fabricate extrinsic motivations that attempt to “lure” students into learning.7 Within a traditional math class, for example, a math teacher will tend to teach the math curriculum in a logic-mathematical way. The teacher is already logic-

C D

12.02 | 12.03 Typical Achievement Curves: Traditional Teaching (top) “Mastery Learning” (bottom)

12.04 Howard Gardner Theory of Multiple Intelligences

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

mathematically inclined and probably feels most natural teaching using a logic-mathematical method. As a subject matter, math is already challenging to students who are not logic-mathematically inclined, but this challenge is reinforced when the material is delivered in a logic-mathematical teaching style.8 The best teachers are capable of delivering the same curriculum through multiple methods; spatial learners can benefit from physical models, interpersonal learners learn best through group problem solving, musically intelligent students are aided by rhymes and mnemonic phrases. But teaching the same material in several different ways takes a lot of time, and does not necessarily benefit students who respond best to just one or two types of teaching instead of several. Question: What would schools look like if we took seriously the fact that there are differences between children? “Schools would be far more individualized than ever before. In the past, only the wealthy had personalized education. They could hire individual tutors and they could travel wherever they wanted to (though we can do it faster these days!). To start with, each child would have his own computer (laptop, desktop, whatever) and would be able to learn ideas and materials in ways that are comfortable for that child.”9 - Howard Gardner The Industrial Age model of education has had difficulty implementing mastery learning strategies and multiple intelligence teaching methods. When a single teacher is responsible for educating a class of 20-25 different students at a single time, teachers are forced to “teach to the middle,” creating a lesson plan for the average student instead of every individual. Content is primarily formatted towards a single intelligence type and is perhaps supplemented by re-iterating some material in another format to slightly broaden the target audience. The scheduling necessary to teach, work through examples, discuss, and test, does not allow most teachers to effectively use test results to re-teach necessary material to the necessary students. Because most classrooms are teacher-centric, if a teacher reiterates material for the benefit of some, other students suffer from a slower pace an unnecessary repetition. Despite knowing the shortcomings of traditional methods, we continue to design curriculum and schools that reinforce them. IV: Change | 311

Recent History of Classroom Technology 12.05 Language-Lab Headset c. 1950

12.06 Educational Television c. 1958

12.07 Hand-Held Calculator 1972

12.08 Scantron 1972

12.09 Plato Computer 1980

12.10 CD-ROM Drive 1985

12.11 Interactive Whiteboard c. 1999

12.12 iClicker 2005

12.13 XO Laptop 2006

12.14 iPad 2010

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

FLIPPING THE CLASSROOM Computers, wireless communication, and online collaboration have profoundly changed the world but they have had a relatively weak impact on the organization of curriculum and schools. Personal computers, educational software, and the internet have been in classrooms for a decade or longer, but using new tools to perform the same traditional strategies has mealy updated education instead of innovating it. This is beginning to change. Within just the past few years, a small number of American schools have allowed the 21st century to significantly influence education. Affordable personal computers (desktops, laptops, tablets, and handheld devices), broadband internet, and digitally-recorded curriculum now allow the classroom to be “flipped.” This means that the rehearsed/pre-scripted lesson plans that are traditionally taught during class are now assigned as homework, while the problem solving and implementation of the material that is usually assigned as homework, can now take place in class with the help of classmates and a teacher. Instead of spending valuable class time delivering the same lecture to 20 students, a pre-recorded lecture or lesson plan is viewed by 20 students as homework, allowing class time to be devoted towards questions, problem solving, and individual attention, both from students who fully grasp the material and from the teacher who is now freed to work with students individually or in small groups.10 “All together, more than 12 percent of U.S. students did a significant portion of their learning online, with a higher percentage in high schooland a much higher percentage if we included all the online learning that happens outside of school.”11 The flipped classroom is a new name (with new technology) for decades-old ideas that were not able to make system-wide innovations. The flipped classroom takes advantage of increasingly ubiquitous technologies that can finally make mastery learning a much more feasible reality. Online course content allows students to access lesson plans recorded by their own teacher, a teacher from another school, or a teacher from across the world. Students watch the lessons when it is best for them and in the setting that is best for them, and because they can hold the material in IV: Change | 313

In 2006, the Khan Academy began providing ten minute tutorial videos on all the subject areas commonly tested in K-12 education. Founded by Salmon Khan (a business finance expert, not a credentialed teacher), the non-profit organization now offers over 2,800 video tutorials free to anyone with an internet connection.13 Khan began making YouTube videos to help tutor his cousins across the country. But the clarity, structure, and user-friendly nature of Khan’s videos attracted a lot of attention. With grants from Google, the Gates Foundation, and the O’Sullivan Foundation, Khan Academy is helping flip the classroom of public schools.14 36 public schools in the U.S. have officially adopted Khan Academy videos as a part of their curriculum,15 but with over 115 million views, individual students across the world are already supplementing their regular educations with the free online lessons.16

The Khan Academy

12.15 (top) Sal Kahn Recording a Lesson 12.16 (left) Kahn Academy Logo 12.17 (middle) “A Map of Knowledge” 12.18 (right) Still Image of a Video Lesson More Information: http://www.khanacademy.org/

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

their own hands, students can pause, rewind, or fast-forward through the material at their own pace without affecting the experience of their classmates. Following every session, newly developed software can instantaneously test each individual student of their understanding of the material. The results let the student know what needs to be studied further before attending class. Slightly more sophisticated software can not only test students but provide instant feedback, re-teaching the specific material that the individual student missed. The instant feedback of testing and re-teaching can continue over and over, continuously improving the student’s understanding, until the student has “mastered” the material. Software is also capable of relaying each student’s results to their teacher, letting the instructor know the specific areas in which each student needs help (or if any additional help is needed at all). Armed with this knowledge before class even begins, teachers can teach to the whole class, allow students to proceed individually, or organize students into different groups based on their individual results. A student who excels can become an in-class tutor working with a student who struggles. Teachers can spend more time with the students who need it, in small groups or one-on-one, while more advanced students work on more challenging material on their own. In the same time an average student would traditionally spend in class and on homework, a much more effective and specific teaching and assessment feedback process can take place. Over time, advanced software and multi-media devices can actually learn about a student and present course content in the format most suitable to that individual. Be it a spoken lecture, a written chapter, a video tutorial, a realworld demonstration, or a video-game interface, different intelligences can be taught to by responsive technology. Students can even schedule time to instant message or video-chat with online tutors.12 LIMITATIONS OF THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM The next generation of the classroom has clear advantages, but it also has limitations. Recorded material and interactive software are appropriate teaching methods for many subject areas, but there are still areas of education that cannot be digitally translated. But instead of rejecting a new model because it IV: Change | 315

cannot accommodate everything, new media and cloud-data networking should be allowed to transform education’s status quo, providing more time, attention, and human resources to the subject material that is undeniably better learned without pixels or power cords. Perhaps the most obvious limitation of the flipped classroom is its dependence on personal media devices, broadband internet, and capable software programs. A “digital divide,” based largely on socio-economic capabilities, separates Americans who have unlimited access to these technologies, both at home and at school, and Americans who do not. Furthermore, having access or possession of the tools is not enough; without the proper background knowledge, personal media devices can become fancy toys and entertainment devices instead of educational assets. “Like electricity a century ago, broadband is a foundation for economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness and a better way of life. It is enabling entire new industries and unlocking vast new possibilities for existing ones. It is changing how we educate children, deliver health care, manage energy, ensure public safety, engage government, and access, organize and disseminate knowledge.”17 – The Federal Communications Commission The federal government has recognized the necessity of ubiquitous broadband internet access. A 2009 government survey estimated that nearly 62% of Americans had a home computer, 69% had home internet access, and just under 64% had broadband internet access at home. The same survey found that 26.7% of urban residents who don’t have high-speed internet at home is because it is too expensive.18 Additionally, the FCC estimates that 14 to 24 million Americans live in areas, mostly rural and/or predominantly poor, with no access broadband internet access.19 In the same way the U.S. lags behind it’s developed-nation peers in public education, the U.S. is far slower in internet connectivity and speed.20 Americans must refuse to let the “digital divide” become another impediment to better education. New York City iZone is a planned network of four hundred schools: two hundred will use existing online learning systems, and 200 that will use “next-generation” adaptive learning programs. The program recognizes that not every student has a personal computer, so

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

some schools have provided each student with a takehome laptop and other schools have increased in-school computers and computer access.21 Over the past decade, the state of Maine has initiated and expanded a 1:1 laptop program for all of it secondary students (in districts that wish to participate). The state government realized that student equity and economic progress demanded that every student receive the same quality equipment. To date, the Maine Learning Technology Initiative has negotiated the purchase and lease of reduced-price Apple computers for nearly 62,000 students and 4,000 teachers.22 CHALLENGE TO THE STATUS QUO: LETTER GRADES If credits are earned for “mastery” of specific topics, the need for grades (C+, D, A-, etc.) becomes irrelevant. Grades, unnecessary comparisons between individual students, can be replaced by assessments of the students themselves. The only labels students would be given are “in progress,” “complete/mastered,” or “expertly mastered” (for students who exceeded the necessary benchmarks).23 Instead of pitting students against each other, students should be challenged to best themselves, helping their classmates improve instead of being incentivized to watch them fail. CHALLENGE TO THE STATUS QUO: STUDENT TRACKING If more students are capable of mastering the same materials, far less student tracking will be necessary. Instead of segregating “fast” students away from “slow” students, the abilities of the brightest students can be leveraged against the extra-help needed by the challenged students. Research has shown that every class needs a core of strong and committed students; when these students are placed in the advanced and the medium tracks, that leaves none for the lower track.24 Peer-teachers can reinforce/ clarify their own understanding of the material by re-teaching it to others. Alternatively, the truly advanced students can move forward at their own pace, unimpeded by the average progress of the entire class, perhaps even entering the class or student-group above. Since teachers can respond to individuals or small groups instead of dictating to entire classes, multiple levels of curricular progress can be accommodated at the same time. IV: Change | 317

CHALLENGE TO THE STATUS QUO: GRADE LEVELS Over time, student-centric teaching methods will erode the arbitrary definitions of grade levels. Passing a course will not be earned by just managing to get a ‘D’ on the final exam. Likewise, scoring below a 65% will not require a student to repeat an entire year’s worth of material (and thus perpetuating the pressure of being “behind”).25 A student retained just once between 1st and 8th grade is four times more likely to drop out before high school graduation.26 This puts educators into an unnecessary dilemma: fail a student, or move them forward unprepared? The inflexibility of today’s education needs to be replaced. “When mastery of standards is an absolute, everything else needs to be variable. All of the conditions under which young people learn - such as time, space, learning choices and styles, documentation choices - must be variables. If we truly wish students to master standards, we must be willing to vary learning conditions.”27 Information Age curriculum will not be based on fixed-time-tables for learning, and the school year will no longer need to follow an Agrarian Age planting/harvesting schedule.28 Students will have a list of necessary and elective units, some sequentially ordered and others based on teacher/facility availability. With help from guidance counselors, students will move through unit requirements that were once associated with traditional K-12 courses. Student progress will be based primarily on speed of academic mastery and based less on Industrial Age definitions of schedule and grade levels. Student age, maturity, physical development, and the sense of security felt among peers are considerations that remain less affected by the digital age. Intentionally-designed divisions between student groups should not go away, but the basis of those divisions must be reconsidered.29 “Our current system enrolls students by birthdays and assumes that they learn one year’s worth of material in 180 days – kids ahead and behind are generally out of luck. The result is that struggling students or those who act out because they are bored are assigned to special education. A few fortunate students are assigned to gifted and talented classrooms and deemed worthy of rich art-infused curriculum in small classes that work ahead. This get-it-or-repeat-it system is a profoundly unjust, ineffective, and simply archaic way to structure education.”3

12. The Next Curriculum: The “Flipped” Classroom

IV: Change | 319

13.

The Next School: Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Responsibility

13. The Next School: 21st Century Responsibilities

Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dominant education methods are behind the curve. Perhaps there is no greater evidence of this than the school building itself. In 1998, the average U.S. public school building was 42 years old and over one quarter of all public schools were built before 1950.1 If public education is to improve, the design of the contemporary school building must change. Outdated assumptions, restrictive budgets, and conservative ambitions (if there is such a thing) have undercut architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s educational potential. Instead of solidifying Industrial Age paradigms, school buildings must be willing to embrace the educational and social opportunities that define the Information Age. If the right questions are asked, there is at least hope that innovative solutions can be reached. IV: Change | 321

The “Passive” Interdistrict Magnet School - defines itself as an urban-district school that welcomes out-of-district students - typically located in a challenged neighborhood - an attractive school for urban students - struggles to draw-in students from outside school districts

50% 50% The “Aggressive” Interdistrict Magnet School - defines itself as a school that does not belong to any district / a school that belongs to all districts neighborhood - sets attendance limits for urban and suburban attendance, protecting the school from a single district identity - attacks and dismantles school district borders by locating itself directly on an existing border

13. The Next School: 21st Century Responsibilities

“I am entirely certain that 20 years from now we will look back at education as it is practiced in most schools today and wonder how we could have tolerated anything so primitive.”2 - John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968 “Some schools are excellent, some are improving, some have the remarkable capacity to change for the better, and some should never be called schools at all.”3 Richard Riley, Secretary of Education, 1994 In the first quarter of the 21st century, how can a school building contend against the limitations of its district? Decades of socio-spatial segregation have created school districts that are as homogenous and unequal as preBrown v. Board.4 And even within socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods, institutional segregation still exist; affluent residents enroll their children in private schools and families of fewer means have no choice but to attend public schools.5 Given today’s realities, it would seem nearly impossible for a public school to overcome these conditions. But for the sake of America’s greater urban regions, schools must become something more than just a concentrated missrepresentation of its immediate population. If this is ever to be achieved, individual schools must begin to attack the strict district identities that currently define today’s education landscape. The promise and the problems of Americans should not be limited to invisible political boundaries. To dismantle these artificial walls, district sovereignty and identity must be challenged. Interdistrict magnet schools have made the first attempt at crossing borders, a few have even seen marginal success,6 but these efforts have been entirely too polite. 21st century schools must locate themselves within the gaps that separate school districts, building themselves on top of the very borders designed to segregate urban communities. Siting and formalizing this otherwise political attack is a fantastic challenge for architecture. After a border area is defined, the architecture of the 21st century urban school must not only serve the academic activities within, the building must also become a bridge to the populations outside. Combined with an aggressive interdistrict IV: Change | 323

attendance policy (50% of students from the “host” district, 50% of students from all other districts), placing a school within the urban divide can allow the building to assume an identity separate from any individual district. How should a school building engage two (or more) different communities? Part of the answer lies in the question itself: school buildings must be engaging, not just to students, but to the greater community as well. Since the baby boomer generation, the U.S. population has become older; just 20% of Americans have school-aged children.7 As funding gets tighter, schools must take a more assertive role in the lives of all residents, not just students and parents. Since urban schools were integrated in the 60’s and 70’s, many school buildings have taken a defensive posture towards the surrounding community, creating a conscious separation in an effort to physically and psychologically protect students from the compromised setting outside.8 But these efforts removed the schools from the communities that they serve. “Both the fortress and bubble schools are based on the premise that communities, particularly those in challenging urban contexts, have low social capital.”9 Contemporary schools, even in rough settings must find a way to negotiate security and community. Residents acknowledge that schools are a community’s most important public building, so it is important for school buildings to acknowledge how important the community is to the school.10 Combining desired public amenities and programs with school facilities can help build community support and engagement. When serving diverse communities, parks, recreation and athletic facilities, and daycare centers are programs that both high-income and low-income residents can appreciate. Schools and school facilities need to become, once again, the architectural melting-pot to reintegrate America’s widening differences. Given the density and artificial materials of urban settings, how can schools attempt to relate to nature? The capability of architects plus engineers and the importance of our children’s’ wellbeing means that there is no excuse for contemporary schools to disregard the quality

13.01 Inner-City Arts Michael Maltzan Architecture

13. The Next School: 21st Century Responsibilities

13.02 Open-Air School for the Healthy Child Jan Duiker

13.03 | 13.04 Light and Wind Within the Classroom Toward Better School Design

of the internal and external environments. In the 1920’s architects used school buildings to eradicate tuberculosis.11 But over the 90 years since, too many school buildings have sealed themselves up, relying on recirculated air and florescent lights. 6.2 million - “Asthma is the most common chronic disorder in childhood, currently affecting an estimated 6.2 million children under 18 years of age.”12 - Capital E, Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits 12 million - “American school children missed 12 million days of school in 2000 due to asthma.”13 - American Federation of Teachers 10x - “Students and faculty typically spend 85% to 90% of their time indoors (mostly at home and at school), and the concentration of pollutants indoors is typically higher than outdoors, sometimes by as much as 10 or even 100 times.”14 - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14 million - “14 million students (more than a quarter of all students) attend schools considered below standard or dangerous, and almost two-thirds of schools have building features such as air conditioning that are in need of extensive repair or replacement.”15 Capital E, Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits 59 million - “In the U.S. alone, more than 59 million students, teachers, and education employees spend part of their day in schools.”16 The renewed interest in “green” building and sustainability have helped boost the public awareness of daylight, natural ventilation, and energy efficiency, but when school budgets are squeezed, “green” add-ons are often the first items to be cut. This is despite the evidence that proves increased daylight cuts down absenteeism and increases test scores.17 All buildings owe it to the environment to be built responsibly; public schools serving a captive audience of developing children should be given no choice: ample daylight, clean fresh air, and accessible outdoor environments must be the minimum standards for all schools. Where “nature” and vegetation do not exist, architecture must “engineer” active outdoor spaces that reconnect dense urban conditions with the environment. IV: Change | 325

Founded in 1999, Kunskapasskolan is a privately-operated school network which runs thirty-two secondary schools in Sweden. Students meet every week with their personal tutor/advisor to make sure that short-term and long-term academic goals are on track. An online curriculum is divided into steps, each of which are supplemented by in-school lectures, workshops, or laboratory experiments, whichever best suites the content and the student. Instead of conventional corridors and classrooms, Kunskapsskolan schools provide a variety of learning environments to support the variety of learning styles and needs; these include small collaboration rooms, “editorial offices” (where students and teachers work together), cafés, lecture halls, and labs.20

Kunskapsskolan

13.05 (top left) Open Atmosphere 13.06 (top right) A Programed Hallway 13.07 (bottom left) Individual Study Sapce 13.08 (bottom right) Cafeteria More Information: http://www.kunskapsskolan.se/

13. The Next School: 21st Century Responsibilities

How will the rescheduling of the school year and the school day effect school buildings? As educators begin to adopt a more continuous school year, school buildings will need to grow more seasonally versatile. Climates in the Northeast face freezing cold winters and hot and humid summers. To save on costs, many schools do not include air conditioning, preventing them from being used by summer school programs on especially hot days. Through passive or mechanical design measures, schools must become useable year-round. Question: What will learning be like in the future? “Much of learning going forward will occur virtually, at all hours of the day and night, rather than in classrooms from 8-3:30. Also, the role of media centers, and the teaching of capacities needed for effective expression in the new digital media, will continue to increase.”18 - Howard Gardner School buildings particularly for older students, must reconsider what programs and spaces follow the traditional school day, and which spaces remain available “after-hours” and possibly 24 hours a day. Today’s schools are organized by grades, subject areas, and the possibility of public access; time and operating hours could become just as significant in a building’s built relationships.

13.09 | 13.10 Hellerup School Arkitema

How does 21st century mastery learning and “flipped” education change the design of classrooms? The traditional classroom is based on a model of didactic teaching in which a single teacher holds command over a classroom of students. Moveable furniture made class discussions, small group activities, and individual study possible, but still within the same rectangular box. Flipped education is based on responding to the changing needs of individual learners and needs to question the 20-30 student box altogether. Based on individual needs, perhaps a teacherled lecture would be best for some students, an individually developed student project might be more appropriate for others, and yet another group would benefit most by talking through the material in a quiet setting. The flipped classroom is not necessarily a classroom at all, but a field of differentiated conditions. Learning spaces must include (or have the IV: Change | 327

13. The Next School: 21st Century Responsibilities

potential to become) very different spaces for very different styles of learning. The familiar classroom should remain one architectural option, but only one of several different options. “...a thing exclusively made for one purpose suppresses the individual because it tells him exactly how it is to be used. If the object provokes a person to determine in what way he wants to use it, it will strengthen his self-identity. Merely the act of discovery elicits greater awareness. Therefore a form must be interpretable - in the sense that it must be conditioned to play a changing role.”19 - Herman Hertzberger The design of learning environments must find the balance between reaction and dictation. Architecture must react to the needs and desires of contemporary students, but architecture must also assert a clear voice by dictating a school’s greater intensions. Even in a student-centered school, educators and designers need to structure environments that are appropriate for the ages, maturity levels, and responsibility of the given students. 13.11 Delft Montessori School Herman Herzberger

How should a school express its values? Intentional or otherwise, schools are forms of built propaganda - physical manifestations of social and political ideals. The way schools are designed and built reveals society’s priorities towards the environment, student wellbeing, and the local community. Architecture is not a neutral medium and even the assertion of “neutrality” is an idealized conviction in itself.

“To me, number one is that the hierarchy has to go. There has to be equal weight given to the arts, the sciences, humanities, technology, and physical education. And therefore the facilities in which people are learning have to give equal provision to these activities. If it appears that some activities are more cherished because the facilities are grander, it sends a very powerful message to people about what matters. The physical environment of the building is critically important in terms of the curriculum.”21 - Sir Ken Robinson

13.12 Crow Island School Eliel & Eero Saarinen with Perkins, Wheeler & Will

Architecture tends to treat some spaces as “normative,” accentuating other spaces as “exceptional.” Budgets pressure school leader and designers into making value judgments on the cost and importance of some features relative to others; this does not go unnoticed by students. It is important that a school’s stated position on education is backed up by its physical manifestation. This is architecture’s responsibility. IV: Change | 329

Concl Conclusion

usion

14.

Interstitial Education: A School for Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gaps

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

This chapter proposes a school to improve American society and education. Applying the lessons learned from previous chapters, this proposal begins to synthesize many necessary demands into a cohesive school. Every American city has its “gaps,” but this school refuses to let those gaps define public education. The city of Boston serves as both a case study and testing site for this school’s agenda. V: Conclusion | 333

in路ter路stice noun 1.

a space that intervenes between things; especially : one between closely spaced things

2. a gap or break in something generally continuous 3. a short space of time between events1

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

The Problem Politically, socially, and economically, the United States is polarizing away from its once-strong middle class. Public education was created to protect democracy against unfair political advantage. But today, public education is helping to reinforce existing advantages instead of mitigating them. Decades of socio-spatial segregation have turned urban regions into class islands. Todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s school districts are based on local differences, not universal similarities. V: Conclusion | 335

The Role of the School and its Architecture Todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public schools have become castles; it is time that they become bridges. Instead of concentrating local differences, schools must position themselves within the gaps of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s society. Schools must be designed to negotiate student inequities, integrating different abilities instead of segregating them. At the scale of the city fabric and at the scale of the individual learner, schools must engage the interstitial spaces that are keeping Americans apart.

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

Proposal This project will propose Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s next urban school. It will challenge existing district identities instead of reinforcing them. Using mastery learning techniques, this school will challenge gradelevels, academic tracking, and traditional school conventions of spatial organization and hierarchy. This school will propose an education gradient to replace an education system based on Industrial-Age models of standardization, resource-efficiency, and repetitive procedures. This will be a 21st century school for students born into the Information Age. V: Conclusion | 337

4 Miles

13.01 LOCATING THE SCHOOL: This map displays the net demographic â&#x20AC;&#x153;contrastâ&#x20AC;? that exists across the city of Boston and its immediate surroundings. The map combines 12 individual demographic maps of Boston (see chapter 8). Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

School District Borders Highest Demographic Contrast Selected Site

Locating the School

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

LOCATING THE SCHOOL This map is a combination of twelve different social and economic measurements. The resulting image displays the aggregated differences (or similarities) across the region. The border between the city of Boston and the city of Brookline demonstrates a distinct and consistent demographic contrast across a very small geographic area. To mitigate the sharp differences, an interdistrict magnet school will be located at the threshold, on the border itself. The yellow box shows the site of the proposed school. The following pages examine the proposed site in detail, further emphasizing the stark and unnatural demographic differences that have resulted from invisible political lines. The school will attempt to draw from these large differences to make a new demographic conditionâ&#x20AC;Ścreating a new middle. V: Conclusion | 339

Brookline

Boston N

1 Mile

Satellite Image

13.02 Source: Bing Maps

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

1 Mile

13.03 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

Figure Ground Map V: Conclusion | 341

1 Mile

> 45,000 people / sq. mile 30,000 - 45,000 15,000 - 30,000 5,000 - 15,000 < 5,000

Population Density

13.04 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

1 Mile

13.05 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> 80% 60% - 80% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% < 20%

Percentage of Minority Residents V: Conclusion | 343

< $23,488 $23,488 - $36,492

13.06 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

1 Mile

$22,350 Poverty Threshold (Familiy of Four)

$36,492 - $53,721 $53,721 - $87,191 > $87,191

Income Per Capita

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

1 Mile

13.07 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

< $152,257 $152,257 - $320,675 $320,675 - $495,598 $495,598 - $757,423 > $757,423

Median Home Value V: Conclusion | 345

1 Mile

13.08 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

> 42% 26% - 42% 15% - 26% 6% - 15% < 6%

Percent of Adults (+25) w/ Less Than H.S. Education

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

1 Mile

13.09 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

< 17% 17% - 33% 33% - 50% 50% - 70% > 70%

Percent of Adults (+25) w/ Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Degree or Greater V: Conclusion | 347

1 Mile

> 80% 60% - 80% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% < 20%

Percent Enrolled in Private School

13.10 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009)

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

1 Mile

Public

13.11 Source: American Community Survey (SY 2005-2009) Source: MassGIS (Schools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Nov. 2010)

Private Charter Collaborative Program Special Education

School Buildings V: Conclusion | 349

14.12

Students Enrolled in Private School > 80% 60% - 80% 40% - 60% 20% - 40% < 20% No Data School District Boarders

Home School (470 students)

Spec. Education (non-BPS) (470 students)

METCO (Suburban Schools) (3,080 students)

17%

Parochial Schools (5,790 students)

32%

14.13

Alternatives to Boston Public Schools

21% Attend Private Schools (3,770 students)

26%

41 82

167 37

116 93

Public Charter Schools (4,730 students)

85 30

113

257 98 179

64 130 160

420

20 58 6

156 141

20 11

294 -3,245

14.14

METCO Program

40 44

53 58 -3,245

BOSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT: Number of students in METCO

6 - 420

METCO

50 66 49 N

20 Miles

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

TARGET AUDIENCE: THOSE WHO EXIT In addition to the students already enrolled in Boston Public Schools, this new school will attempt to re-capture the students and families who live in Boston but choose to exit its public schools. Across the entire metro region, there are large numbers of private schools and private school students. This school will try to give private school families a reason to reconsider public education. There are also thousands of students who exit Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s school system while still remaining in public schools. Every year, over 3,000 minority students take part in METCO.2 Some of Bostonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best students leave the city every day to attend suburban schools. This new school will attempt to provide a demographically balanced setting to welcome students of all ethnic and financial backgrounds, something that too many existing public schools in cannot provide. V: Conclusion | 351

SCHOOL TYPE: PK-12 INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL This school proposes a complete educational experience for its students by offering curriculum for grades PK-12. When considering public or private schools, parents examine schools at all levels of education, kindergarten through high school. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and if a parent is dissatisfied with any one of a districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schools, a parent is much less likely to attend. This school proposes a program that seeks to curb high levels of student turnover by providing a consistent level of quality from early education to high school graduation. To create a new non-district identity, this school will combine different students into a cohesive unit which can grow up together as a miniature community. A strong start to education, even before kindergarten, will allow this schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s students to create relationships with education, classmates, and teachers that will last long after graduation.

14. Case Study: A School for Greater Boston

MASTERY LEARNING IN THE INFORMATION AGE What will set this school apart from any other school (public, private, urban, or suburban), will be its whole-hearted acceptance of educationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new paradigm. Mastery learning strategies allow a diverse group of students to learn together. A more fluid and student-centered teaching approach accommodates individual differences instead of segregating them. Using responsive technology and digital media when and where it is appropriate, this school will apply consistent standards to diverse learners. Traditional notions of letter grades, class schedule, building layout, classroom types, and grade levels will be challenged. This school will provide a 21st century education for students unburdened by the Industrial Age paradigms from one hundred years ago. V: Conclusion | 353

15.

The Final Argument: Good Enough for Someone Else?

15. The Final Argument: A Case for Idealism

This book has argued for the importance of improving public education on several terms: its service to democracy, its effect on the economy, and its relationship to segregated urban regions. This chapter (this single page) makes one final argument by asking a question of every American: If a disadvantaged school isn’t good enough for your child, is it good enough for someone else’s? Parents, income, and location are the three most influential factors in a child’s life, and all three are completely outside of a child’s control. The outcome of today’s students should be based on effort and achievement instead of zip codes and district boundaries. Being born lucky already accounts for too much, it should not be the basis of public education as well. V: Conclusion | 355

References

1: Why Public Schools? Why Boston? Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978: 10-11.

Duncan et al., 93.

Duncan et al., 100.

3 Database - PISA 2009. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/>.

U.S. Census Bureau. School Districts. U.S. Census Bureau: School Districts, Web. 3 Dec 2011. <http://www. census.gov/did/www/schooldistricts/>.

Woessmann, Ludger, and Paul E. Peterson. Schools and the Equal Opportunity Problem. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007: 209.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 8.

Rhode, Deborah L., et al. Brown at 50, the Unfinished Legacy : A Collection of Essays. Chicago: Division for Public Education, American Bar Association, 2004: 193.

Au, Wayne, 1972-. Unequal by Design : High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York: Routledge, 2009: 1. 8

Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001:xiv. Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics : The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002: 16.

Ikpa, Vivian W., and C. K. McGuire. Narrowing the Achievement Gap in a (Re)Segregated Urban School District : Research, Practice, and Policy. Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Pub, 2009: 11.

Ikpa et al., 11.

Orfield, 28.

“Milton Friedman Quotes.” Famous Quotes at BrainyQuote. BookRags Media Network. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/ miltonfrie100994.html>.

Cronin, Joseph M., and Cronin,Joseph M.Reforming Boston schools, 1930-2006. Reforming Boston Schools, 1930 to the Present : Overcoming Corruption and Racial Segregation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011: 5.

Van Eijk, Gwen. Unequal Networks: Spatial Segregation, Relationships and Inequality in the City. Delft University Press, Delft, 2010: 3.

Cronin, 5.

Butts, 85.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011: 100.

Duncan et al., 7-8.

Duncan et al., 92.

Wikipedia contributors. “Massachusetts health care reform.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.

Cronin, 1.

Key Facts: 1.01 Database - PISA 2009. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/>. 1.02 Neuman, Susan B. Changing the Odds for Children at Risk : Seven Essential Principles of Educational Programs that Break the Cycle of Poverty. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009. 1.03 Ikpa, Vivian W., and C. K. McGuire. Narrowing the Achievement Gap in a (Re)Segregated Urban School District : Research, Practice, and Policy. Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Pub, 2009: 12. 1.04 Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011: 65. 1.05 O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 79. 1.06 U.S. Census Bureau. Families, Table F-1. U.S. Census Bureau: Income, Web. 3 Dec 2011. <http://www.census.gov/ hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/index.html>. 1.07 Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011: 91-92.

1.09 O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 193. 1.10 U.S. Census Bureau. School Districts. U.S. Census Bureau: School Districts, Web. 3 Dec 2011. <http://www. census.gov/did/www/schooldistricts/>. 1.11 O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 2. 1.12 O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 6. 1.13 O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 117. 1.14 O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 106.

1.08 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers, Third Quarter of 2011. U.S. Department of Labor, Web. 3 Dec 2011. <http://www.bls.gov/ news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf>.

357

2. Defining the Role of Public Education: 1750-1950 Graves, 21.

Graves, Ben E., and Clifford A. Pearson. School Ways : The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 21.

19 20

Graves, 23.

Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978, 4.

Butts, 68-72.

Butts, 4-5.

22 Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 13.

Wikipedia contributors. “American Revolution.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.

Butts, 92.

Butts, 88.

Wikipedia contributors. “United States Bill of Rights.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.

Butts, 104.

Butts, 92.

Hille, 13. Butts, 84.

Butts, 7-8.

Butts, 6-11.

Butts, 22.

Butts, 15-22.

10 11 12 13 14

Butts, 29. Butts, 88. Butts, 32. Butts, 34. Butts, 26-27.

Census History Staff. “History: 1800 Fast Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau. 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_ facts/1800_fast_facts.html>.

Census History Staff. “History: 1850 Fast Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_ facts/1850_fast_facts.html>.

Census History Staff. “History: 1900 Fast Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_ facts/1900_fast_facts.html>.

28 29

Butts, 84-88.

Butts, 166.

Hille, 15.

Graves, 25.

Graves, 26.

Graves, 25.

Hille, 15.

Butts, 252. Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003: 4.

36 37

Hayman, Robert L., and Leland Ware 1948-. Choosing Equality : Essays and Narratives on the Desegregation Experience. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009: 322.

Hayman, 323.

Eitzen, D. S., and George Harvey Sage. Solutions to Social Problems : Lessons from State and Local Governments. (Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2009) 73-74.

Butts, 50.

Images: 2.01 Illustration of a One-Room School House. Woodcut. Library of Congress. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http:// www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/ BE031404/illustration-of-a-oneroom-school-house>.

2.07 Peale, Rembrandt. Thomas Jefferson. 1805. Painting. The Carnegie Arts of the United States Collection. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.02 Dunlap, John. The Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776. Bettmann Collection. CORBIS. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.08 Southworth & Hawes. Horace Mann (1796-1859). c.1851. Daguerreotype. ARTstore Lide Gallery. Data from: University of California, San Diego. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.03 American School. James Madison. Painting. Frick Art Reference Library. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.09 Southworth, Albert Sands. Classroom. ca.1850. Photograph. The Carnegie Arts of the United States Collection. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.04 Land Ordinance of 1787. Map. ARTstore Lide Gallery. Data from: University of California, San Diego. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.10 Riis, Jacob A.. East Side Public School. ca.1890. Photograph. Museum of the City of New York. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.05 Stuart, Gilbert. George Washington. 1795-. Painting. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.11 Jim Crow. 1830. Engraving. ARTstore Lide Gallery. Data from: University of California, San Diego. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.06 Morse, Samuel Finley Breese. Noah Webster. 1823. Painting. Mead Art Museum. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

2.12 Davidson, Bruce. USA. Protestors with Placards. One Reads Jim Crow Must Go. 1962. Photograph. Magnum Photos. ARTstore. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

3. Reconsidering Education and Society:1950-2011 Eitzen, D. S., and George Harvey Sage. Solutions to Social Problems : Lessons from State and Local Governments. Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2009: 75.

Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978: 88.

Rhode, Deborah L., et al. Brown at 50, the Unfinished Legacy : A Collection of Essays. Chicago: Division for Public Education, American Bar Association, 2004: 186.

Butts, 329.

U.S. Supreme Court. “BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).” FindLaw.com. U.S. Supreme Court, 17 May 1954. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase. pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483>.

Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008: 55.

Eitzen, 75.

Wikipedia contributors. “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Jan. 2012.

Butts, 334.

Mahon, J. Patrick. “Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond.” Higher Education Law, 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://web.archive.org/web/20070314114059/http://www. mccormack.umb.edu/dean/docs/IssueBook/prop2half.html>.

31 Wikipedia contributors. “Milliken v. Bradley.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 Sep. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012.

Alonso, Gaston. Our Schools Suck : Students Talk Back to a Segregated Nation on the Failures of Urban Education. New York: New York University Press, 2009: 3.

Alonso, 2.

Alonso, 3.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011: 92.

Butts, 348.

Eitzen, 77.

Butts, 355.

Butts, 352.

Duncan, 92.

Butts, 350.

Eitzen, 81.

Butts, 332.

Butts, 335.

Butts, 333.

Euchner, 6.

Butts, 333.

Roberts, Stephen V.. “The Nation; Reagan’s Social Issues: Gone But Not Forgotten.” New York Times on the Web 11 Sept. 1988. 4 Jan. 2012 <http://www.nytimes. com/1988/09/11/weekinreview/the-nation-reagan-s-socialissues-gone-but-not-forgotten.html>.

Eitzen, 75.

Tompkins, Susanne. “Proposition 2 1/2.” Public Policy Issues in Massachussetts. John W. McCormack Institute, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://web.archive.org/ web/20070314114059/http://www.mccormack.umb.edu/ dean/docs/IssueBook/prop2half.html>.

Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003: 71. 17

18 Wikipedia contributors. “Richard Nixon Supreme Court candidates.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Sep. 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012.

Euchner, 207.

Butts, 342.

Butts, 342-343.

Butts, 343.

Euchner, 207

McCombs, Jennifer Sloan and Stephen J. Carrol. “Ultimate Test: Who is Accountable for Education if Everybody Fails?.” Rand Corporation, 2005. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.rand. org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2005/ulttest.html>. 27

Euchner, 210.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” Full Report of A Nation at Risk. U.S. Department of Education, Apr. 1983. Web. 4 Jan. 2010. <http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ NatAtRisk/index.html>.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.”

Christensen, 60-61.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 8. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.”

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability: Education Policy White Paper.” National Academy of Education, 2009. Web. 4 Jan. 2010: 2. <http://www.naeducation.org/ Standards_Assessments_Accountability_White_Paper.pdf>.

Alonso, 63.

359

Michael Bloomberg. NewYorkTimes.com. 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/ reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/ index.html?scp=1&sq=bloomberg%20education%20 policy&st=cse>.

83 52

Eitzen, 76.

Alonso, 195.

Peterson, Paul E. Choice and Competition in American Education. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006: 255-274.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability: Education Policy White Paper.”

Alonso, 65.

Eitzen, 81.

Eitzen, 76-77.

Au, Wayne, 1972-. Unequal by Design : High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York: Routledge, 2009: 6.

Eitzen, 76.

Reed, 10.

Reed, 11.

“Kentucky.” Litigation. National Access Network, Feb. 2008. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.schoolfunding.info/ states/ky/lit_ky.php3>. 64

Reed, 13.

“California.” Litigation. National Access Network, Mar. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.schoolfunding.info/ states/ca/lit_ca.php3>.

Mannino, Edward F. Shaping America : The Supreme Court and American Society. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2009: 224. 67

Mannino, 224-225.

Rhode, 207.

Mannino,225.

Hayman, Robert L., and Leland Ware 1948-. Choosing Equality : Essays and Narratives on the Desegregation Experience. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009: 316.

Mannino, 228.

Eitzen, 82.

Reed, 168.

Eitzen, 88.

Eitzen, 82-84.

Eitzen, 82-83.

Wikipedia contributors. “Charter school.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 6 Jan. 2012.

Peterson, 165.

Ark, Tom. The Case for Smaller Schools. Vol 59, No. 5. Jan. 2002, pg 55-59.

Landry, Julie. “Investment to Accelerate Creation of Strong Charter Schools.” The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. N.p., 3 June 2003. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www. gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/newschoolsventure-receives-grant-030630.aspx>.

Bolduan, Kate. “’100 mph’ School Chief Seeks ‘Radical Changes’”. CNN.com. 9 Sept. 2008. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-09/living/dc.schools_1_ public-schools-school-system-level-math-and-reading?_ s=PM:LIVING>.

Dillon, Sam. “Washington Chancellor’s Departure Isn’t Expected to Slow Public School Change.” NewYorkTimes. com. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www. nytimes.com/2010/10/14/education/14education. html?ref=michellerhee>. 85

AFT President Randi Weingarten. American Federation of Teachers, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www.aft. org/about/leadership/president.cfm>.

Wikipedia contributors. “Waiting for “Superman”.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 Jan. 2012.

88 ABOUT GEOFFREY CANADA. Harlem Children’s Zone, n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2010. <http://www.hcz.org/about-us/aboutgeoffrey-canada/144>.

THE HCZ PROJECT. Harlem Children’s Zone, n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2010. <http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project>.

Eitzen, 85.

Eitzen, 85-86.

Eitzen, 89.

Ravitch, Diane. “The Big Idea -- It’s Bad Education Policy.” Opinion. L.A. Times, 14 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/opinion/la-oeravitch14-2010mar14>. 93

Peterson, 194.

Reuters. “US State Tax Revenues Return to PreRecession Levels.” CNBC, 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/45601632/US_State_Tax_ Revenues_Return_to_Pre_Recession_Levels>.

96 U.S. Department of Education. “Race to the Top Program: Executive Summary.” U.S. Department of Education, Nov. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf> : 2. 97 98

U.S. Department of Education, 2. U.S. Department of Education, 4-5.

McNeil, Michele. “Civil Rights Groups Call for New Federal Education Agenda.” Politics K-12. Education Week, 26 July 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/ campaign-k-12/2010/07/civil_rights_groups_call_for_n.html>.

100 Wikipedia contributors. “Race to the Top.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. 101

Ravitch

102

McNeil

Images: 3.01 Thurgood Marshall. n.d. Photograph. Harvard Law School Library. Visual Information Access (VIA). By Harris & Ewing. Harvard University Library. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliver/chunkDisplay?_collectio n=via&inoID=722532&recordNumber=5&startChunkNum=1& endChunkNum=1&totalChunkCount=1&chunkNumber=1&m ethod=view&image=thumb&offset=0>.

3.14 U.S. Department of Education. NCLB - Logo. Graphic. A Law’s Failing Grade. WordPress.com, 4 Aug. 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://azatty.wordpress.com/tag/ no-child-left-behind/>.

3.02 Burt Glinn. USA. Arkansas. Little Rock. Integration of Little Rock Central High School., 1957.

3.15 No Child Left Behind. 2002. Photograph. AFP. George W. Bush: Moments That Defined His Presidency. By Tim Sloan. Washington Post. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www. washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/gallery/2010/11/05/ GA2010110502574.html>.

3.03 Earl Warren. n.d. Photograph. Harvard Law School Library. Visual Information Access (VIA). Harvard University Library. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.

3.16 Got School Choice?. Photograph. from Capcon: Michigan Capitol Confiential. Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://mackinac.org/images.aspx?ID=16178#4111>.

3.04 “Crisis in Education.” LIFE. March 1958: cover page.

3.17 Bill Gates at the National Urban League Conference. 28 July 2011. Photograph. Boston, MA. By Rick Friedman. Rick Friedman/Corbis. Corbis News. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http:// www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE025794/ president-johnson-meeting-with-civil-rights-leaders?popup=1>.

3.05 Caruba, Alan. “LBJ launched his War on Poverty”. Digital image. Democrats Demagogue Poverty. Again. 02 Feb. 2008. Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism. 02 Oct. 2011 <http://www.enterstageright. com/archive/articles/0208/0208demspoverty.htm>. 3.06 President Johnson Meeting with Civil Rights Leaders. 18 Jan. 1964. Photograph. Bettmann Collection. CORBIS. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http://www.corbisimages.com/ stock-photo/rights-managed/BE025794/president-johnsonmeeting-with-civil-rights-leaders?popup=1>. 3.07 Fire Burning in Southeast Los Angeles. 16 Aug. 1965. Los Angeles, California. Photograph. Bettmann/Corbis. Bettmann Collection. CORBIS. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http:// www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/ BE045534/fire-burning-in-southeast-los-angeles?popup=1>. 3.08 A Protest Against Forced Busing. Photograph. from School Busing Upheld by Supreme Court – Boston Busing Crisis –1970s. Civrights. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://civrights. wikispaces.com/School+Busing+Upheld+by+Supreme+Cou rt+-+Boston+Busing+Crisis+%E2%80%93+1970s>. 3.09 President Nixon Points to a Reporter. 6 Mar. 1974. Washington, D.C. Photograph. Bettmann Collection. CORBIS. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. < http://www. corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE021928/ president-nixon-points-to-a-reporter?popup=1>. 3.10 “Tax Revolt!” Time. 19 June, 1978: cover page. 3.11 Navy Photographic Center. James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, 1958-1981. Photograph. from Wikipedia contributors. “Jimmy Carter.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 Jan. 2012. 3.12 Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981. Photograph. from Wikipedia contributors. “Ronald Reagan.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Jan. 2012. 3.13 McNeely, Bob. President William J. Clinton. Photograph. from Wikipedia contributors. “Bill Clinton.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Jan. 2012.

3.18 Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City. Photograph. Bloomberg. Michael Bloomberg Photos. By Nelson Ching. Bloomberg. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http:// topics.bloomberg.com/michael-bloomberg/_/slideshow/? category=%2Fnews%2Fregions%2Fus%2Ftopic&select ed_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fapps%2F data%3Fiid%3DiAU5lKmQYdJ8%26pid%3Davimage&slides how_id=344330>. 3.19 I’m Not Done Fighting. Photograph. By Peter Yang. Newsweek. December 2010: cover image. 3.20 Randi Weingarten. Photograph. An Interview With Randi Weingarten. Comp. Stephen Sawchuk. Education Week, 19 June 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://blogs. edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2009/06/five_edweek_ reporters_sat_down.html>. 3.21 Waiting for “Superman”: English Postcard. Press Release. Waiting for “Superman” Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/action/sites/ waitingforsuperman.com/files/pdf/superhero_toolkit/ WFS_5x7_092310_04.pdf>. 3.22 Geoffrey Canada. Photograph. Work on Purpose Media Kit. Echoing Green. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www. echoinggreen.org/files/Geoffrey%20Canada.jpg>. 3.23 Race to the Top Logo. Graphic. from “Race to the Top.” Lake County Schools. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <hƩp:// lake.k12.fl.us/1651103109482070/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BM DRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=71177&1651103109482070Nav=%7C&N odeID=2526>. 3.24 USA – Politics – President Obama Visits Graham Road Elementary School. 19 Jan. 2010. Photograph. By Kristoffer Tripplaar. Tripplaar/Pool/SIPA USA/Corbis. Corbis News. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http://www.corbisimages.com/stockphoto/rights-managed/42-24210124/usa-politics-presidentobama-visits-graham-road?popup=1>.

4. Case Study: Public Education in Boston “Boston: History.” Lonely Planet. N.p., 2011. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.lonelyplanet.com/usa/boston/history>.

Boston. Wikipedia, 14 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston>.

“History (375 + Years).” Boston Latin School Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bls.org/history?rc=0>. 3

6 Wikipedia contributors. “Boston Latin School.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Jan. 2012.

“History (375 + Years).”

361

Matzat, Amy L. “MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION LAWS OF 1642 AND 1647.” University of Notre Dame. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/ masslaws.html>.

Cronin, 71.

Cronin, 74.

Cronin, 77.

Cronin, 81.

Cronin, 80-81.

Cronin, 83-86.

Cronin, 86.

ushistory.org. “9f. The Tea Act and Tea Parties.” The Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org, 2008-2011. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/9f.asp>.

Cronin, 86.

Cronin, 89.

Ronemus, Andrew. “Minutemen.” The Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org, 1995. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm>.

Cronin, 8.

Cronin, 96.

Cronin, 97.

Cronin, 98.

8 9

“Boston: History.” “Boston: History.”

10 ushistory.org. “The Boston Massacre.” The Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org, 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/massacre. htm >. 11

“Boston: History.”

Wikipedia contributors. “American Revolution.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.

Cronin, 5.

Cronin, 99-100.

Cronin, 5.

Cronin, 100.

Cronin, 5.

Cronin, 114.

Cronin, 51.

Cronin, 126.

Cronin, 163-164.

Cronin, 175.

Cronin, 189.

Cronin, 190-192

Cronin, 110.

Cronin, 126. Cronin, 123.

Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978: 88.

Graves, Ben E., and Clifford A. Pearson. School Ways : The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 24.

20 21

Cronin, 5. Cronin, 63.

Cronin, 6.

Cronin, 9.

Cronin, 6.

Cronin, 12.

Cronin, 11.

Cronin, 13.

Cronin, 118.

Cronin, 6.

Cronin, 123.

Cronin, 7.

Cronin, 174.

Cronin, 21-25.

Cronin, 50.

Cronin, 23-25.

Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003: 193.

Cronin, 47-49.

Cronin, 50-51.

Cronin, 50.

Cronin, 57.

Cronin, 40-41.

Cronin, 154.

Cronin, 67.

Cronin, 200.

Cronin, 122.

Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics : The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002: 24.

Cronin, 120.

Cronin, 121.

Cronin, 224.

Cronin, 228-229.

“History.” Girls’ Latin School - Boston Latin Academy Association, Inc., 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2012. <http://http://blagls. org/main/page/history/C25/>.

Images: 4.01 Map of Boston. 1640. Drawing. ARTstor Slide Gallery. Data from: University of California, San Diego. ARTstore. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. 4.02 Boston: Harbor and City Ref.. 1764. Etching. ARTstor Slide Gallery. Data from: University of California, San Diego. ARTstore. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. 4.03 Revere, Paul. Boston Massacre. 1770. Colored Engraving. The Carnegie Arts of the United States Collection. ARTstore. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. 4.04 Chandler, Winthrop. The Battle of Bunker Hill. 1776-77 approximate. Painting. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, Massachusetts. ARTstore. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. 4.05 Sidney, F.G.. Map of the City and Vicinity of Boston, Massachusetts. c1852. Engraving. David Rumsey Collection. via Harvard Map Collection: Digital Maps. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/ RUMSEY~8~1~22767~780007:Map-of-the-City-andvicinity-of-Bos?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_ Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:map%2Bo f%2Bthe%2Bcity%2Band%2Bvicinity%2Bof%2Bboston;s ort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_ No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=9&trs=12>. 4.06 Smith School, Belknap Street. 1848-1955 (approximate). Watercolor. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6198203652/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.07 Eliot School, North Bennet Street. 1848-1955 (approximate). Watercolor. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6197685395/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.08 Latin School, Bedford Street. 1848-1955 (approximate). Watercolor. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6303166385/in/set-72157627850660367/>. 4.09 Quincy School, Tyler Street. 1848-1955 (approximate). Watercolor. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6198202498/in/set-72157627787153962/>. 4.10 Hancock School, Richmond Place. 1848-1955 (approximate). Watercolor. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6198203020/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.11 Adams School, Mason Street. 1848-1955 (approximate). Watercolor. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6197685965/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.12 Sidney, F.G.. Map of the City and Vicinity of Boston, Massachusetts. c1852. Engraving. David Rumsey Historical Map Collection.via Harvard Map Collection: Digital Maps. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/ servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~26531~1100467:Mass achusetts--Boston-sheet--Prelim?sort=Pub_List_No_ InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No &qvq=q:31.%2BBoston%2Bsheet.;sort:Pub_List_No_ InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_ No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=4&trs=32>.

4.13 Detroit Photographic Co., Tower Bridges, Fort Point Channel, Boston, Mass.. 1904 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/5327624333/in/set-72157625630652339>. 4.14 Dewey Square. 1901. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5209548601/in/set72157625474292616/>. 4.15 S.W. from Top of Chimney at Lincoln Wharf Power Station. 28 Nov. 1900. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6055532529/in/set72157625690852851/>. 4.16 Folsom, Augustine H.. North Margin St. School. 1892-1893 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6197671525/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.17 Folsom, Augustine H.. Girls High School, Newton St.. 1893. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_ public_library/6197669401/in/set-72157627787153962/>. 4.18 Folsom, Augustine H.. Horace Mann School for the Deaf. 1892. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6198199880/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.19 Folsom, Augustine H.. Bowditch School. 18921893 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6197664911/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.20 Folsom, Augustine H.. Winship School, Brighton. 1890 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6197673459/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.21 Thomas E. Marr & Son. Massachusetts. Boston. Dorchester. Edward Everett School, Pleasant St.. 1910 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6198180250/in/set72157627787153962/>. 4.22 Folsom, Augustine H.. English High School – Exterior. 1983. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_ public_library/6303158317/in/set-72157627850660367/>. 4.23 Folsom, Augustine H.. Pupils at Work: Second Year Class. 1982. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6303163427/in/set72157627850660367/>. 4.24 Folsom, Augustine H.. Teachers. 1982. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6303688206/in/set-72157627850660367/>. 4.25 Folsom, Augustine H.. Chemical Laboratory. 1982. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6303163931/in/set-72157627850660367/>.

363

4.26 Folsom, Augustine H.. Assembly Hall. 1982. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6303160575/in/set-72157627850660367/>. 4.27 Folsom, Augustine H.. Dahlgreen Hall, South Boston – Shop Class - Interior. 1982-1893 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6197666727/in/set-72157627787153962/>. 4.29 Folsom, Augustine H.. Class at Work in Forge Room. Mechanic Arts High School. 1983-1900 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6198197574/in/set-72157627787153962/>. 4.30 Partridge. Boston Trade School for Girls – Young Girls Drawing (Sale of Christmas Gifts). 1983. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http:// www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6279527009/in/ set-72157627787153962/>. 4.28 Folsom, Augustine H.. The Machine Shop. From One End. Mechanic Arts High School. 1983-1900 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6198197318/in/set-72157627787153962/>. 4.31 Folsom, Augustine H.. A Class Room. Mechanic Arts High School. 1983-1900 (approximate). Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http:// www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6198196758/in/ set-72157627787153962/>. 4.32 Massachusetts, Metropolitan Planning Division. Map of Metropolitan District of Boston. 1923. Map. Harvard Maps Collection: Digital Maps. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. 4.33 Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc.. Back Bay, Looking West from Public Garden. 1928. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/5333543823/in/set72157625067458241/>. 4.34 Tunnel Lining Looking West from Ring 162. 30 Oct. 1931. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_ public_library/5327622527/in/set-72157625630652339>. 4.35 Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc.. Boston Proper. 1930. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/5334161050/in/set-72157625067458241/>. 4.36 Boston. West End, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Aerial View. n.d. Photograph. Leob Library, Harvard Design School. ARTstore. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. 4.37 Newton[Middlesex Co.] – Key, Sheet Oc [map]. 1931Dec. 1950. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1867-1970.” Harvard Map Collection. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://sanborn. umi.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ma/3805/dateid-000008. htm?CCSI=1926n>. Newton[Middlesex Co.] – Key, Sheet Ob [map]. 1931-Dec. 1950. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1867-1970.” Harvard Map Collection. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://sanborn.umi. com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ma/3805/dateid-000008. htm?CCSI=1926n>. Brookline[Norfolk Co.] – Key, Sheet Ob [map]. 1925-Apr. 1950. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1867-1970.” Harvard Map Collection. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://sanborn.umi. com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ma/3700/dateid-000002. htm?CCSI=1926n>. 4.38 Grant, Spencer. Teachers Strike for Better Working Conditions, Downtown Boston. 1969. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_ public_library/6327107562/in/photostream>.

4.39 Grant, Spencer. Feminist Rally Spectators, Boston Common. 1971. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6326357415/in/set-72157628046173060>. 4.40 Grant, Spencer. Black Panther Rally, Post Office Square, Boston. 1970. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6326359579/in/set-72157628046173060>. 4.41 Grant, Spencer. Local Kids Trash School During its Demolition, South Boston. 1971. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6399957875/in/set-72157628146390959/>. 4.42 Grant, Spencer. Local Kids Trash School During its Demolition, South Boston. 1971. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6399957999/in/set-72157628146390959/>. 4.43 Grant, Spencer. Anti-Busing Rally at Thomas Park, South Boston. 1974. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6326362205/in/set-72157628046173060/>. 4.44 Associated Press. Two White Students Leave for School. 12 Sept. 1974. Photograph. Associated Press. Yahoo News. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://news.yahoo. com/photos/file-thursday-sept-12-1974-file-photo-schoolphoto-173207575.html/>. 4.45 Grant, Spencer. Louise Day Hicks Speaks After Losing Her Bid for Mayor, Boston. 1967. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6419654117/in/set-72157628192697353/>. 4.46 Grant, Spencer. Anti-Busing Rally at Thomas Park, South Boston. 1974. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_ library/6326362205/in/set-72157628046173060/>. 4.47 Grant, Spencer. Police-Escorted School Buses on First Day of Court-Ordered Busing, South Boston. 12 Sept. 1974. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6431724355/in/set72157628221839113/>. 4.48 Grant, Spencer. Police-Escorted School Buses on First Day of Court-Ordered Busing, South Boston. 12 Sept. 1974. Photograph. Spencer Grant Collection. Boston Public Library, Print Department. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6431723767/in/set72157628221839113/>. 4.49 Forman, Stanley. Violent Anti-Busing Protestors. n.d. Photograph. “Tea Party ’76: A Boston Bicentennial.” Dailykos.com. 8Feb. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. dailykos.com/story/2010/02/08/835176/-tea-party-76:-aboston-bicentennial>. 4.50 Forman, Stanley. Patriotism Run Amuck. n.d. Photograph. “Tea Party ’76: A Boston Bicentennial.” Dailykos.com. 8Feb. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. <http://www. dailykos.com/story/2010/02/08/835176/-tea-party-76:-aboston-bicentennial>.

5. Paradigm Lag: Industrial Age Solutions for Information Age Problems O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010: 8.

Wikipedia contributors. “Technological and industrial history of the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. “Baby boomer.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012.

Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics : The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002: 11.

Wikipedia contributors. “HighScope.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Nov. 2011. Web. 8 Jan. 2012.

25 Wikipedia contributors. “Women’s rights.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. 26

Christensen, 57.

Hille, 163.

Graves, Ben E., and Clifford A. Pearson. School Ways : The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 21-22.

Christensen, 55-56.

Christensen, 9.

Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008: 35. 7 Christensen, 51.

Euchner, 210.

Christensen, 58.

Euchner, 210.

Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011) 13.

8 9

Graves, 26. Hille, 13.

State Compulsory School Attendance Laws. Infoplease, 2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/ A0112617.html>.

McAdams, Richard P. Exploring the Myths and Realities of Today’s Schools : A Candid Review of the Challenges Educators Face. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010: 23.

Christensen, 9.

Office of Education. High School – What’s In It For Me? in Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. F.W. Dodge Corp, 1954: 36. print.

Christensen, 9.

Christensen, 8.

Eitzen, D. S., and George Harvey Sage. Solutions to Social Problems : Lessons from State and Local Governments. Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2009: 75.

Ravitch, Diane. “The Big Idea -- It’s Bad Education Policy.” Opinion. L.A. Times, 14 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/opinion/la-oeravitch14-2010mar14>.

Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003: 194. 13

Euchner, 194.

Eitzen, 75.

Armor, David J. Forced Justice : School Desegregation and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995: 162.

Duncan, 100.

Eitzen, 76.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability: Education Policy White Paper.”

Alonso, Gaston. Our Schools Suck : Students Talk Back to a Segregated Nation on the Failures of Urban Education. New York: New York University Press, 2009: 65.

Peterson, Paul E. Choice and Competition in American Education. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006: 29. 43

Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978: 333.

Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001: 3.

Peterson, 99.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 55.

Duffy, Francis M. (Francis Martin), 1949-. Dream! Create! Sustain! : Mastering the Art and Science of Transforming School Systems. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010: 68. 46

Cronin, Joseph M., and Cronin, Joseph M. Reforming Boston schools, 1930-2006. Reforming Boston Schools, 1930 to the Present : Overcoming Corruption and Racial Segregation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011: 229.

Rhode, Deborah L., et al. Brown at 50, the Unfinished Legacy : A Collection of Essays. Chicago: Division for Public Education, American Bar Association, 2004: 193.

Alonso, 312.

Alonso, 199.

Eitzen, 89.

Peterson, 166.

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011: 65.

365

Woessmann, Ludger, and Paul E. Peterson. Schools and the Equal Opportunity Problem. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007: 184.

Peterson, 194.

Ravitch.

54 55

Eitzen, 84. Ravitch.

U.S. Department of Education. “Race to the Top Program: Executive Summary.” U.S. Department of Education, Nov. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf>: 2-5.

Christensen, 81-82.

Christensen, 64.

Duffy, 60. Reed, xv.

62 63

Christensen, 81.

Duffy, 75.

Ravitch.

Images: 5.01 AASLH. Auto Assembly Line circa 1973. Digital image. B Building Pictures Assembly Line in Action. Ford Motor Car Company History. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http:// fordmotorhistory.com/factories/river_rouge/bbuilding_ photos_1.php>. 5.02 Office of Education. High School – What’s In It For Me? in Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. F.W. Dodge Corp, 1954: 36. print. 5.03 Stage 1: With Windows. in University of Michigan School Environments,Research Project. The Effect of Windowless Classrooms on Elementary School Children : An Environmental Case Study. Ann Arbor: Architectural Research Laboratory, Dept. of Architecture, University of Michigan, 1965: 79. print.

5.04 Stage 2: Windows Removed. in University of Michigan School Environments,Research Project. The Effect of Windowless Classrooms on Elementary School Children : An Environmental Case Study. Ann Arbor: Architectural Research Laboratory, Dept. of Architecture, University of Michigan, 1965: 79. print. 5.05 Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGrawHill, 2008: 82.

6. Case Study: Comparing Boston’s School Districts 1

Author’s calculations based on: Massachusetts City and Town Precinct Maps. The United States Census 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/census/>.

Boston. Wikipedia, 14 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston>.

Author’s calculations based on: Massachusetts City and Town Precinct Maps.

Boston.

Schworm, Peter. “Growth Slow in Boston Metro Area.” Boston. com. NY Times Co., 28 Mar. 2011. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http:// articles.boston.com/2011-03-28/news/29360429_1_hispanicpopulation-population-growth-metro-area>.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Growing Regional Diversity.” Metro Boston Data Common. N.p., 2012. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/Calendar2012_02.pdf>.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Participation in METCO and Massachusetts School Choice.” Metro Boston Data Common. N.p., 2006. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/Calendar2006_05May_ ParticipationinMETCO.pdf>.

Easton, Lois Brown. Engaging the Disengaged : How Schools can Help Struggling Students Succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008: 26. Woessmann, Ludger, and Paul E. Peterson. Schools and the Equal Opportunity Problem. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007: 159.

Schworm, Peter, and Matt Carroll. “In Census, a Decade of Growth by State’s Minorities.” Boston.com. NY Times Co., 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.boston. com/2011-03-23/news/29352258_1_asian-populationhispanic-residents-minority-population>. Schworm, Peter, and Matt Carroll. “In Census, a Decade of Growth by State’s Minorities.” Boston.com. NY Times Co., 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.boston. com/2011-03-23/news/29352258_1_asian-populationhispanic-residents-minority-population>.

Alonso, Gaston. Our Schools Suck : Students Talk Back to a Segregated Nation on the Failures of Urban Education. New York: New York University Press, 2009: 2.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Poverty Rate.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. regionalindicators.org/equity/economy/poverty-rate/>.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Poverty Rate.”

Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: School Poverty.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. regionalindicators.org/equity/education/school-poverty/>.

11 School and District Profiles: Enrollment By Grade Report (DISTRICT).

20 Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Income.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. regionalindicators.org/equity/economy/income/>

21 Rankin, Bill. RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY . RadicalCartography.net, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.radicalcartography.net/?cityincome>. 22

Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Poverty Rate.”

Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Income.”

Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: Educational Attainment.”The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.regionalindicators.org/equity/education/educationalattainment/>.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Housing: Housing Affordability.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.regionalindicators.org/equity/housing/housingaffordability/>.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Housing: Segregation.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. regionalindicators.org/equity/housing/segregation/>. 28

Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: Plans After High School.”The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. regionalindicators.org/equity/education/plans-after-highschool/>.

Metro Area Planning Council. “Public Safety: Crime Rates.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. regionalindicators.org/equity/public-safety/crime-rates/>.

Maps: 6.01 MAPC. “The MAPC Region and Its Subregions.” Map. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. <http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/MAPC_Subregions. pdf>.

6.11 School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Technology Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles. doe.mass.edu/state_report/technology.aspx>.

6.02 “MassDOT Roads.” GIS Map. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Roads - October 2009. Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), 30 Aug. 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/ eotroads.htm>.

6.12 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Teacher Data Report (DISTRICT). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/teacherdata. aspx>. 6.13 School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Teacher Salaries Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles. doe.mass.edu/state_report/teachersalaries.aspx>.

6.03 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 6.04 Bureau of the Census. 2010 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles: Block Groups – Massachusetts – All Counties. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www. census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2010/file-download>. 6.05 “Massachusetts School District (2010).” GIS Map. 2010 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles: School Districts. U.S. Census Bureau. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ geo/shapefiles2010/layers.cgi>. 6.06 Metro Area Planning Council. “Participation in METCO and Massachusetts School Choice.” Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/ Calendar2006_05May_ParticipationinMETCO.pdf>. 6.07 “Schools.” GIS Map. Schools – November 2010. Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/schools.htm>. 6.08 School and District Profiles: Enrollment By Grade Report (DISTRICT). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ enrollmentbygrade.aspx>. 6.09 School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Per Pupil Expenditures Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx>. 6.10 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Class Size by Gender and Selected Population Data Report (DISTRICT). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ state_report/classsizebygenderpopulation.aspx>.

6.14 School and District Profiles: 2011 Mobility Rate Report for (DISTRICT) All Students. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ mobilityrates.aspx>. 6.15 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Enrollment By Race/Gender Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ enrollmentbyracegender.aspx>. 6.16 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 6.17 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Enrollment By Race/Gender Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ enrollmentbyracegender.aspx>. 6.18 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Class Size by Gender and Selected Population Data Report (DISTRICT). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ classsizebygenderpopulation.aspx>. 6.19 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Class Size by Gender and Selected Population Data Report (DISTRICT). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass. edu/state_report/classsizebygenderpopulation.aspx>.

367

6.20 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 6.21 School and District Profiles: 2010-11 Selected Populations Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ selectedpopulations.aspx>. 6.22 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>.

6.25 School and District Profiles: 2009-10 SAT Performance Report (DISTRICT). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/gradrates.aspx>. 6.26 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 6.27 School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Plans of High School Graduates Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/help/data.aspx >.

6.23 School and District Profiles: 2010 Graduation Rate Report (DISTRICT) for All Students. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ gradrates.aspx>.

6.28 School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Plans of High School Graduates Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/help/data.aspx >.

6.24 School and District Profiles: 2010 Graduation Rate Report (DISTRICT) for All Students. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/gradrates.aspx>.

6.29 “Crime Statistics By Municipality.” GIS Map. Crime Statistics By Municipality – December 2005. Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), 12 Dec. 2005. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. < http://www.mass.gov/mgis/crime_statistics.htm >.

7. An Assessment: District Strategies and Options Armor, David J. Forced Justice : School Desegregation and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995: 162.

Armor, 162.

Armor, 223.

Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001: 45.

Eitzen, D. S., and George Harvey Sage. Solutions to Social Problems : Lessons from State and Local Governments. Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2009: 82-84.

Rhode, Deborah L., et al. Brown at 50, the Unfinished Legacy : A Collection of Essays. Chicago: Division for Public Education, American Bar Association, 2004: 200. 11

Eitzen, 85-86.

Armor, 223.

Eitzen, 88.

Armor, 162.

Armor, 163.

Connecticut State Department of Education. “2011-2012 A Guide to Public School Choice for Students and Their Families.” Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. 15

Armor, 162.

8. Case Study: Boston Public Schools Cronin, Joseph M., and Cronin,Joseph M.Reforming Boston schools, 1930-2006. Reforming Boston Schools, 1930 to the Present : Overcoming Corruption and Racial Segregation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011: 231.

Cronin, 232.

Cronin, 179.

Cronin, 235.

Cronin, 179.

Vaznis, James. “Hundreds of Boston Teachers Rally over Contract - Metro Desk - Local News Updates from The Boston Globe.” The Boston Globe. Boston.com, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.boston.com/Boston/ metrodesk/2012/01/hundreds-boston-teachers-expectedrally-over-contract/fID7hDWpAMEblC9WfTPXlO/index.html>.

Cronin, 180.

Cronin, 224.

Cronin, 25.

BPS Communications Office. “Boston Public Schools at a Glance 2010–2011.” BostonPublicSchools.org. 28 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/ files/bps_at_a_glance_11-0428_4.pdf>.

Cronin, 86.

Cronin, 121.

17 “Student Assignment Policy.” Boston Public Schools. 20082011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bostonpublicschools. org/assignment>.

Cronin, 237-328.

Kershner, Isabel, and Mark Landler. “Suit Challenges School Policy Over Race Issue.”NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 11 Feb. 2003. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www. nytimes.com/2003/02/11/us/suit-challenges-school-policyover-race-issue.html>.

Images and Maps: 8.01 Dr. Carol Johnson. Photograph. from “Dr. Carol Johnson.” CBS Boston. 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://boston.cbslocal.com/?attachment_id=101556>. 8.02 Krupa, Charles / AP. Mayor Thomas Menino. Photograph. from VÁZQUEZ TONESS, BIANCA. “Menino’s 20-Year Mandate Comes With Conditions.”WBUR.org. N.p., 4 Nov. 2009. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.wbur. org/2009/11/04/mayoral-election-outcome>. 8.03 Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. from Associated Press. “Gov. Says He Wants UMass Head With National Heft.”DiverseEducation.com. N.p., 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://diverseeducation.com/article/14422/>. 8.04 | 8.06 | 8.07 | 8.08 | 8.10 | 8.11 | 8.13 | 8.14 BPS Communications Office. “Boston Public Schools at a Glance 2010–2011.” BostonPublicSchools.org. 28 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/files/ bps_at_a_glance_11-0428_4.pdf>.

8.09 Metro Area Planning Council. “Participation in METCO and Massachusetts School Choice.” Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/ Calendar2006_05May_ParticipationinMETCO.pdf>. 8.12 “Student Assignment Policy.” Boston Public Schools. 2008-2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www. bostonpublicschools.org/assignment>. BPS Strategic Planning. “2011-2012 BPS map with Circle of Promise.”BostonPublicSchools.org. N.p., 2011. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/files/ district_map_sy11-12_circle.pdf>. 8.15 | 8.16 | 8.17 | 8.17 | 8.18 | 8.19 | 8.19 | 8.20 | 8.21 | 8.22 | 8.23 | 8.24 | 8.25 | 8.26 | 8.27 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http:// www.socialexplorer.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/ reportdata/TableSelection.aspx?reportid=R10165827>.

8.05 “Schools.” GIS Map. Schools – November 2010. Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/schools.htm>.

9. America’s Paradox: Capitalism, Public Education, and Democracy Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001: 48.

Reed, 129.

Reed, 97.

Reed, 107.

Reed, xvi.

Orfield, 28.

Butts, 343.

Reed, 15.

Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978: 333.

Rhode, Deborah L., et al. Brown at 50, the Unfinished Legacy : A Collection of Essays. Chicago: Division for Public Education, American Bar Association, 2004: 12.

6 7

Reed, 39. Reed, 44-45.

Reed, 38.

Reed, 37.

Reed, xiv.

11 Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics : The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002: 28.

Eitzen, D. S., and George Harvey Sage. Solutions to Social Problems : Lessons from State and Local Governments. Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2009: 81.

Reed, 39.

Reed, 133.

Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003: 17. 21

Butts, 342-343.

Euchner, 207.

Reed, 128.

Easton, Lois Brown. Engaging the Disengaged : How Schools can Help Struggling Students Succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008: 42.

Euchner, 26.

Reed, 135.

Reed, 43.

Reed, 130.

Rhode, 208.

Peterson, Paul E. Choice and Competition in American Education. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006: 206.

369

Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011: 8.

Rhode, 195.

Orfield, 11.

Reed, 40.

Wikipedia contributors. “Post-racial America.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Woessmann, 214.

Woessmann, 215.

Reville, S. P., and Celine Coggins. A Decade of Urban School Reform : Persistence and Progress in the Boston Public Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2007: 193.

Reville, 204-205.

Euchner, 204.

Euchner, 206.

Woessmann, 212.

Reed, 19.

Euchner, 187.

Woessmann, 232-233.

Armor, David J. Forced Justice : School Desegregation and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995: 182.

Armor, 201.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 106.

Rhode, 194.

Orfield, 99.

Euchner, 19.

Ikpa, 10.

Armor, 198.

Au, Wayne, 1972-. Unequal by Design : High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York: Routledge, 2009: 7-8.

Peterson, 206.

Duncan, 93.

Reed, 48.

Ikpa, Vivian W., and C. K. McGuire. Narrowing the Achievement Gap in a (Re)Segregated Urban School District : Research, Practice, and Policy. Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Pub, 2009: 24.

Euchner, 204.

Butts, 84.

Butts, 342-343.

Eitzen, 81.

School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Per Pupil Expenditures Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx>.

Reed, 20.

Duncan, 100.

Duncan, 217.

Duncan, 218.

Duncan, 221.

Duffy, Francis M. (Francis Martin), 1949-. Dream! Create! Sustain! : Mastering the Art and Science of Transforming School Systems. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010: 183.

Woessmann, 232.

Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008: 193.

Wikipedia contributors. “Mayoral Control of Schools.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.

Alonso, Gaston. Our Schools Suck : Students Talk Back to a Segregated Nation on the Failures of Urban Education. New York: New York University Press, 2009: 197.

Christensen, 194.

Ciotti, Paul. “Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment.” CATO Institute. N.p., 16 Mar. 1998. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html>.

Euchner, 199.

Euchner, 236-237.

Connecticut State Department of Education. “2011-2012 A Guide to Public School Choice for Students and Their Families.” Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/ equity/choice/public_school_choice_2011.pdf>. 86

Euchner, 236-237.

Connecticut State Department of Education.

Prince, Hank. “Proposal A and Pupil Equity.” House Fiscal Agency. Michigan House of Representatives, Dec. 1996. Web. 19 Jan. 2010. <http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/home. asp>. 89

Duffy, 182.

Duffy, 183.

Euchner, 21.

Duffy, 183.

Euchner, 3.

Duffy, 183.

Euchner, 8-9.

Euchner, 8.

Woessmann, 161.

Woessmann, Ludger, and Paul E. Peterson. Schools and the Equal Opportunity Problem. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007: 215.

99 95 96 97

Euchner, 4. Peterson, 207.

Christensen, 63.

100

Ravitch, 253.

101

Reed, 38.

Peterson, 207.

Ravitch, Diane, and Joseph P. Viteritti 1946-. New Schools for a New Century : The Redesign of Urban Education. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997: 252.

Images: 9.01 The Education-Residential Complex. in Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001: 127. print.

10. The American Schoolhouse: Building Trends Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 13.

Hille, 13.

Graves, Ben E., and Clifford A. Pearson. School Ways : The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 21-22.

Hille, 19

Hille, 35.

Hille, 249.

Hille, 35.

Graves, 71.

Hille, 35.

Hille, 91.

Graves, 28.

Hille, 91.

Hille, 92.

Hille, 91.

Graves, 72.

Graves, 30.

Hille, 163, 203.

Hille, 163.

Graves, 29, 71.

Hille, 92.

Hille, 163.

Graves, 8, 30.

Hille, 163.

Hille, 203.

4 5 6 7 8 9

Graves, 23. Hille, 13. Hille, 13. Graves, 24. Hille, 13. Hille, 14.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Hille, 14. Graves, 25-26. Hille, 15. Graves, 26. Graves, 26. Hille, 15. Graves, 25. Hille, 15. Hille, 16.

Hayes, William, 1938-. The Progressive Education Movement : Is it Still a Factor in Today’s Schools?. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006, 20.

20 21 22 23

Hayes, 21. Hayes, 19-21. Hayes, 13-16. Hayes, 93.

24 Oppenheimer, Todd. “Schooling the Imagination.” The Atlantic Online. N.p., 1999. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. <http://www. theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99sep/9909waldorf.htm>. 25 26

Hayes, 87-88. Hayes, 89-91.

Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008: 59.

371

Hille, 203.

58 Wikipedia contributors. “Generation Y.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2011.

Images: 10.01 One Room Schoolhouse, Longitudinal Section B-B. 1973. Drawing. One Room Schoolhouse. By Thersic. Wordpress.com. 3 Jan. 2012. < http://thersic.com/wordpress/ wordpress/?p=3372 >. 10.02 Figure 1.11 in Dudek, Mark. Architecture of Schools : The New Learning Environment. Oxford ;Boston: Architectural Press, 2000: 14. print. 10.03 Plan of First Floor in Barnard, Henry, 18111900. School Architecture; Or Contributions to the Improvement of School-Houses in the United States. 2. edition. ed. New York, 1848: 209. print. 10.04 Quincy School, Tyler Street. 1848-1955 (approximate). Boston, Massachusetts. Watercolors. Boston Public Library, Prints Department. Watercolours of Boston public school buildings. Web. 3 Jan. 2012. <http://www.flickr. com/photos/boston_public_library/6198202498/in/set72157627787153962/>. 10.05 Bowditch School. Folsom, Augustine H. 1892-1893 (approximate). Boston, Massachusetts. Photograph. Boston Public Library, Prints Department. Web. 3 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6198202498/in/ set-72157627787153962/>. 10.06 First Floor Plan. in Wight, Peter B. “Public School Architecture At Chicago : The Work Of Dwight H. Perkins.” Architectural Record 27.(1910): 495-511. 504. print. 10.07 Stephen K Hayt Elementary School. in Wight, Peter B. “Public School Architecture At Chicago : The Work Of Dwight H. Perkins.” Architectural Record 27.(1910): 495-511. 503. print. 10.08 Plan – Upper Level. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 20. print. 10.09 Elevation – South. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 20. print. 10.10 Francis W Parker. Photograph. Wikipedia contributors. “Francis Wayland Parker.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 9 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. 10.11 Watson-Schütze, Eva. John Dewey in 1902. Photograph. 1902. Wikipedia contributors. “John Dewey.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. 10.12 Steiner um 1905. Photograph. 1905. in Wikipedia contributors. “Rudolf Steiner.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. 10.13 Maria Montessori. Photograph. Wikipedia contributors. “Maria Montessori.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. 10.14 Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 86. print. 10.15 Overall View from the West. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 87. print.

10.16 Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 94. print. 10.17 Courtyard. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 95. print. 10.18 Classroom. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 95. print. 10.19 Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 102. print. 10.20 Hallway. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 103. print. 10.21 Stage 1: With Windows. in University of Michigan School Environments,Research Project. The Effect of Windowless Classrooms on Elementary School Children : An Environmental Case Study. Ann Arbor: Architectural Research Laboratory, Dept. of Architecture, University of Michigan, 1965: 79. print. 10.22 Stage 2: Windows Removed. in University of Michigan School Environments,Research Project. The Effect of Windowless Classrooms on Elementary School Children : An Environmental Case Study. Ann Arbor: Architectural Research Laboratory, Dept. of Architecture, University of Michigan, 1965: 79. print. 10.23 Plan – Main Level. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 176. print. 10.24 Exterior Wall. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 177. print. 10.25 Commons. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 177. print. 10.26 Open-Plan Teaching Space. in University of Liverpool Pilkington,Research Unit, and Peter Manning ed. The Primary School: An Environment for Education; a Collection of Essays for Administrators, Teachers, Parents, Architects, Building Research Workers and Others;. Liverpool,: University, Department of Building Science, Pilkington Research Unit, 1967: 39. print. 10.27 Main Entrance. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 207. print. 10.28 Kaplan, Ethan. North Elevation of Classroom Wing. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 227. print. 10.29 Polidori, Robert and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. South Elevation and Green Roof. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 237. print. 10.30 Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 238. print.

10.31 Holzher, Florian and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Main Courtyard. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 238. print.

10.32 Aerial Photos of New Jersey. Aerial View. in “Burr Elementary.” Architectural Record. 193.12 (2005): 142. print.

10.32 Polidori, Robert and Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Hall. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 238. print.

11. The School: Built Ideologies Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 249.

Hille, 249.

Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 229.

Hille, 317.

Hille, 315.

Roth, 263. Hille, 316-317.

Hille, 252.

Roth, 229.

Hille, 253.

Hertzberger, Herman, 1932-, et al. The Schools of Herman Hertzberger = Herman Hertzberger : Alle Scholen. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. 31. 35

“Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 80.

Hertzberger, 35.

Hertzberger, 9.

“100 Years Of Significant Buildings.” Architectural Record (1956): 238.

Hertzberger, 29.

Hertzberger, Herman, Laila Ghäit, and Marieke van Vlijmen. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 4th rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001. 153.

Crow Island School, 80.

10 Clarke, Jane H. “Philosophy In Brick.” Inland Architect 33.6 (1989): 56. 11

Clarke, 54.

Crow Island School, 89.

Clarke, 56.

Hille, 148.

Roth, 148.

Cruickshank, Dan. “Hunstanton School, Norfolk, 1954.” RIBA Journal 104.1 (1997): 52.

“New Brutalism Defined At Last.” Architects’ Journal 122. (1956): 336.

Graves, Ben E., and Clifford A. Pearson. School Ways : The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993: 29. “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 114-117.

Educational Facilities Laboratories. Profiles of Significant Schools: Schools Without Walls. Ann Arbor, Mich.:University of Michigan, 1965: 26.

Sharp, Robert V., and Design Competition Chicago Public Schools. Architecture for Education : New School Designs from the Chicago Competition. 1st ed. Chicago, Ill.: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, 2002: 2.10.

20 Smithson, Peter. “Reflections On Hunstanton.” Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly 2.4 (1997): 36-40. 21

“New Brutalism Defined At Last.” 336.

Hertzberger,17.

Sharp, 2.16.

Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 105.

Bulman, 94.

Egelund, Niels. “Den Enkelte Elev = The Individual Pupil [Denmark].”Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 131.

Hille, 152.

Egelund, 132.

Cruickshank, 51.

Egelund, 132.

Space and Learning : Lessons in Architecture 3, 61.

Hertzberger, Herman. Space and Learning : Lessons in Architecture 3. English ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008: 21.

Cruickshank, 56.

Hille, 313.

Hille, 315.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 186.

Hille, 313.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 186.

373

Mazzoleni, Ilaria. “The White School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 93.

Pearson, Clifford A., and Christopher Hawthorne. “Michael Maltzan Designs A Place Of Hope And Creativity For InnerCity-Arts In Los Angeles.”Architectural Record 197.2 (2009): 65. 56

Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 103. Mazzanti, Giancarlo. “Gerardo Molina School [Bogota].” Space 496 (2009): 72.

Pearson, 62.

Mazzoleni, 93

Pearson, 66.

61 62

Gallanti, 103.

“Mazzanti Arquitectos: Colegio Gerardo Molina, Bogotà, 2004-08.” Lotus International 145 (2011): 34.

Mazzanti, 72.

Pearson, 68. Pearson, 68.

Pearson, 66.

Images: 11.01 Hille, Thomas. View from Courtyard. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 256. print. 11.02 Hille, Thomas. Exterior Patio. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 251. print. 11.03 Hille, Thomas. Glazed Stairwell. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 261. print. 11.04 Hille, Thomas. Day-Lit Classroom. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 251. print. 11.05 Hille, Thomas. Upper Level Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 255. print. 11.06 Hille, Thomas. Cross Section. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 254. print. 11.07 Hedrich-Blesing. Main Entrance. 1941. in “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 84. print. 11.08 Hedrich-Blesing. Outdoor Classroom. 1941. in “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 81. print.

11.15 Clerestory and Window Wall. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 149. print. 11.16 Site Plan. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 146. print. 11.17 Classroom Plan. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 148. print. 11.18 Classroom Cross Section. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 148. print. 11.19 Façade and Water Tower. in Cruickshank, Dan. “Hunstanton School, Norfolk, 1954.” RIBA Journal 104.1 (1997): 52. print. 11.20 Alison (Age 21) and Peter (Age 26) Smithson. in Smithson, Peter. “Reflections On Hunstanton.” Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly 2.4 (1997): 32. print. 11.21 Interior Perspective. in “School At Hunstanton, Norfolk : Alison And Peter Smithson, Archts.” Architectural Review 116.(1954): 159. print. 11.22 Overall Perspective. in Smithson, Peter. “Reflections On Hunstanton.” Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly 2.4 (1997): 41. print.

11.09 Hedrich-Blesing. Primary Play Terrace. 1941. in “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 79. print.

11.23 Hille, Thomas. Second Level Plan. in Exterior Patio. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 153. print.

11.10 Hedrich-Blesing. Ground Floor Plan. 1941. in “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 84. print.

11.24 Window Detail Photo. in “School At Hunstanton, Norfolk : Alison And Peter Smithson, Archts.” Architectural Review 116.(1954): 156. print.

11.11 Hedrich-Blesing. Typical Classroom. 1941. in “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 87. print. 11.12 Aerial View. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 145. print. 11.13 Desk and Chair Designed by Arne Jacobsen. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 150. print. 11.14 Two Classroom Courtyard. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 149. print.

11.25 Window Detail Drawing. in Cruickshank, Dan. “Hunstanton School, Norfolk, 1954.” RIBA Journal 104.1 (1997): 57. print. 11.26 Classroom Interior. in Cruickshank, Dan. “Hunstanton School, Norfolk, 1954.” RIBA Journal 104.1 (1997): 56. print. 11.27 Hille, Thomas. School Courtyard. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 321. print. 11.28 Typical Classroom. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 263. print. 11.29 Garden-Court. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 264. print.

11.30 Aerial View. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 261. print. 11.31 Hille, Thomas. Ground Floor Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 319. print. 11.32 Hille, Thomas. Classroom Plan. in Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 320. print. 11.33 Exterior Patio. in Hertzberger, Herman, 1932-, et al. The Schools of Herman Hertzberger = Herman Hertzberger : Alle Scholen. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. 154. print. 11.34 Interior Windows. in Hertzberger, Herman, 1932-, et al. The Schools of Herman Hertzberger = Herman Hertzberger : Alle Scholen. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. 163. print. 11.35 Aerial Photograph. in Hertzberger, Herman, 1932-, et al. The Schools of Herman Hertzberger = Herman Hertzberger : Alle Scholen. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. 164. print. 11.36 Ground Floor Plan. in Hertzberger, Herman, 1932-, et al. The Schools of Herman Hertzberger = Herman Hertzberger : Alle Scholen. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. 163. print. 11.37 Hallway Podium. in Hertzberger, Herman, Laila Ghäit, and Marieke van Vlijmen. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 4th rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001. 153. print. 11.38 Elevation Diagrams. in Hertzberger, Herman, Laila Ghäit, and Marieke van Vlijmen. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 4th rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001. 202. print.

11.51 Level One Plan. in Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 96. print. 11.52 Level Two Plan. in Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 97. print. 11.53 Circulation Model. in Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 91. print. 11.54 Communal Activity Space. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 81. print. 11.55 Exterior Elevation. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 79. print. 11.56 Playground. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 83. print. 11.57 First Floor Plan. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 76. print. 11.58 Cross Section. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 77. print. 11.59 Internal Atrium. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 80. print. 11.60 Multi-Level Negative Space. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 81. print. 11.61 Communal Atrium. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 84. print.

11.39 Classroom Steps. in Hertzberger, Herman, Laila Ghäit, and Marieke van Vlijmen. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 4th rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001. 202. print. 10.40 Bintliff, John. Interior View. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 115. print.

11.62 Baan, Iwan. Aerial View in City Context. 2008. in “Michael Maltzan Designs A Place Of Hope and Creativity for Inner-City Arts in Los Angeles.” Clifford A. Pearson and Christopher Hawthorne. Architectural Record. 197.2 (2009): 69. print.

11.41 Zimbel, George. Teaching of the Stairs. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 114. print.

11.63 Baan, Iwan. View into Courtyard. 2008. in Mazzoleni, Ilaria. “The White School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 96. print.

11.42 Bintliff, John. Exterior View. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 113. print.

11.64 Michael Maltzan Architecture. Ground Floor Plan. 2008. in Mazzoleni, Ilaria. “The White School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 95. print.

11.43 Bintliff, John. Dome Interior. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 116. print. 11.44 Ground Floor Plan. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 113. print. 11.45 Zimbel, George. Learning Area. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 116. print. 11.46 Informal Classroom Area. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 112. print. 11.47 Zimbel, George. Gathering on the Step. in “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 116. print. 11.48 Competition Model. in Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 90. print. 11.49 Longitudinal Section. in Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 99. print. 11.50 Elevation. in Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005: 99. print.

11.65 Baan, Iwan. Ceramics Tower. 2008. in “Michael Maltzan Architecture: Inner-City Arts, Los Angeles,1993-2008.” Lotus International 145 (2011): 68. print. 11.66 Michael Maltzan Architecture. Cross Section. 2008. in Mazzoleni, Ilaria. “The White School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 95. print. 11.67 Gomez, Sergio. Community Edges. in Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 104. print. 11.68 Rudolph, photo. Aerial View. in Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 108. print. 11.69 Ground Floor Plan. in “Mazzanti Arquitectos: Colegio Gerardo Molina, Bogotà, 2004-08.” Lotus International 145 (2011): 34. print. 11.70 Cross Section. in Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 109. print. 11.71 Checklist of Modules. In Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 113. print. 11.72 Checklist of Potential Combinations. in Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 113. print.

375

12. The Next Curriculum: “Flipping” Education 1

Easton, Lois Brown. Engaging the Disengaged : How Schools can Help Struggling Students Succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008: 4.

Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003: 195.

Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008: 34.

Guskey, Thomas. “Mastery Learning.” Education.com. The Gale Group, Inc., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http://www. education.com/reference/article/mastery-learning/>.

Guskey.

Christensen, 26.

Christensen, 7.

Christensen, 37.

Vander Ark, Tom, 1959-. Getting Smart : How Digital Learning is Changing the World. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012: 32-34.

“Khan Academy: About: The Site.” KhanAcademy.org. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.khanacademy. org/about>. Federal Communications Commission. “National Broadband Plan: Connecting America - Executive Summary.” Broadband.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/>.

Whitney, Lance. “Survey: 40 Percent in U.S. Have No Broadband.” cNET.com. N.p., 16 Feb. 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10454133-94. html>. Federal Communications Commission.

Jones, Brent, Editor. “Editorial: In broadband race, USA is not No. 1.” USAToday.com. N.p., 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/ story/2011-12-06/Guess-whos-No-1-in-broadband-Hint-Itsnot-USA/51683876/1>.

New York City Department of Education. “iZone: Frequently Asked Questions.”Schools.NYC.gov. N.p., 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://schools.nyc.gov/community/ innovation/izone/About_Us/faqnew.htm>.

22 Maine Department of Education. “About MLTI.” Maine.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://maine.gov/mlti/about/ index.shtml>. 23

Easton, 123.

Euchner, 194.

Vander Ark, 80.

Easton, xvi.

Vander Ark, 38.

Easton, xvi.

Vander Ark, 68.

Easton, 130.

Easton, 114.

Duffy, 155.

Vander Ark, 109.

Rao, Leena. “The O’Sullivan Foundation Grants $5M To Online Learning Platform Khan Academy.” TechCrunch.com. N.p., 4 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://techcrunch. com/2011/11/04/the-osullivan-foundation-grants-5m-toonline-learning-platform-khan-academy/>.

Sengupta, Somini. “Grading the Digital School: Online Learning, Personalized.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 4 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/ technology/khan-academy-blends-its-youtube-approachwith-classrooms.html?pagewanted=all>.

Images: 12.01 Rice University. The Shoulder Carrel. in John, Rowan C. “Editorial.” Progressive Architecture 49.(1969): 128. print. 12.02 GGS Information Services. Figure 1. Illustration. from Guskey, Thomas. “Mastery Learning.” Education.com. The Gale Group, Inc., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http://www. education.com/reference/article/mastery-learning/>. 12.03 GGS Information Services. Figure 3. Illustration. from Guskey, Thomas. “Mastery Learning.” Education.com. The Gale Group, Inc., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http://www. education.com/reference/article/mastery-learning/>. 12.04 Sepulveda, R. and El Tiempo. Howard Gardner Compressed. Digital Image. 2008. from “Biography of Howard Gardner.” HowardGardner.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.howardgardner.com/bio/bio.html>. 12.05 Innes, Benjamin. c. 1950: Language-Lab Headset. Digital Imgae. Blackwell History of Education Museum. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek.

“The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2010/09/19/magazine/classroom-technology. html>. 12.09 Innes, Benjamin. 1980: Plato Computer. Digital Imgae. Minnesota Historical Society. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek. “The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/19/ magazine/classroom-technology.html>. 12.10 Innes, Benjamin. 1985: CD-ROM Drive. Digital Imgae. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek. “The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2010/09/19/magazine/classroom-technology. html>. 12.11 Innes, Benjamin. c. 1999: Interactive Whiteboard. Digital Imgae. Blackwell History of Education Museum. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek. “The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2010/09/19/magazine/classroom-technology. html>. 12.12 Innes, Benjamin. 2005: iClicker. Digital Imgae. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek. “The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2010/09/19/magazine/classroom-technology. html>.

12.13 Innes, Benjamin. 2006: XO Laptop. Digital Imgae. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek. “The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2010/09/19/magazine/classroom-technology. html>. 12.14 Innes, Benjamin. 2010: iPad. Digital Imgae. from Wilson, Charles, Marvin Orellana, and Miki Meek. “The Learning Machines.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2010/09/19/magazine/classroom-technology. html>. 12.15 Khan-Academy. Digital Image. from ElSadany, Mai. “Gates Applauds Khan Academy’s Ingenuity.” IllumeMagazine.com. N.p., 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.illumemagazine.com/ zine/articleDetail.php?Gates-Applauds-Khan-Academy-sIngenuity-13259>. 12.16 Khan Academy Logo. Digital Image. from “Khan Academy: About: The Site.” KhanAcademy.org. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.khanacademy.org/about>. 12.17 A Map of Knowledge. Digital Image. from “Khan Academy: About: The Site.” KhanAcademy.org. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.khanacademy.org/about>. 12.18 The Khan Academy. Digital Image. from Schechtman, Jeff. “Khan Academy Transforms Education.” Jeff Schechtman’s “Specific Gravity”. N.p., 17 May 2011. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://specific-gravity.blogspot.com/2011/05/ khan-acadamy-transforms-education.html>.

13. The Next School: Architecture’s Responsibility National Center for Education Statistics. “Age of Schools.” NCEF.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.ncef.org/ds/answer.cfm?StatId=3>.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 106.

Hille, 249.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 26.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 27.

Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001: 37.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 2.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 47.

Van Eijk, Gwen. Unequal Networks: Spatial Segregation, Relationships and Inequality in the City. Delft University Press, Delft, 2010: 8.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 64.

Department of Education, Public Affairs, “State of American Education,” remarks prepared for Richard W. Riley, secretary of education, speech delivered at Georgetown University, February 15, 1994, pp.2, 13.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 107.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 117.

Dudek, Mark. Architecture of Schools : The New Learning Environment. Oxford ;Boston: Architectural Press, 2000: 5.

Vander Ark, Tom, 1959-. Getting Smart : How Digital Learning is Changing the World. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012: 89-91.

O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, 58.

Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011): 163.

Images: 13.01 Baan, Iwan. Elevation Photo. 2008. in “Michael Maltzan Architecture: Inner-City Arts, Los Angeles,1993-2008.” Lotus International 145 (2011): 65. print.

13.03 How Light Behaves Within a Classroom. in Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. F.W. Dodge Corp, 1954: 74. print.

13.02 North-East Elevation. in Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966: 231. print.

13.04 How Air Behaves Within a Classroom. in Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. F.W. Dodge Corp, 1954: 75. print.

377

13.05 Tour 4. Digital Image. from “Room for Learning.” Kunskapsskolan.com. N.p., 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.kunskapsskolan.com/thekedprogram/ roomforlearning/tour4.4.52155b18128a87c7cfd800037352.html>. 13.06 Tour 9. Digital Image. from “Room for Learning.” Kunskapsskolan.com. N.p., 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.kunskapsskolan.com/thekedprogram/ roomforlearning/tour4.4.52155b18128a87c7cfd800037352.html>. 13.07 Tour 10. Digital Image. from “Room for Learning.” Kunskapsskolan.com. N.p., 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.kunskapsskolan.com/thekedprogram/ roomforlearning/tour4.4.52155b18128a87c7cfd800037352.html>.

13.09 Learning Space. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 83. print. 13.10 First Floor Plan. in “Hellerup Skole = Hellerup School: Arkitekt, Arkitema.” Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 76. print. 13.11 Hallway Podium. in Hertzberger, Herman, Laila Ghäit, and Marieke van Vlijmen. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 4th rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001. 153. print. 13.12 Hedrich-Blessing. Raised Brick Pattern. in Clarke, Jane H. “Philosophy In Brick.” Inland Architect 33.6 (1989): 56. print.

13.08 Tour 11. Digital Image. from “Room for Learning.” Kunskapsskolan.com. N.p., 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.kunskapsskolan.com/thekedprogram/ roomforlearning/tour4.4.52155b18128a87c7cfd800037352.html>.

14. Interstitial Education: A School for Boston’s Gaps “Interstice.” Merriam-Webster.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ interstice>.

Maps: 13.01 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 13.02 Bosotn, Massachussets. Digital Image. Bing.com. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bing.com/maps/default.asp x?encType=1&trfc=1&where1=Boston%2c+Massachusetts& FORM=ATRCCL>. 13.03 | 13.04 | 13.05 | 13.06 | 13.07 | 13.08 | 13.09 | 13.10 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 13.11 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>.

“Schools.” GIS Map. Schools – November 2010. Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. <http://www.mass.gov/mgis/schools.htm>. 13.12 FILES: 2005-2009 American Community Survey [Massachusetts – Block Groups] / prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. <http://www.socialexplorer.com. ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pub/reportdata/TableSelection. aspx?reportid=R10165827>. 13.13 BPS Communications Office. “Boston Public Schools at a Glance 2010–2011.” BostonPublicSchools.org. 28 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bostonpublicschools. org/files/bps_at_a_glance_11-0428_4.pdf>. 13.14 Metro Area Planning Council. “Participation in METCO and Massachusetts School Choice.” Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/ Calendar2006_05May_ParticipationinMETCO.pdf>.

379

Works Cited

“100 Years Of Significant Buildings.” Architectural Record (1956): 237-241. About Geoffrey Canada. Harlem Children’s Zone, n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2010. <http:// www.hcz.org/about-us/about-geoffrey-canada/144>. AFT President Randi Weingarten. American Federation of Teachers, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www.aft.org/about/leadership/president.cfm>. Alonso, Gaston. Our Schools Suck : Students Talk Back to a Segregated Nation on the Failures of Urban Education. New York: New York University Press, 2009. Ark, Tom. The Case for Smaller Schools. Vol 59, No. 5. Jan. 2002, pg 55-59. Armor, David J. Forced Justice : School Desegregation and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Au, Wayne, 1972-. Unequal by Design : High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York: Routledge, 2009. Bulman, Luke, 1968-, et al. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005. --. Bootstrapping. Vol. 12. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Regents of the University of Michigan A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2005. Bolduan, Kate. “’100 mph’ School Chief Seeks ‘Radical Changes’”. CNN.com. 9 Sept. 2008. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-09/ living/dc.schools_1_public-schools-school-system-level-math-andreading?_s=PM:LIVING>. “Boston: History.” Lonely Planet. N.p., 2011. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www. lonelyplanet.com/usa/boston/history>. Bolduan, Kate. “’100 mph’ School Chief Seeks ‘Radical Changes’”. CNN.com. 9 Sept. 2008. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-09/ living/dc.schools_1_public-schools-school-system-level-math-andreading?_s=PM:LIVING>. BPS Communications Office. “Boston Public Schools at a Glance 2010– 2011.” BostonPublicSchools.org. 28 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.bostonpublicschools.org/files/bps_at_a_glance_11-0428_4.pdf>. Butts, R. F. Public Education in the United States : From Revolution to Reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. “California.” Litigation. National Access Network, Mar. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/ca/lit_ca.php3>. Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. F.W. Dodge Corp, 1954. Census History Staff. “History: 1800 Fast Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau. 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_ the_decades/fast_facts/1800_fast_facts.html>. Census History Staff. “History: 1850 Fast Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_ the_decades/fast_facts/1850_fast_facts.html>. Census History Staff. “History: 1900 Fast Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_ the_decades/fast_facts/1900_fast_facts.html>. Christensen, Clayton M., Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson. Disrupting Class : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Ciotti, Paul. “Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment.” CATO Institute. N.p., 16 Mar. 1998. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html>. Clarke, Jane H. “Philosophy In Brick.” Inland Architect 33.6 (1989): 54-59. Connecticut State Department of Education. “2011-2012 A Guide to Public School Choice for Students and Their Families.” Connecticut State Department of Education, 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.sde. ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/equity/choice/public_school_choice_2011.pdf>. Cronin, Joseph M., and Cronin,Joseph M.Reforming Boston schools, 19302006. Reforming Boston Schools, 1930 to the Present : Overcoming Corruption and Racial Segregation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

381

“Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill. : Eliel And Eero Saarinen, Perkins, Wheeler And Will, Architects.” Architectural Forum 75.(1941): 79-92. Cruickshank, Dan. “Hunstanton School, Norfolk, 1954.” RIBA Journal 104.1 (1997): 50-57. Database - PISA 2009. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), n.d. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://http://pisa2009. acer.edu.au/>. Department of Education, Public Affairs, “State of American Education,” remarks prepared for Richard W. Riley, secretary of education, speech delivered at Georgetown University, February 15, 1994. Dillon, Sam. “Washington Chancellor’s Departure Isn’t Expected to Slow Public School Change.” NewYorkTimes.com. 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/education/14education. html?ref=michellerhee>. Dudek, Mark. Architecture of Schools : The New Learning Environment. Oxford ;Boston: Architectural Press, 2000. Duffy, Francis M. (Francis Martin), 1949-. Dream! Create! Sustain! : Mastering the Art and Science of Transforming School Systems. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010. Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. Whither Opportunity? : Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011. Easton, Lois Brown. Engaging the Disengaged : How Schools can Help Struggling Students Succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Educational Facilities Laboratories. Profiles of Significant Schools: Schools Without Walls. Ann Arbor, Mich.:University of Michigan, 1965. Egelund, Niels. “Den Enkelte Elev = The Individual Pupil [Denmark].”Arkitektur DK 47.2 (2003): 131-133. Eitzen, D. S., and George Harvey Sage. Solutions to Social Problems : Lessons from State and Local Governments. Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2009. Euchner, Charles C., and Stephen J. McGovern 1959-. Urban Policy Reconsidered : Dialogues on the Problems and Prospects of American Cities. New York: Routledge, 2003. Federal Communications Commission. “National Broadband Plan: Connecting America - Executive Summary.” Broadband.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/>. Gallanti, Fabrizio. “Scuola Modulare = Modular School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 100-113. Graves, Ben E., and Clifford A. Pearson. School Ways : The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. Guskey, Thomas. “Mastery Learning.” Education.com. The Gale Group, Inc., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http://www.education.com/reference/article/ mastery-learning/>. Hayes, William, 1938-. The Progressive Education Movement : Is it Still a Factor in Today’s Schools?. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006. Hayman, Robert L., and Leland Ware 1948-. Choosing Equality : Essays and Narratives on the Desegregation Experience. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. Hertzberger, Herman. Space and Learning : Lessons in Architecture 3. English ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008. Hertzberger, Herman, 1932-, et al. The Schools of Herman Hertzberger = Herman Hertzberger : Alle Scholen. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009. Hertzberger, Herman, Laila Ghäit, and Marieke van Vlijmen. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 4th rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2001. Hertzberger, Herman. Space and Learning : Lessons in Architecture 3. English ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008. Hille, Thomas R. Modern Schools: A Century of Design for Education. (Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011). “History (375 + Years).” Boston Latin School Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bls.org/history?rc=0>.

“History.” Girls’ Latin School - Boston Latin Academy Association, Inc., 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2012. <http://http://blagls.org/main/page/history/C25/>. Ikpa, Vivian W., and C. K. McGuire. Narrowing the Achievement Gap in a (Re) Segregated Urban School District : Research, Practice, and Policy. Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Pub, 2009. “Interstice.” Merriam-Webster.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interstice>. Jones, Brent, Editor. “Editorial: In broadband race, USA is not No. 1.” USAToday.com. N.p., 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http:// www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-12-06/Guesswhos-No-1-in-broadband-Hint-Its-not-USA/51683876/1>. “Kentucky.” Litigation. National Access Network, Feb. 2008. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/ky/lit_ky.php3>. Kershner, Isabel, and Mark Landler. “Suit Challenges School Policy Over Race Issue.”NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 11 Feb. 2003. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/us/suit-challengesschool-policy-over-race-issue.html>. “Khan Academy: About: The Site.” KhanAcademy.org. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.khanacademy.org/about>. Landry, Julie. “Investment to Accelerate Creation of Strong Charter Schools.” The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. N.p., 3 June 2003. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/ newschools-venture-receives-grant-030630.aspx>. Mahon, J. Patrick. “Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond.” Higher Education Law, 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://web.archive.org/ web/20070314114059/http://www.mccormack.umb.edu/dean/docs/ IssueBook/prop2half.html>. Maine Department of Education. “About MLTI.” Maine.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://maine.gov/mlti/about/index.shtml>. Mannino, Edward F. Shaping America : The Supreme Court and American Society. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2009. Massachusetts City and Town Precinct Maps. The United States Census 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/census/>. Matzat, Amy L. “MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATION LAWS OF 1642 AND 1647.” University of Notre Dame. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/masslaws.html>. “Mazzanti Arquitectos: Colegio Gerardo Molina, Bogotà, 2004-08.” Lotus International 145 (2011): 34-35. Mazzanti, Giancarlo. “Gerardo Molina School [Bogota].” Space 496 (2009): 70-75. Mazzoleni, Ilaria. “The White School.” Abitare 490 (2009): 86-99. McAdams, Richard P. Exploring the Myths and Realities of Today’s Schools : A Candid Review of the Challenges Educators Face. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2010. McCombs, Jennifer Sloan and Stephen J. Carrol. “Ultimate Test: Who is Accountable for Education if Everybody Fails?.” Rand Corporation, 2005. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.rand.org/publications/ randreview/issues/spring2005/ulttest.html>. McNeil, Michele. “Civil Rights Groups Call for New Federal Education Agenda.” Politics K-12. Education Week, 26 July 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/07/ civil_rights_groups_call_for_n.html>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Income.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/economy/income/> Metro Area Planning Council. “Economy: Poverty Rate.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/economy/povertyrate/>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: Educational Attainment.”The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/education/ educational-attainment/>.

383

Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: High School Dropout Rates.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/ education/high-school-dropout-rates/>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: Plans After High School.”The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/education/ plans-after-high-school/>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Education: School Poverty.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/education/ school-poverty/>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Growing Regional Diversity.” Metro Boston Data Common. N.p., 2012. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www. metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/Calendar2012_02.pdf>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Housing: Housing Affordability.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/housing/ housing-affordability/>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Housing: Segregation.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/housing/ segregation/>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Participation in METCO and Massachusetts School Choice.” Metro Boston Data Common. N.p., 2006. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/pdf/ Calendar2006_05May_ParticipationinMETCO.pdf>. Metro Area Planning Council. “Public Safety: Crime Rates.” The State of Equity in Metro Boston. Metro Boston Indicators Project, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.regionalindicators.org/equity/public-safety/ crime-rates/>. Michael Bloomberg. NewYorkTimes.com. 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2012. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?scp=1&sq=bloomberg%20 education%20policy&st=cse>. “Milton Friedman Quotes.” Famous Quotes at BrainyQuote. BookRags Media Network. Web. 03 Jan. 2012. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ quotes/m/miltonfrie100994.html>. Musterd, Sako, and W. J. M. Ostendorf. Urban Segregation and the Welfare State : Inequality and Exclusion in Western Cities. London ;New York: Routledge, 1998. National Center for Education Statistics. “Age of Schools.” NCEF.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ncef.org/ds/answer. cfm?StatId=3>. National Institute for Early,Education Research, and Charitable Trusts Pew. The State of Preschool : State Preschool Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2003. Neuman, Susan B. Changing the Odds for Children at Risk : Seven Essential Principles of Educational Programs that Break the Cycle of Poverty. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009. “New Brutalism Defined At Last.” Architects’ Journal 122.(1956): 336. New York City Department of Education. “iZone: Frequently Asked Questions.”Schools.NYC.gov. N.p., 2012. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://schools.nyc.gov/community/innovation/izone/About_Us/ faqnew.htm>. O’Donnell Wicklund Pigozzi, and Peterson, Furniture VS, and Mau Design Bruce. The Third Teacher : A Collaborative Project: OWP/P Architects + VS Furniture + Bruce Mau Design. New York: Abrams, 2010. Office of Education. High School – What’s In It For Me? in Caudill, William Wayne. Toward Better School Design. F.W. Dodge Corp, 1954: 36. print. “Open Plan Schools.” Contract Interiors 126.5 (1966): 114-117. Oppenheimer, Todd. «Schooling the Imagination.» The Atlantic Online. N.p., 1999. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/ issues/99sep/9909waldorf.htm>.

384 |

Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics : The New Suburban Reality. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002. Pearson, Clifford A., and Christopher Hawthorne. “Michael Maltzan Designs A Place Of Hope And Creativity For Inner-City-Arts In Los Angeles.”Architectural Record 197.2 (2009): 62-69. Peterson, Paul E. Choice and Competition in American Education. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006. Prince, Hank. “Proposal A and Pupil Equity.” House Fiscal Agency. Michigan House of Representatives, Dec. 1996. Web. 19 Jan. 2010. <http://house. michigan.gov/hfa/home.asp>. Rankin, Bill. RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY . RadicalCartography.net, n.d. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.radicalcartography.net/?cityincome>. Rao, Leena. “The O’Sullivan Foundation Grants $5M To Online Learning Platform Khan Academy.” TechCrunch.com. N.p., 4 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/04/the-osullivan-foundationgrants-5m-to-online-learning-platform-khan-academy/>. Ravitch, Diane. “The Big Idea -- It’s Bad Education Policy.” Opinion. L.A. Times, 14 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/ mar/14/opinion/la-oe-ravitch14-2010mar14>. Ravitch, Diane, and Joseph P. Viteritti 1946-. New Schools for a New Century : The Redesign of Urban Education. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Reed, Douglas S., 1964-. On Equal Terms : The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001. Reuters. “US State Tax Revenues Return to Pre-Recession Levels.” CNBC, 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/45601632/ US_State_Tax_Revenues_Return_to_Pre_Recession_Levels>. Reville, S. P., and Celine Coggins. A Decade of Urban School Reform : Persistence and Progress in the Boston Public Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2007. Rhode, Deborah L., et al. Brown at 50, the Unfinished Legacy : A Collection of Essays. Chicago: Division for Public Education, American Bar Association, 2004. Roberts, Stephen V.. “The Nation; Reagan’s Social Issues: Gone But Not Forgotten.” New York Times on the Web 11 Sept. 1988. 4 Jan. 2012 <http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/weekinreview/the-nation-reagan-ssocial-issues-gone-but-not-forgotten.html>. Ronemus, Andrew. “Minutemen.” The Declaration of Independence. USHistory. org, 1995. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/people/ minutemen.htm>. Roth, Alfred, 1903-. The New Schoolhouse. Das Neue Schulhaus. La Nouvelle École. Rev. [i.e. 4th] ed. New York,: Praeger, 1966. School and District Profiles: 2009-10 Per Pupil Expenditures Report. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx>. Schworm, Peter. “Growth Slow in Boston Metro Area.” Boston.com. NY Times Co., 28 Mar. 2011. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.boston.com/2011-03-28/ news/29360429_1_hispanic-population-population-growth-metro-area>. Sengupta, Somini. “Grading the Digital School: Online Learning, Personalized.” NYTimes.com. N.p., 4 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/technology/khan-academy-blendsits-youtube-approach-with-classrooms.html?pagewanted=all>. Sharp, Robert V., and Design Competition Chicago Public Schools. Architecture for Education : New School Designs from the Chicago Competition. 1st ed. Chicago, Ill.: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, 2002. Smithson, Peter. “Reflections On Hunstanton.” Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly 2.4 (1997): 32-43. State Compulsory School Attendance Laws. Infoplease, 2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html>. “Student Assignment Policy.” Boston Public Schools. 2008-2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/assignment>.

385

Sum, A., I. Khatiwada, J. McLaughlin, and S. Palma. “The consequences of dropping out of high school: Joblessness and jailing for high school dropouts and the high cost for taxpayers.” Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University 10 (2009). The HCZ Project. Harlem Children’s Zone, n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2010. <http:// www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project>. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” Full Report of A Nation at Risk. U.S. Department of Education, Apr. 1983. Web. 4 Jan. 2010. <http:// www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html>. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. “Standards, Assessments, and Accountability: Education Policy White Paper.” National Academy of Education, 2009. Web. 4 Jan. 2010: 2. <http:// www.naeducation.org/Standards_Assessments_Accountability_ White_Paper.pdf>. Tompkins, Susanne. “Proposition 2 1/2.” Public Policy Issues in Massachussetts. John W. McCormack Institute, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://web.archive.org/web/20070314114059/http://www. mccormack.umb.edu/dean/docs/IssueBook/prop2half.html>. U.S. Census Bureau. School Districts. U.S. Census Bureau: School Districts, Web. 3 Dec 2011. <http://www.census.gov/did/www/schooldistricts/>. U.S. Department of Education. “Race to the Top Program: Executive Summary.” U.S. Department of Education, Nov. 2009. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executivesummary.pdf>. ushistory.org. “The Boston Massacre.” The Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org, 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/ declaration/related/massacre.htm >. ushistory.org. “9f. The Tea Act and Tea Parties.” The Declaration of Independence. USHistory.org, 2008-2011. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/9f.asp>. U.S. Supreme Court. “BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).” FindLaw.com. U.S. Supreme Court, 17 May 1954. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase. pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483>. Vander Ark, Tom, 1959-. Getting Smart : How Digital Learning is Changing the World. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012. Van Eijk, Gwen. Unequal Networks: Spatial Segregation, Relationships and Inequality in the City. Delft University Press, Delft, 2010: 3. Vaznis, James. “Hundreds of Boston Teachers Rally over Contract - Metro Desk - Local News Updates from The Boston Globe.” The Boston Globe. Boston.com, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://www.boston.com/ Boston/metrodesk/2012/01/hundreds-boston-teachers-expected-rallyover-contract/fID7hDWpAMEblC9WfTPXlO/index.html>. Whitney, Lance. “Survey: 40 Percent in U.S. Have No Broadband.” cNET. com. N.p., 16 Feb. 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://news.cnet. com/8301-1035_3-10454133-94.html>. Wikipedia contributors. “American Revolution.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Baby boomer.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Boston.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 29 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Boston Latin School.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Charter school.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Generation Y.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Dec. 2011.

386 |

Wikipedia contributors. “HighScope.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Nov. 2011. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Massachusetts health care reform.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Mayoral Control of Schools.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Milliken v. Bradley.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 Sep. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Post-racial America.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Race to the Top.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Richard Nixon Supreme Court candidates.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Sep. 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Technological and industrial history of the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “United States Bill of Rights.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Waiting for “Superman”.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. Wikipedia contributors. “Women’s rights.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. Woessmann, Ludger, and Paul E. Peterson. Schools and the Equal Opportunity Problem. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007. U.S. Supreme Court. “BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).” FindLaw.com. U.S. Supreme Court, 17 May 1954. Web. 6 Jan. 2012. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase. pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483>.

387

Inequity and Escapism Public Education in America

Stewart Gohringer Harvard GSD

COVER IMAGE: The dots represent the relative proportions of low-income students across the school districts of Greater Boston.