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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I find it quite interesting when Wells points out the effects on social mobility due to desegregation. I find this resulting goal with desegregation as quite influential for any race in that it possibly affects their future and their success. As we all know, when finding a job( especially in business), who you know seems to almost always help, even if to get your foot in the door. I am intrigued by this concept which was presented by Lareau as "social capital" in the earlier readings.
I will address the second question: What are the goals of desegregation that you find most important?
I believe it is most important for students to develop their critical thinking skills. The United States is a heterogeneous society. As Gurin stated, “our students, as leaders of the future, need to learn how to accept diversity, negotiate conflicts, and form coalitions with individuals and groups if they are to become prepared to be leaders in an increasingly heterogeneous and complex society,” (Gurin, 1999, p. 6). School is an excellent place for children to interact with children from different cultures and learn how to solve problems.
I think the ultimate goal of desegregation is to create equal opportunity for all students. By reducing racial isolation in schools, we can create more social equality by making quality education accessible to all students. With that being said, the ways we tend to make education accessible is through means of affirmative action and special placement, which also seem to have the negative effect of increasing racial tensions. Special programs and awards tend to reinforce stereotypes and promote the idea that it is through "the assertion of group power" rather than individual achievement that one succeeds. This belief causes resentment from both sides of the spectrum. If these types of programs only exacerbate racial tensions, then how can we grant equal access to education when minorities are at a disadvantage to begin with? If it was not for these programs, how can these students jump on the social mobility train? I am really not sure how to resolve this or a better idea except a rather naive one where students are receiving quality education from the beginning and then there would be no need for such programs...what a wonderful world that would be
As our world becomes more diverse, the role of education widens. Instead of fostering intellectual development, social interaction and real world knowledge is just as, if not more, important.
Desegregation presents students with the opportunity to meet and interact with people from different backgrounds. After observing and teaching in diverse classrooms around Nashville (variety of different languages and cultures) what surprised me most was how well students got along and worked together. To them, ethnicities seemed invisible. To the students, people are people. I have to argue that this is a result of the exposure and experience they have had with people from different backgrounds.
Desegregation presents opportunities for students to gain familiarity with people who are different. As teachers, we must capitalize on differences and create a community where acceptance is fostered. In so doing, the needs of the future will be met.
In the increasingly diverse future, people must be able to collaborate with others. As schools become more racially diverse, I believe that this becomes part of the hidden, but most necessary, curriculum: a necessary bi-product of standard education.
Though the goal of race-conscious admission policies are noble...increased diversity, equitable access for all, etc...are they not inherently inequitable and undemocratic?
Think back to the Steele article entitled "New Sovereignty." He argued that affirmative action, though noble, is in fact undemocratic because it offers to certain groups while withholding them from others. He argued that this system of entitlements for certain groups was exactly what the Civil Rights Movement sought to end, yet it ironically led to a reversal of roles and put the minorities in the place of the entitled (as opposed to white, male, landowners).
Shouldn't constitutional equality for all be sufficient? Will not entitlements lead to increased polarization? Are they not inequitable?
I am not fully sure where I stand on this issue...but was hoping to get some other opinions (especially in light of Steele's argument).
I think we are moving back toward simple constitutional equality for institutions of "choice" like universities. "Affirmative action" is becoming a bad word rather than a positive social movement toward change. Whether this is fair or not, I won't debate, but at least from my perspective, it looks like we are moving away from any potential policies of entitlement.
It seems to me, though, that the issue with public schools is quite a different one. I think Kate is right that programs resembling affirmative action breed some sort of resentment, but as we have seen, the people experiencing this negativity are the parents, not the students. We've seen the positive effects of desegregation on students, both academically and socially, but the social tensions that desegregation attempts breed among parents seem to hinder the progress of the whole thing. Do desegregation efforts really take away access to a quality education from anyone who might otherwise have it? Can we convince parents that it is in every student's best interest, for the reasons described by Erica, Kate, and Emily?
This is obviously not an on topic comment, but I couldn't find a contact area on the site.
My name is Laris. I wanted to share a website we’re working on to see if you would be interested in writing a post about it on your blog. The site is called howwewill.org and it documents the development of a production of Shakespeare’s 12th Night, but it’s not your normal Shakespeare. This is a hip hop version, the catch of this actual performance is the theater company is doing the play as a hip-hop version, but unlike other hip-hop Shakespeare the performers are keeping the text as is.
We thought it fit in with the content you post about on your Social Philosophical Aspects of Education
site. During the production we conducted a lot of community engagement, a large part was focussed on the younger community members. Especially those that had limited, or no arts programming in their schools.
The website (howwewill.org) itself tracks the development of the performance, including the community interaction with the process.
Drop me a line if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Laris (917) 446-3087 - laris@limeprojects.com
Post a Comment