Segregation based on social class?

Response to HER Classic: Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education by Ray C. Rist

I find myself blogging about this reading with mixed emotions. Because this article was originally published in 1970 (I believe) and reprinted in 2000, I thought there would be little useful information worth my time. I was wrong, which brings me to the conflicted part of responding to this article. If I am reading an article written before I was born, shouldn't I feel like I am reading something from another time and place? I think I should feel that way. I didn't. I felt like Ray Rist was talking about teachers today. Maybe not exactly, but it was close enough for me to double check the publishing date and his credentials. Dr. Rist is, in fact, quite reputable. 

If you haven't read the article, I recommend taking the time to do so. If time doesn't permit at the moment, I will give you a quick run down: Rist was part of a study from 1967 to 1970 that followed three groups of African American students in a public school system from kindergarten to second grade. Two other researchers participated, so this article from Rist focused on his results from the school and students with which he worked. Basically, he found that one of two things was true: 

1. The teachers were brilliant and knew without testing them which students had the potential for success based on the limited knowledge gained in the first five days of kindergarten and some paperwork completed by some of the parents (such as employment of the parents, address, educational background, etc.).
2. The teachers were biased (consciously or otherwise) and segregated the students based on socioeconomic status of parents and "tracked" students based on perceived potential leading to inequitable teaching and grouping of students that continued through the study.

Okay, so I am willing to admit that these teachers did not do this maliciously or intentionally. Rist suggests that these teachers were actually good teachers, though perhaps misguided. Here is my issue (and it really isn't even an issue with the article or Rist): Why did I feel like I was reading a recent article? Has the school system changed so little that we haven't recognized that public education is perpetuating injustice based on social class?

Funny, but not really. Ironic, maybe?

Here is my question to you: If separate but equal was deemed inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education,  did the United States find a way around that by creating school boundaries? I mean, if all the kids in one area go to the same school, aren't we just segregating students based on their zip code socioeconomic status? As in, the nice houses in nice districts generate high property taxes, which, in turn, generate more revenue for those districts. The federal and state governments are not fully funding education mandates (in my opinion), forces local districts to fund locally. Here is a school in an affluent Atlanta district that managed to have $50,000 in PTA funds "stolen." How the heck did the PTA manage to raise so much that someone thought $50 grand wouldn't be missed? Other schools barely make it, while others are giving money away. How is that equitable? How is that an equal education? Schools giving away iPads versus schools without enough funds for class sets of books. Where is the equity in that?

Maybe Rist caught onto something early, and it takes a while to change the system. Or maybe there has always been inequity in public funding and education and just the marginalized population changes. I don't know. But it seems to me that the education funding formula perpetuates injustice against those who can least afford it. The "gap" between the haves and have-nots gets bigger every generation. Who will we marginalize next?

We can't all be just the same, can we?

Response to Chapter 1 of Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom by Christine E. Sleeter

Initially, I thought this blog would be something I updated regularly. Then the summer ended, and I did not read anything of value for an entire month (maybe longer). Now the fall semester has started, and I am compelled to share my opinions again. And this time I am fired up in a good way. Finally, someone out there gets it and offers solutions! Here we go!

First of all, I read just the first chapter of this book, but I REALLY want to find some time to finish it. Secondly, this book has nothing to do with technology in the classroom. Third, no one is required to read this post, so I hope I don't get to crazy with this!

On the second page of the chapter (page 6), Sleeter writes:

"Paradoxically, the use of standards-based reform as a way of eliminating inequity has resulted in homogenizing the curriculum, even while classrooms in the United States have become more diverse." 

I think this is the most profound public statement available to support my opinion that standardized tests measure a moment of student learning rather than long-term comprehension and application of knowledge. How can a test that is meant to treat every student the same actually be appropriate for every student? Thank you, Ms. Sleeter!

How can we gauge student learning if we aren't asking for more than A, B, or C? As I read this chapter, I made notes in the margins. Looking back, I see a theme in my comments and questions.  Here are just a FEW of my comments: 

• Can we have well-rounded education when we don't look at all of the students in a population? 
• There is more to learn than what can be measured on a test! 
• To educate a society each group needs justice and equity in offerings, so how do we do THAT? 
• Aren't all standards based on normalcy, stereotypes, and averages? How is that equitable? 
• Is the inequality in education a race or economic issue? Or is there a correlation with socioeconomics and race? Is that a two strikes against one group? 
• Does standardized testing perpetuation cultural models? 
• How can federal agencies issue mandates that they cannot fully fund? 
• How can teachers be accountable for outcomes when they don't have a voice in the process? 
• Is education reactive or proactive to societal needs? 
• Why aren't educators the driving force behind reform? 
• School choice is another means of bias against low-income students who do not have the means to enact their school-choice rights.

So, Sleeter obviously hit the spot on all my hot-button issues. She does breakdown the chapters to read to answer some of these questions, but overall she is on the money. We can't expect every students to respond to the material in the same way. We don't teach clones. We teach individual students. Until we accept responsibility for ALL of the students in our classrooms, we aren't living up to our promise to provide a free and appropriate education to all students! (I am pretty sure I read that somewhere in IDEA, but it is definitely on this site, too.)

Social justice as defined by Wikipedia:

Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.

Human rights. Equality. Dignity. This should be how we approach education.

Obviously, I have my own opinions about public education. I do want to say that I am a strong proponent of public education for all students, just in case it wasn't obvious. I think it is important for lawmakers, politicians, parents, and teachers to realize how important these issues are to the future of our country. Until we offer every student a quality education, we aren't serving students equitably. Every time we de-value a student and his or her experiences, we are sending them a message. And it isn't one that I am willing to support. Every child matters, and it is time we started treating them that way.