This weeks readings focused on the effects of and the theories behind the desegregation of schools. This is the defining educational issue of the latter half of the 20th century. What started with Brown v. Board of Ed, in 1954, with desegregation, has grown to our current hot button issues of affirmative action and policies meant to evenly distribute racial demographics in schools, such as in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle, in 2007.
PICS v. Seattle, in a 5-4 decision found that Seattle's policy of using race as a tiebreaker when it came to being admitted to the various top public schools in the Seattle (and Jefferson, since they entered the lawsuit) school district was unconstitutional. The main reasons given in the majority opinion were that, 1) the school district had not previously used any form of segregation that required desegregation, and 2) that the use of race was too narrow of a determinant when there were so many other factors that played into the term diversity, such as special needs, SES, and exceptional learners (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle 2007). This reversed a trend of the courts in allowing admission policies that used race as a factor, such as in Grutter v. Bollinger, in 2003, although that had been a univeristy and not a secondary school system. The differing responses given by the supreme court seem, especially since in both these cases the results were 5-4 rulings, seem to show confusion and disagreement when it comes to desegregation. What constitutes a "compelling state interest" for a district to practice desegregation policies? When has desegregation gone too far? These are questions that need to be clarified.
Patricia Gurin focused on various social/behavioral theories and related them in a way that promotes the idea of desegregating schools, mainly at the college level. She finds that college student is in a transitional period in an adults life, and by increasing the heterogeneity of the schools, young adults will be both be better prepared for future interactions with people in diverse settings and have an environment which fosters more complex forms of thinking, which is what is desired in the university setting (Gurin 1999). These theories predict that desegregation will benefit all students, not just minorities.
Other research looks at some of the positive effects of desegregation, such as the interpersonal benefits of being in a diverse setting. Minorities will benefit from interacting with white students and teachers who have access to resources that will help minorities break economic and social barriers (Wells 1996). The resources that African-American students gain by entering heterogeneous schools are as important, if not more so than the academic achievement gains that may or may not be gained, since research is still uncertain about academic achievement.
Since the goal of desegregation is to eliminate racial bias in schools, jobs, and ideally all institutions, the academic achievement of minority students should not be the main concern. More important is that the curriculum is well balanced, equal access is provided, and that minority students are given a fair chance to enter and perform in colleges and the workforce. Hopefully in addressing these things first, academic achievement will benefit as a result, but as has been the mistake of researchers in the past, it should not be the sole qualification to determine whether or not desegregation is needed or whether or not it is effective. This has been not only the problem with desegregation, but all policies that focus only on academic achievement...I'm looking at you, No Child Left Behind.
Some things to consider:
1) Where would you draw the line at what amount of government intervention aimed at desegregation is appropriate?
2) What are the goals of desegregation that you find most important?
3) How can desegregation be done in a way that does not exacerbate racial tensions?
4) What is the difference between desegregation policies on the elementary, secondary, higher education levels?
Related link:
OYEZ: Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle
Supreme Court Quashes School Desegregation
The Civil Rights Project: School Desegregation
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Choice or Resegregation?
A rising problem in the United States is resegregation in the schools. According to the Orfield report (2004), the Dowell vs. Oklahoma City ruling in 1991 "authorized a return to segregated neighborhood schools, through the 2001 - 2002 school year and provides new information on the changes in schools were desegregation plans have ended." The report also went on to say that since this occurrence, schools with the vast majority of minorities have been suffering tremendously.
As we all know, there are many important issues at stake if the resegregation of schools was successful. There is evidence that children of lower SES do not have schools that are sufficient, the teachers are inadequate or are seen as "smart enough to leave" after seeing how depressing and apathetic poverty stricken schools are. The children tend not to succeed because studies have shown that their peers hold a greater influence over them than their teachers do. Motivation to learn is also heavily influenced by their peers. Research has been done that shows that the lower SES population devalues education and holds a strong resistance to middle class norms (Kahlenberg 2004). What are we going to do about their education? Is there anything we can do?
One option that is an extremely attractive option is the Magnet school. Magnet schools are choice schools that usually require a certain grade point average or test score, students are placed in a lottery (or something similar), and are placed in the school. A portion of the school is saved for students zoned for the school, as they are located in urban areas of high poverty. Students are bussed in to go there if they are accepted. Magnet schools are known for being academically successful as well as racially diverse across the board. Magnet schools have a unique curriculum and are very supportive of alternative teaching methods as well as supporting students' interests and talents through programming. Here is a video demonstrating the success of the magnet school.
Magnet schools are fairly common, but are not omnipresent in all school areas.
After watching the video and reflecting upon the readings, what do you think of the magnet school?
Do you think that by having more of them, the resegregation issue would move toward resolving itself?
Do you think that if magnet schools were more common that parents would want their children to go there since it wouldn't seem as special?
Do you think that there should be a movement to have more schools emulate the structure of a magnet school?
What is your opinion on the government's ability to zone students, despite what you see the results in education are?
Related Links:
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Homework Debate
While we have been discussing various different school choice options, and how schools can differ one thing remains relatively constant regardless of the type of school you choose: homework. I am sure that many of us remember the standard out of book curriculum where we were instructed to read a portion of a text, practice a few problems in class and then “do the rest for homework.” As students, many of us rushed though homework as quickly as possible in order to catch the newest episode of our favorite sitcom, or spend extra time playing outside with the neighbors…does this really promote learning?
For many of us, homework seems just as much a part of our youth as little league, family gatherings, and birthday celebrations. What I (and many educators) wonder is, is homework really necessary?
So many of us rarely stop to think about the added homework assignments that are given to students. More importantly negative aspects of homework are not often discussed. Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth discusses some of the detriments of homework assignments.
- Students only feel frustrated and exhausted
- Leaves students with very little time for other activities
- Loss of interest in learning
- Parent/child relationships can suffer
- Kohn claims that there “is absolutely no evidence of any academic benefit from assigning homework in elementary or middle school.”
Of course, looking back, I credit actually doing my homework to mastering the material I had or for allowing me to realize the areas that I needed to work on. I wonder then, what is necessary for homework to be beneficial to students? What is the purpose of homework in middle and elementary school?
Some proponents of homework state
- It reinforces what students know
- Teaches students how to time manage
- Teaches students self-discipline and responsibility
- Encourages home and school connections
When I was student teaching it was often difficult for me to hold all of my students to the same standard with homework. I knew all of the students really well and I knew that some of them were not able to complete their homework at home due to their at home responsibilities. How do we as teachers still treat all students equitably but fairly at the same time? (Specifically in relation to homework?)
Kohn states, “anyone who believes that homework is beneficial should be willing to test that assumption by investigating the consequences of its absence.”
What do you all think? What is the value of homework? Is it necessary? What makes homework constitute as “busywork” Is giving the same assignment to all students beneficial if the ability level of students does not match? Should homework policy be consistent throughout the school/grade level?
Monday, November 10, 2008
So What Happens to the Schools Nobody Chooses?
Henry Levin elaborates two possible systems of school choice: market choice, and public choice. In practice, this basically translates to a voucher system (market choice) versus a public, charter-based system (public choice), but when people talk about school choice, the metaphor always seems to slide toward the market. We tend to focus on the idea that choice provides incentive for competition, but as Chubb & Moe point out, “not all schools in the market will respond equally well to these incentives,” and “those that falter will find it more difficult to attract support, and they will tend to be weeded out in favor of schools that are better organized" (1990).
Competition creates incentive for quality, and the nature of the market system predicates that some competitors will fail to measure up, at least in the initial conversion from our current system, in which a certain sector of popular opinion holds that schools “have almost no incentive to actually make sure that kids are actually learning. As long as they are passing the SOL's and graduate then they accomplish their goal. They get the money from state and federal gov’t and do their thing.” (I claim this as popular opinion because this statement was made by a friend of mine in the midst of an impromptu facebook debate about education policy. Yes, impromptu debates about education policy apparently can be had on facebook.)
Chubb and Moe also proclaim most existing reform attempts insufficient because they still rely on control “from above” and leave “traditional institutions” in place. They say that current attempts free up the demand side of parent choice but not the supply side; that "schools do not emerge in response to what parents and students want." This was written in 1990, but it seems that not much has changed other than the introduction of a few interesting charter school models. I may be underestimating the significance of that change, but I think the questions I am inspired to ask by this article are still important.
I see at least two major obstacles/questions that arise from the competition/market metaphor, which none of the authors we read for this week have really addressed.
1. What will become of the schools that “falter” as they head toward “weeding out”? What will become of their students in the meantime?
2. From where will new schools “emerge” to meet market demands?
Thoughts on the first question: Gill et al. propose including existing private schools in a new charter system as a way to avoid some of the poor outcomes that we see from brand-new schools, but what can we do about the schools that are already failing and may not ever be equipped to catch up? How long will failing schools be allowed to languish? What will happen to the students who remain there? The “clientele” of schools cannot simply transition smoothly to another provider at the very moment service becomes unsatisfactory. Even if the system allowed for relatively instantaneous transfers, students would be disrupted by the sudden change in coursework and environment. I must be exaggerating this potential problem, because I haven’t heard anyone else talk about it. Are there arguments about this? I can think of one, but it’s a weak one: perhaps the schools that will ‘fail’ under the new system will not in fact worsen, but simply fail to improve at the same rates as other schools, so there’s no net loss in school quality, even in the faltering schools. But if we assume that other schools are “cream-skimming,” even unintentionally, I doubt this would be the case.
Thoughts on the second question: Schools do not “emerge.” They are built, in many senses of the word. If we propose to take the idea of school choice beyond choosing between current options, who stands to benefit from becoming a builder of new schools? Presumably, most non-profit organizations that perceive a potential benefit to their communities/constituencies have already created private schools to serve their needs. Gill mentions new for-profit models, but I’m not totally clear on what this would look like. Manhattan's District No. 4 in East Harlem certainly provides a provocative model (see Chubb & Moe, p. 212). But just like we saw with many Deweyan/progressive schools, the creation of these teacher-run “schools” are “entirely dependent on the visionaries themselves and their hold on power." Furthermore, as Chubb & Moe point out, the stakeholders in this system “are [still] subordinates in the hierarchy of democratic control, and what authority they have been privileged to exercise to this point has been delegated to them by their superiors--who have the right to take it back."
Can we consider the implications and possibilities of scaling up such a system? What about adapting the model to one in which teachers can start new schools without relying on their bureaucratic superiors’ revocable grant of power?
I see a lot of question marks scattered throughout my entry; I would love to hear tentative answers or challenges to any and all of them.
Competition creates incentive for quality, and the nature of the market system predicates that some competitors will fail to measure up, at least in the initial conversion from our current system, in which a certain sector of popular opinion holds that schools “have almost no incentive to actually make sure that kids are actually learning. As long as they are passing the SOL's and graduate then they accomplish their goal. They get the money from state and federal gov’t and do their thing.” (I claim this as popular opinion because this statement was made by a friend of mine in the midst of an impromptu facebook debate about education policy. Yes, impromptu debates about education policy apparently can be had on facebook.)
Chubb and Moe also proclaim most existing reform attempts insufficient because they still rely on control “from above” and leave “traditional institutions” in place. They say that current attempts free up the demand side of parent choice but not the supply side; that "schools do not emerge in response to what parents and students want." This was written in 1990, but it seems that not much has changed other than the introduction of a few interesting charter school models. I may be underestimating the significance of that change, but I think the questions I am inspired to ask by this article are still important.
I see at least two major obstacles/questions that arise from the competition/market metaphor, which none of the authors we read for this week have really addressed.
1. What will become of the schools that “falter” as they head toward “weeding out”? What will become of their students in the meantime?
2. From where will new schools “emerge” to meet market demands?
Thoughts on the first question: Gill et al. propose including existing private schools in a new charter system as a way to avoid some of the poor outcomes that we see from brand-new schools, but what can we do about the schools that are already failing and may not ever be equipped to catch up? How long will failing schools be allowed to languish? What will happen to the students who remain there? The “clientele” of schools cannot simply transition smoothly to another provider at the very moment service becomes unsatisfactory. Even if the system allowed for relatively instantaneous transfers, students would be disrupted by the sudden change in coursework and environment. I must be exaggerating this potential problem, because I haven’t heard anyone else talk about it. Are there arguments about this? I can think of one, but it’s a weak one: perhaps the schools that will ‘fail’ under the new system will not in fact worsen, but simply fail to improve at the same rates as other schools, so there’s no net loss in school quality, even in the faltering schools. But if we assume that other schools are “cream-skimming,” even unintentionally, I doubt this would be the case.
Thoughts on the second question: Schools do not “emerge.” They are built, in many senses of the word. If we propose to take the idea of school choice beyond choosing between current options, who stands to benefit from becoming a builder of new schools? Presumably, most non-profit organizations that perceive a potential benefit to their communities/constituencies have already created private schools to serve their needs. Gill mentions new for-profit models, but I’m not totally clear on what this would look like. Manhattan's District No. 4 in East Harlem certainly provides a provocative model (see Chubb & Moe, p. 212). But just like we saw with many Deweyan/progressive schools, the creation of these teacher-run “schools” are “entirely dependent on the visionaries themselves and their hold on power." Furthermore, as Chubb & Moe point out, the stakeholders in this system “are [still] subordinates in the hierarchy of democratic control, and what authority they have been privileged to exercise to this point has been delegated to them by their superiors--who have the right to take it back."
Can we consider the implications and possibilities of scaling up such a system? What about adapting the model to one in which teachers can start new schools without relying on their bureaucratic superiors’ revocable grant of power?
I see a lot of question marks scattered throughout my entry; I would love to hear tentative answers or challenges to any and all of them.
Monday, November 3, 2008
What Not to Wear: The Great Uniform Debate
In alliance with the theme of social justice, I thought it would be interesting to tackle the controversial issue of school uniforms. The debate over school uniforms encompasses more profound issues than simply what children wear to school. It touches on issues of school safety, cultural identity, social classes, and freedom of expression. Some of the major arguments claimed by the opposing sides are listed below:
Pros:
- Help eliminate economic disparities and class distinctions between students
- Increase school pride and sense of belonging
- Decrease gang activity in schools
- Improve learning environment by eliminating distractions
- Less expensive and less clothing to buy
- Intruders easier to spot
- Weapons harder to conceal
Cons:
- Violation of 1st and 9th amendment rights (freedom of speech and right to privacy)
- Loss of individuality
- Expensive
- More in-school suspensions (due to uniform violations)
- Vigorous enforcement can often cause more problems
As with any policy, the issue of school uniforms has created quite a stir locally and nationally. In 2007, Metro Nashville Public Schools adapted Standard School Attire Policy to mixed reviews. The Standard Attire includes black, navy, or khaki slacks, skirts, or shorts as well as navy or white collared long sleeve or short sleeved shirts. A more detailed list of the dress code policy can be viewed here.
Questions to Consider:
What are the implications for this type of uniform policy? Does a dress code eliminate some of the stigmas that come with school uniforms? Do you think uniforms or a dress code are a much needed asset in public schools? Can school uniforms or dress codes help eliminate problems such as bullying, gangs, school violence, and behavior issues or is it a "band-aid" for much deeper social issues? Are school uniforms a form of social justice by creating an "equal playing field" for all students?
Helpful Links:
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tracking and Test-Score Gap, could it work?
Just in advance, this post is more designed to inspire talk, because I wish to see what everyone has to say about this rather heated topic.
As Maureen Hallinan has so properly pointed out to us, tracking is a system in which theory is designed to focus the education of the student by pairing them into similar groups of knowledge and ability. This sounds like a great solution to help bring up the overall grades of a failing school. Use this program to target those kids that are in the most need of help and provide them with special attention to help improve their intelligence while not making the students who are at the higher end of the level bored and lose interest.
With this concept, not only are students being helped out but the job is easier on the teacher as well. With tracking no longer will you have students who vary widely in their test scores, but you can focus on a particular group, because that group is the only group within your classroom.
This sounds great! However, with this (in practice) has become a huge issue involving segregation and many other issues at hand. Hallinan does a very comprehensive job explaining all of the pros, cons, and ways to improve the tracking system to make it a better and more effective system.
The question I pose to everyone is this. Can tracking help failing schools and improve the test-score gap? While the social aspects of "segregating" the low SES and ethnic children into the lower level classes is a monsterous issue, would not the benefits of allowing these students to move at their own pace out number these in the long run? Or does tracking involve the opposite and simply further increase the test-score gap as smart kids get smarter while the lower tracked kids just try to keep up?
As Maureen Hallinan has so properly pointed out to us, tracking is a system in which theory is designed to focus the education of the student by pairing them into similar groups of knowledge and ability. This sounds like a great solution to help bring up the overall grades of a failing school. Use this program to target those kids that are in the most need of help and provide them with special attention to help improve their intelligence while not making the students who are at the higher end of the level bored and lose interest.
With this concept, not only are students being helped out but the job is easier on the teacher as well. With tracking no longer will you have students who vary widely in their test scores, but you can focus on a particular group, because that group is the only group within your classroom.
This sounds great! However, with this (in practice) has become a huge issue involving segregation and many other issues at hand. Hallinan does a very comprehensive job explaining all of the pros, cons, and ways to improve the tracking system to make it a better and more effective system.
The question I pose to everyone is this. Can tracking help failing schools and improve the test-score gap? While the social aspects of "segregating" the low SES and ethnic children into the lower level classes is a monsterous issue, would not the benefits of allowing these students to move at their own pace out number these in the long run? Or does tracking involve the opposite and simply further increase the test-score gap as smart kids get smarter while the lower tracked kids just try to keep up?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Financial Equality Not The Answer
School funding comes from a number of sources, but the main source is property tax. The more your house is worth, the more your school should recieve. Money has been seen as an tool used to create inequality in the schools and has been manipulated to correct inequalities. In 1965, Congress passed Title 1 in which over $100 billion has been dispensed to school districts with high concentrations of "impoverished" students (Traub, 55). Lawsuits and court decisions have also attempt to equalize spending amoung schools and districts. Many of these results have had mixed reviews, but they are also hard to track because of the complex nature of gather the information. Equalilizing the school finance system will not necessarily lead to more equality in educational opportunity. Even if spending per pupil was the same accross the nation, inequalities would still exist.
"A child living in an inner city is in school for only so many hours. It's the rest of the day- as well as the rest of the neighborhood- that's the big influence and the problem," -James Traub.
Unfortunately, schools are not equal because communities, families, and students are not equal. Students face a plethora of challenges in inner cities as vividly shown in Amazing Grace. Youth witnessing murders, drug use, parents dying of AIDS, who have a lack of sleep, health care, safety, sanitation, and confidence are on unequal grounds before the first bell rings. Not to say that amazing things cannot happen, but that is what it is, amazing, when it does happen.
The government has so much money, as do the communities in which they are attempting to assist. With the Colman Report, maybe this money should focus on the social aspects that contiune this vicisous cycle. Reforming the spending on per pupil might sound great but if the greatest hinderance to a child success happens out of school, pumping more money into schools might just be putting bandaids on a gunshot wound. Schools cannot and should not be seen as the insititution that can cure the social ills all by itself.
"A child living in an inner city is in school for only so many hours. It's the rest of the day- as well as the rest of the neighborhood- that's the big influence and the problem," -James Traub.
Unfortunately, schools are not equal because communities, families, and students are not equal. Students face a plethora of challenges in inner cities as vividly shown in Amazing Grace. Youth witnessing murders, drug use, parents dying of AIDS, who have a lack of sleep, health care, safety, sanitation, and confidence are on unequal grounds before the first bell rings. Not to say that amazing things cannot happen, but that is what it is, amazing, when it does happen.
The government has so much money, as do the communities in which they are attempting to assist. With the Colman Report, maybe this money should focus on the social aspects that contiune this vicisous cycle. Reforming the spending on per pupil might sound great but if the greatest hinderance to a child success happens out of school, pumping more money into schools might just be putting bandaids on a gunshot wound. Schools cannot and should not be seen as the insititution that can cure the social ills all by itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
