Equity

Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity

Why we should talk to children about race

Amanda Williams, University of Bristol

It’s a situation that many parents dread. Encountering a black man in the street for the first time, a white child might loudly ask something like: “Mummy, why does that man have dirty skin?” After cringing, shushing, or offering a distraction, parents may wonder where this kind of question has come from, how to deal with the situation or indeed avoid it in the future.

From a surprisingly early age, children can distinguish between faces from different racial groups. By the time they are three months old, experiments have shown that white, black, and Asian infants tend to look longer at faces from their own racial group or familiar racial groups compared to faces from other, less familiar racial groups. By three to four years old, children can consistently and accurately identify others by race. The ability to differentiate between people on the basis of race improves with age, with teenagers and adults automatically and effortlessly categorising others on the basis of skin colour.

Choosing to be colourblind

In many societies there is a widespread belief that individuals should receive the same treatment regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, and ability. Partly in an attempt to appear egalitarian, many adults adopt a “colourblind” approach to race – avoiding mentioning race under the guise that if one doesn’t “see” race, then one cannot be considered racist. For example, in studies using a photo identification game, white participants asked to identify a particular face from an array of faces are less likely to use race to describe the faces, particularly when paired in the task with a black partner.

The norms enforced by this behaviour have now become so entrenched that adults tend to find situations that force them to talk about race extremely uncomfortable and anxiety-provoking, leading to a complete avoidance of the topic in social interactions.

Even when interacting with their young children, parents avoid race. In one study that observed the way parents read a storybook created to raise issues about race relations and racial prejudice with their four to five-year-olds, the majority of parents tended not to mention race, despite it being the theme of the book.

Let’s talk about race. www.shutterstock.com

But ignoring race does not make it go away. Like adults and older children, young children are aware of race even if no one seems to be talking about it. This may lead young children to ask questions about racial differences, which are sometimes embarrassing and untimely, in order to gain a better understanding of the world around them.

Only after having acquired a better understanding of social norms regarding race, at around ten years old, do children also begin to show colourblind behaviour and avoid using race to identify the target in a photo identification task. Like adults, older children avoid mentioning race even at the expense of how well they might perform in the task at hand.

But taking a colourblind approach to race is not the best way to promote equality and reduce racial prejudice. Studies with white people who avoid talking about race show less friendly behaviour when playing a photo identification task with a black partner compared to a white partner. Like adults, nine to 12-year-olds also tend to find situations where they have to talk about race uncomfortable, nerve-wracking, and unpleasant.

A new approach

But if colourblindness – and the tendency to avoid talking about race – impacts on relationships between diverse people, what approach should we take in order to resolve racial inequalities? The answer lies in embracing and celebrating our racial differences instead of minimising or even altogether ignoring them.

Fully recognising the multiculturalism in our society appears to be a better strategy. For example, in one study children who were read a story that placed value in racial diversity were found to be more likely to identify acts of racial discrimination and more likely to sit next to racially diverse peers in the school lunch room. In another study, white adults who adopted a multicultural approach (as opposed to a colourblind approach) showed less prejudiced behaviour when conversing with an Asian partner about racism and diversity.

We need to see the world in colour. www.shutterstock.com

Our concerns about discussing race can be reduced by placing more value in racial diversity, resulting in less stressful and more successful interactions with people from racial groups different from our own. As a caveat, most of the research mentioned in this article has focused primarily on the reactions of white participants. So there is more work to do researching attitudes and behaviour in diverse contexts with individuals who identify as racial minority group members.

For children, curiosity about their surroundings and the people they meet comes naturally. Rather than brushing aside children’s questions about race in an attempt to avoid social embarrassment, we ought to embrace and celebrate the differences that make us unique, remarkable, and that colour the world we live in.

Talking with children about race from an early age may not only derail embarrassing questions, but may, more importantly, serve to increase children’s comfort when interacting with people from different racial and ethnic groups – and increase the comfort of those they are interacting with too.

Given that we live in a society that is becoming increasingly diverse, children will be expected to interact with individuals from many racial and ethnic backgrounds. Children need to be prepared for this future – one way to do this is to encourage them to see this diversity as a positive feature of their worlds. It’s time to talk about race.

The Conversation

Amanda Williams, Lecturer in Psychology of Education, University of Bristol

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, First Year Teachers, Teachers

How community schools can beat summer learning loss for low-income students

Laura Bronstein, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article is a part of The Conversation’s series on summer learning loss. For other articles in this series, read here and here.

My children spent summers reading Harry Potter, playing chess, swimming and hiking the Adirondack high peaks in upstate New York.

As a single parent with a career as a social worker and academic, I wasn’t rich. But I had enough to make sure that my children had what they needed to excel in education and enrichment outside of school.

While middle-class homes can often provide for summer enrichment activities, studies show a different reality for children from low-income families. These children and youth often lose months of reading and math skills over the summer, widening the achievement gap between the classes.

What can schools do to address this learning loss?

Summer slide

The learning loss for youth in low-income communities adds up dramatically over the years. By ninth grade, about two-thirds of the academic achievement gap between disadvantaged youth and their more advantaged peers can be explained by how they spend their elementary school summers.

What makes this of concern is that a majority of U.S. students in public schools are now from low-income families. A 2013 study found that for the first time in U.S. history, a majority (51 percent) of public school students in the United States were eligible for a free or subsidized school lunch, indicating that they fell below the government’s low-income cutoff.

The majority of these students lack quality summer activities.

A majority of kids do not have quality summer activities. Children image via www.shutterstock.com

Furthermore, these issues do not exist in isolation. Children from low-income communities who often experience summer learning loss also often face multiple related challenges that impact their ability to attend school or focus when they’re there. These challenges include insufficient access to health care, poor nutrition, community violence and lack of adult supervision, among others.

Partnerships between schools and communities can help students’ academic success. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law in December 2015, addresses the achievement gap between children from low- and middle-income families.

Title IV of the ESSA under the program, “Community Supports for Success,” calls for a range of partnerships between schools and communities so students (especially those from low-income families) can gain access to services they need for academic achievement (e.g., physical and mental health care, adequate nutrition, supervision and access to healthy activities beyond school hours).

How can schools implement these partnerships?

Earlier this year, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a US$175 million plan that demonstrates a way to enable such partnerships. Cuomo’s plan aims to convert schools with the lowest test scores and graduation rates across the state into “community schools.”

Providing comprehensive services

So, what are community schools? And how do they help with student learning?

Community schools pursue a unique learning model whereby they supplement classroom-based instruction with out-of-school (before school, after school and summer) learning. They provide support to students whose families do not have access to academic support beyond the classroom. Their support is not limited to the school term, but continues all through the year.

My research on community schools across the U.S.and the world shows that they look different in each community as they develop in response to each school’s specific needs.

The idea behind this learning model goes back to the late 19th century. The first set of school-linked services (precursors to community schools) can be traced back to the 1890s. Back then, they were developed in response to the massive changes being brought about as a result of immigration and industrialization.

As teachers struggled with new sets of challenges in their classrooms, this model provided additional support. For example, in 1894, doctors visited Boston schools on a daily basis – a practice that helped bring down rates of communicable diseases.

The amount of school-linked services and their gold standard – community schools in the U.S. – have ebbed and flowed over the years. In the last few decades, there has been a marked increase in the number of community schools.

Many individual schools, several counties and an array of cities have incorporated the community school model to reduce the achievement gap between students from low- and middle-income homes. These include Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon), Broome County (upstate New York), Cincinnati, Chicago, Hartford, Tulsa and more recently, New York City, among others.

What’s the impact?

The community school model has shown numerous successes.

For example, Oyler School in Cincinnati had fewer than 20 percent of its students reaching 10th grade in the late 1990s. After implementing a community school model in 2010, 82 percent of students graduated high school.

Many of these schools provide extra outreach efforts to involve families that may be hard to reach in the education of their children – a critical component of the partnership. A recent study of the impact of family engagement in elementary and secondary schools found positive correlations between engaged families and improved academic achievement.

Oyler School in Cincinnati. Sean Biehle, CC BY-SA

School-based health centers are another frequent component of community schools. Studies indicate when there are school-based health centers, lost class time as a result of sickness reduces by as much as three times.

Summer programs are often part of community schools. These programs provide enriched summer activities for students, such as music, dance, crafts, athletics and academics. This enables teachers in high-poverty neighborhoods to begin teaching new content at the start of the school year, without losing months backtracking over content forgotten from the previous year.

Why we need community schools

The community school model has been so successful that universities too are making this a focus of college students’ civic engagement efforts.

In 1985, the University of Pennsylvania took the lead in developing a university-assisted community school approach. College students work with the community schools to integrate knowledge gained in their UPenn classrooms.

An example is the Moelis Access Science program where UPenn faculty and students provide STEM (science, technology, math and engineering) professional development to teachers serving students in West Philadelphia neighorhoods, which are marked by extreme poverty, violence and low educational attainment.

Over 20 universities are now part of the network of university-assisted community schools including Binghamton University (SUNY), Columbia University and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

In an increasingly diverse society facing more complex social problems, the traditional model where education occurs completely within the school building, provided solely by teachers from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from September to June, needs reviewing.

That calendar was designed long ago to leave youth free to work in their families’ fields in the summer. Since farming is no longer a major role for the vast majority of students, time outside the classroom can either enhance academic year learning or diminish it.

Do community schools that offer year-round programming and supplemental services cost money? Of course they do. But they have also been shown to save health care costs. They can also save funds that are now being spent on residential treatment facilities for youth, prison and remediation.

With too many youth dropping out of school, the jobs and workforce necessary to compete in a global economy are at risk. Community schools make sense in a country that is committed to opportunities for educational success for any and all students, irrespective of their family income or their zip code.

The Conversation

Laura Bronstein, Dean of the College of Community and Public Affairs Professor, Binghamton University, State University of New York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, International Education

Girls can have it all: how to stop gender stereotyping in schools

Athene Donald, University of Cambridge

Few things make us as competitive as getting our children into the right school. That is why families are willing to spend so much money either moving house to get into a good state school’s catchment area or sending their children to a fee-paying school.

But the vast majority are stuck with the local school, good or bad. So how can we create a level playing field for students? Unfortunately, it seems we are still a long way away as too many teachers continue to exhibit a tendency towards gender stereotyping by making assumptions about what girls or boys are suited to, such as boys being “better” at science. But, as outlined in a recent report, there are actually simple ways to avoid this.

Obvious actions

The report by the Institute of Physics highlights what can be done to ensure that boys and girls are offered the same opportunities and encouragement to pursue each and every subject. The IOP’s initial motivation for the work is the paucity of girls proceeding to Physics A-level: a mere 20-25% of the A-level cohort.

The factors at work in schools that affect the progression of girls to physics post-16 were detailed in a 2012 report. Building on this first report was another, which demonstrated that gender stereotyping is as damaging for boys, putting them off subjects such as Psychology and English. This third and most recent report aims to identify actions that every school could and should take to eradicate this unnecessary stereotyping, in order to ensure that all children can follow their dreams and fulfil their potential in whatever direction it lies.

Common examples of stereotyping include telling a girl “you do maths like a boy” (I’m not even sure I know what that means) or, perhaps even worse, “girls can’t do maths”. Too many parents have asked me how they could influence teachers to stop giving such negative messages to their daughters.

The actions seem so obvious. They include identifying a senior champion and providing training to counter stereotyping. Also, it should not need to be spelled out – yet it clearly does – that there should be a strict policy that all subjects are presented equally to students in terms of their relative difficulty and teachers refrain from making any remarks about how difficult they find particular subjects. Similarly obvious is the recommendation that sexist language should be treated as being just as unacceptable as racist and homophobic language and that all teachers should receive training on unconscious bias and equality and diversity awareness.

For all in or interacting with the teaching profession, whatever your subject speciality or at whatever level, I would recommend you read the full list of proposals and, if you have time, the full report.

A recent newspaper article illustrates the problem well. The head of Frances Holland School in London, one of those fee-paying schools wealthier families aspire to get their girls into (it is a single-sex school), was quoted as saying on motherhood and career: “I believe there is a glass ceiling – if we tell them there isn’t one, we are telling them a lie.” She added that: “Young girls have massive options these days and some of them will make a decision that they don’t want to combine everything and that is as valid as making the decision that you do want to combine everything.”

This doesn’t go quite as far as the headline, which read “Girls must choose career or motherhood, says top head”, implied, but it does suggest that those who do try both won’t get very far. It’s a deeply damaging message and dispiriting to see it run in a national paper.

Why aren’t we talking about fatherhood and careers?
Olesia Bilkei/Shutterstock

Surely this is not the advice we should be giving to young girls making crucial decisions about their futures. Why aren’t teachers acting according to the IOP guidelines and treating boys and girls in the same way? By and large, babies have two parents who, once the pregnancy and birth are over, should be working out how, as a pair, they can bring up the child. A head teacher who implies it is the mother’s sole responsibility has neither caught up with the law about parental leave nor our changing society’s expectations.

A recent report claimed that the mother was the main earner in a third of families (the bulk of these being low-income families). Head teachers have a responsibility to encourage aspirations and not to deter dreams. They should make sure that their pupils are aware of reality but not smothered by anachronistic views.

Positive role models

That girls are still discouraged from subjects such as maths and physics by teachers, as well as peers, parents and the media, is deeply disappointing. Forty years ago, this would perhaps have seemed less surprising. Indeed, back then, it was probably the norm.

Shortly before the report was published, I engaged in a public conversation with Dame Carol Robinson, a prize-winning chemist who holds the unique distinction of being the first woman to hold a chair in chemistry at both Cambridge and Oxford (where she now is). I was trying to tease out what motivated her, how she had set out on her career and how it had unrolled.

Even a brief conversation with her highlights her most unusual career path, starting with the fact that she left school at 16. She left in part because of the lack of encouragement she received from both school and family to stay in education of any sort. She simply wasn’t expected to make a career for herself, so education presumably seemed irrelevant. In fact, while working at Pfizer in Kent she was able to get further qualifications.

Ultimately, she moved back into full-time education to complete a PhD in Cambridge – without ever getting a first degree. After that she took eight years out to bring up her three children before going back to work. Yet now she is an acclaimed professor, and a fellow of the Royal Society with many awards to her name. (You can listen to the whole conversation here.)

Surely she is proof of the fact that not only can women be successful in the physical sciences, but that you can get to the top of the game and still be a mother, indeed still have a period as a stay-at-home mother. You might think that would not need saying, but apparently it does. Even today.

In a generation, perhaps aspirations – for boys and girls, regardless of subject, class ethnicity or any other irrelevant category – really will mean we have reached equity. I have to live in hope, but we are clearly a long way off that happy state as yet.

The Conversation

Athene Donald, Professor of Experimental Physics and Master of Churchill College, University of Cambridge

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education

Closing the College Gender Gap

If you have been following education hot button issues for any length of time, you’ve likely read about the nationwide push to better encourage girls in areas like science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The thought is that by showing young women that these topics are just as appropriate for them as their male peers, more women will find lasting careers in these traditionally male-dominated fields.

I’m all for more women in the STEM workplace but with all this focus in one area, are educators neglecting an even larger gender gap issue?

Nationally, over 57 percent of college attendees are female when public and private school stats are combined. Females have been consistently edging ahead of their male classmates since the late 1970s when the percentages flip-flopped. Aside from all-female schools, there are others that have marked disproportionate numbers. Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena has nearly 96 percent females in attendance, and the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center in Memphis has over 93 percent. At Indiana University Northwest, located just outside Gary, 67 percent of the student population is female.

There are a few reasons why more young women than men are choosing a college education. The first is that there are more trades that do not require a college degree that appeal to men. The second is that economically speaking, women earn a better living with a college degree than without one in comparison to men. Though there is still a wage gap (in 2012, women earned just 80.9 percent of the salaries of their male counterparts), women see the value their earning potential can gain from achieving a college diploma.

I hear people asking this question all the time: What are K-12 educators doing wrong when it comes to preparing young women for STEM careers? It’s a valid one.

But based on the statistics I’ve listed here, shouldn’t we also be asking this question: What are K-12 educators doing when it comes to preparing young men for a college education?

It all comes down to the weight we assign to the worth of a college education. If a diploma is simply a way to earn more money over a lifetime, then perhaps men are doing the intelligent thing by launching into the workforce early and without student loan debt. That logic is flawed, however, when taking into account the fact that blue-collar jobs are declining in favor of white-collar ones. A young man making a lifelong career decision today simply cannot predict what educational demands will be placed on his field in another 10, 20 or 30 years.

Money aside, there are other pitfalls in a disproportionate number of men going to college. Statistics show that marriages where the couples have differing education levels more often end in divorce than couples with the same educational achievements. And even before divorce is an option, women who set college educational goals may not want to settle for men with less motivation – at least when it comes to academics. If this trend continues, social dynamics may be impacted.

I wonder how much of this trend is based on practicality and how much is based on a lingering social convention that women need to “prove” themselves when it comes to the workforce. Do women simply need a degree to land a job in any field? If so, the opposite is certainly not true for men – at least not yet. Will the young men in our classrooms today have a worse quality of life if they do not attend college – or will it be about the same?

What do you think is at the core of the widening gender gap in education?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education, list, Matthew Lynch, OpEducation

College Football: 6 Ways to See More African American Head Coaches

College football is arguably the most popular sport at the nation’s colleges and universities. Bringing in over $90 million annually in revenue at the highest grossing University of Texas, it is no wonder that school leaders view the football team as less of an extracurricular activity and more of a moneymaker. The revenue that is generated by college football programs only represents a small piece of the overall financial benefits. Schools with strong athletic programs, particularly in the area of football, bring in more prospective students and have larger booster groups in place.

With all that comes from college football programs, it would be nice to see more African American coaches in colleges. Here are the facts and solutions so that African Americans can enjoy this profession and the robust culture that comes with it.

  1. Of the 124 Division 1-A college football schools, only 15 had African American coaches in the 2012 season, according to an executive report by the Black Coaches Association. The Big Ten conference has seen zero black head coaches in the past 10 years.
  2. While head coaches are the most visible, support positions are severely underrepresented as well. Only 312 of 1,018 of college football assistant coaches are black and only 31 of 255 of offensive and defensive coordinators are African American. Combined, black football coaches and support staff represent a measly 5 percent of Football Bowl Subdivision numbers.

At Division II and Division III schools, diversity is even worse. The Black Coaches Association reports that in the 2012 season, only 9 schools of 113 in these two categories had head coaches of color. These numbers exclude historically black universities.

Despite the thousands of black college football players in recent decades, barely a handful has been trusted with leading teams. These ex-players obviously understand the game and know what college athletes face on the field — so what gives?

  1. Part of the problem is that schools are quick to dismiss coaches of all backgrounds when immediate improvement does not take place. The most recent high-profile example was the firing of Jon Embree by the University of Colorado in November. Floyd Keith of the Black Coaches Association called the firing a “disappointment” and wished that the school had given Embree a third season to prove himself. The school pointed to a 4-21 record over the course of two seasons as the reason for the firing but critics, like Keith, say that just two years is simply not enough time to turn a team around.
  2. Many critics are also quick to point out that white coaches with bad numbers are often still considered a hot commodity by other schools when they are on the market, whereas black coaches have historically been given just one shot to prove their talent.

It is also important to note that a college football coach does not have the same responsibilities as an NFL one. Winning is valuable to the university, but so are other aspects like graduation rates of players and team conduct. Both play an indirect role in the revenue the school is able to generate in future years by attracting new students. Yet with turnover rates of all college coaches rising every football season, a shift toward a “winning takes place on the field” mentality is evident.

So what can be done about this?

There is no disputing statistics when it comes to underrepresentation of African Americans in all levels of college football coaching. With so much being said about this issue, not much problem-solving has happened.

  1. Colleges and universities would do well to take a cue from the NFL when it comes to hiring minority coaches. Established in 2003, the Rooney Rule requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate for all vacant head coaching positions and other executive football operation spots. After just three seasons, the Rooney Rule lead to an increase of 22 percent in the number of African American head coaches in the NFL and those numbers rise every season. A similar rule only makes sense in a college athletic setting, especially since so many other aspects of higher education use affirmative action programs to bolster diversity and opportunity.
  2. Another possible option is for schools to set up coaching mentorship programs for minority players that show leadership potential. An even better approach would be an NCAA-sanctioned program that seeks out talented players and gives them some exposure to coaching and maybe even a certificate program. These earmarked players could then begin working their way through the coaching ranks sooner and have a common knowledge base.

All changes need to be initiated by the NCAA, college athletics governing body. For a real dynamic shift to be felt across the board, every school needs to have the same diversity opportunities and rules as all the others. It is not enough to wish that more schools took a closer look at African Americans to fill head football coaching spots; an overarching game plan needs to be in place for true change to occur.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity

Want black boys to stay in school? Improve income equality

Income equality is a hot political topic as of late. Politicians use it as a wedge issue on both sides to ensure that voters will flock to the polls. But its more than political as many Americans struggle to earn a decent living wage.

Income inequality impacts education as well.

By way of new information from the Brookings Institution, students who reside in low-income states are more likely to drop out of school than students in low-income inequality areas.

This is not necessarily earth shattering news, but noteworthy as we have conclusive evidence that shows a correlation between education and income inequality.

The areas with the highest income inequality are all in the south. States like Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana are where students face the toughest financial hurdles.

Moving farther north, states such as Wisconsin and Vermont are not under the same educational pressure as their economic outlook is much better.

Where the research becomes slightly heartbreaking is when it turns to why some low-income students choose to drop out.

The Brookings study concluded that it may be perception that causes students to leave school. Students likely feel that their chances of going to college — let alone afford it — are low, which in turn will severely limit their ability to attain a decent paying job.

Instead of continuing to face and experience the results of poverty as an adult, some students choose to drop out and find a way on their own.

To combat the problem, Brookings suggests policy initiatives such as mentoring and parenting programs. If these types of projects are already in place in the states where income inequality is a major issue, then politicians should focus more resources on them.

If our workforce is to remain strong and vital, then properly investing in areas where income inequality is prevalent is paramount.

Without attention, we risk losing a generation of students to poverty.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Policy & Reform

How to Improve Equity in K-12 Learning

Since amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution mandated that “no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” no child can legally be denied the right to a public education in the United States.  As such, equity in education has long been an ideal and ensuring equity among all students, regardless of their personal circumstances, has been a primary goal of educators.

Unfortunately, the practice of equity in education has been less than effective.  Government steps that have been recommended to remedy the problem include having states specifically identify and report on the teaching staff, programs, and services they deem necessary for a quality education; and adopting and implementing a school finance system to provide “equitable and sufficient funding” for all students essentially to meet learning standards.  These recommendations follow a 2013 report called, “For Each and Every Child”, in which it was reported that “some young Americans – most of them white and affluent – are getting a world-class education” while those who “attend schools in high poverty neighborhoods are getting an education that more closely approximates schools in developing nations.” The problem of ensuring that every child in the United States receives a quality education is quite a substantial one.

Better resource allocation

Perhaps then, the first step to addressing this issue should be for some determination to be made about how, under general circumstances, education can be made equitable to all students.  This assessment should not directly involve teachers or administrators, whose assessment may be skewed, but rather the assessment should be through observation.  After all, the assumption seems to be that money – preferably money poured into schools – is enough to solve educational issues. That is, reassignment of resources to support schools in poorer areas will be sufficient, along with some reporting on considered needs, to balance the public education system.  This is problematic because the issue of equity, and perhaps equality, is far more complex than an influx of money can solve – but it is certainly a good starting point.

Better feedback on what’s working.

States should provide feedback on those programs and strategies that are most effective for equity building.  Part of the problem with the government’s solutions is that they assume states and ultimately schools can figure out what it is they need or what it is they need to do to provide a quality education.  There are many elements at play, not just the immediate financial ones. Students in certain affluent areas have the benefit of the best teachers, given that it is highly desirable to have a placement in this area. It is also decidedly competitive to even try.  Therefore, a compilation of feedback from the states should be gathered in order to rank the most effective programs so that they can be shared with all.

Analyze findings for better results.

School systems need to have an approach for analyzing findings about recommended shifts in learning approaches and objectives. These approaches should be designed to help teachers and administrators understand not just what they have to avoid but also what it is that they can do to achieve optimal equity moving forward. This will take massive amounts of data that will need to be centrally collected, understood, and used to improve equity in all K-12 public schools.

The goal of achieving equity in schools has long been a goal of the education system.  However, most attempts to date have fallen far short of the mark.

What do you think needs to be done to improve the balance of education for kids in this country?

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

2 Reasons the Concept of “Justice for All” Does Not Apply to American Schools

In the US, the concepts of equality and justice are intertwined. The idea of “justice for all” has existed since America’s early days.

But the truth is that the application of this idea has been far from perfect to this very day. Let’s take a quick look at our historical lapses in carrying out the idea and how those affect us today.

  1. De jure and de facto segregation. De jure segregation, or legalized segregation of Black and White people, was present in almost every aspect of life in the South during the Jim Crow era: from public transportation to cemeteries, from prisons to health care, from residences to libraries. Under segregation, Black and White people were to be separated, purportedly to minimize violence. De jure segregation, or “Jim Crow,” lasted from the 1880s to 1964. Jim Crow laws were efficient in perpetuating the idea of “White superiority” and “Black inferiority.”

De facto segregation is the direct manifestation of de jure segregation, because the U.S. government could mandate that laws that segregated the races were unconstitutional, but it couldn’t change the hearts and minds of its people. If people didn’t want to be in the presence of another ethnicity or race, they could certainly make this a reality. So, de jure segregation was implemented by law; de facto segregation, by common understanding and personal choice. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many White citizens simply moved to the suburbs to avoid mixing with Black citizens. This “White flight” led to the creation of “chocolate cities” and “vanilla suburbs,” which are still prevalent today.

In relation to education, the legal segregation of the races in Southern schools was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In the United States today, however, Black and Hispanic students tend to be concentrated in schools where they make up almost the entire student body. Also, the percentage of Black students in majority White schools has decreased to a level lower than in any year since 1968.

De facto segregation is a huge problem in the United States as it allows bigotry and discrimination to occur more easily. What happens as a result?  Many schools in mostly Black neighborhoods find themselves unequally funded and seriously neglected.

  1. Persistent stratification. The disparities between rights of certain ethnic groups in American culture can easily be identified by the disparity in the number of individuals incarcerated in the nation’s prison systems. African American men are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates. Reports indicate that even when similar crimes were committed by White and African American men, the penalty was more severe for the latter. As a result of this socioeconomic stratification, a privileged class exists, with some Americans receiving benefits unavailable to others. For example, data from the U.S. Department of Labor reported higher unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics across all major age and gender groups in 2009.

The number of children from ethnic minority groups living in poverty continues to increase as well. In 2006, approximately 13 million children were living in poverty. The number of Hispanic children living in poverty has increased by 23% since 2000, and the number of African American children living in poverty increased by 8.4%. A 2006 study showed that social status had a significant influence on mortality rates, as well as “chronic diseases and injuries with well-established risk factors such as alcohol use, tobacco smoking, obesity, elevated blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose.”

We need to be aware of history so that we can understand certain attitudes and problems that exist today, and hopefully repair them as we continue to strive for the ideal of “justice for all.”

Now I want to hear from you: what are some factors that prevent us Americans from fulfilling this admirable ideal? Share your thoughts in the comments.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Policy & Reform

With harsher disciplinary measures, school systems fail black kids

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

Esther Canty-Barnes, Rutgers University Newark

Although it has been over 60 years since the Brown v Board of Education decision, black students are still more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions for minor violations of the code of conduct. As a result, they are more likely to drop out of school or enter the juvenile justice system.

Black students constituted 32%-42% of those suspended during the 2011-12 school year, even though they represented 16% of the student population.

As racial tensions resurface in the aftermath of the conflicts and riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, we need to consider whether some of these issues have their origins in the manner in which children of color are treated in our schools.

As a clinical professor of law at the Rutgers University Law School’s Education and Health Law Clinic, I provide legal representation to parents and their children in cases where they are being denied an appropriate education or are suspended from school.

This includes filing legal complaints, attending meetings and assessing the appropriateness of a student’s educational program. At the clinic, my colleagues and I have seen firsthand the disparities in the treatment and resources provided by schools. And often, I have seen that suspension of young black students begins as early as kindergarten.

Educational inequities for black kids

Our educational system continues to fail children of color.

Research shows that black males are disproportionately more likely to be placed in special education and classified as mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed.

They are also more likely to be placed in segregated placements, more likely to be educated in poorly performing schools and more likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system for infractions that occur in school.

They are also the least likely to be provided the positive supports and the assistance that they need in order to succeed.

None of this is new.

Children of color have historically been subjected to educational inequities. After the landmark decision of Brown v Board of Education in 1954, where the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to maintain segregated schools, practices and policies were developed to maintain segregated settings.

States in the South refused to comply with Brown, while other parts of the country developed practices such as IQ testing and tracking students into specific programs that often kept children of color in different classes from their white counterparts.

The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), headed by Marian Wright Edelman, was one of the first organizations to look at the disparities in access to education. In its groundbreaking report in 1975, “School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children?,” the CDF analyzed the reports submitted to the Office of Civil Rights.

Although black students accounted for 27.1% of the students enrolled in the school districts reporting to the Office of Civil Rights in the 1972-73 school year, the report found that they made up 42.3% of the racially identified suspensions.

At the high school level, black students were suspended at more than three times the rate of white students: 12.5% versus 4.1%.

Persistent patterns of suspensions

These inequities in suspensions and removal from school continue to persist.

In recent times, the term “school-to-prison pipeline” is often used to describe systemic practices that ultimately lead students of color into the criminal justice system. These policies often cause the suspension or removal and sometimes the arrest of students from school for nonviolent or minor violations.

Arrested students fall behind the class, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Meg Stewart, CC BY-SA

The vast majority of suspensions are not for serious or violent offenses. Most are for minor infractions such as tardiness, dress code violations or disruptive behavior.

Why suspension matters

Students who are suspended for substantial periods lose valuable instruction time and fall behind in school.

The unfairness of these practices increases gaps in learning and eventually makes it difficult for black kids to keep up in school. Researchers have found that the use of harsh punishment for minor offenses has a negative impact on children, including increasing the chances of dropping out of school.

The US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in its 2014 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) on discipline provides a stark example of how the educational system continues to fail children of color.

For the 2011-12 school year, for out-of-school suspensions by race/ethnicity and gender, black students on average were suspended or expelled at a rate three times greater than white students.

At the preschool level, although black children represented 18% of enrolled students, they represented 48% of the students suspended more than once.

Although black students represented 16% of the student population, they accounted for 27% of the students who were referred to law enforcement and 31% of the students who were arrested.

Prejudices against students with disabilities

Students of color with disabilities are also disproportionately suspended from school compared to their white counterparts. They are twice as likely to be suspended than their non-disabled peers. And they are referred to law enforcement at greater rates.

Although students in special education represent 12% of enrollment, they constitute one-quarter of students arrested and charged with juvenile offenses.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) outlines specific protections for parents and their disabled children and requires that school districts provide an appropriate education and services such as counseling, social skills and other supports to meet their unique needs. However, the needs of these children are often not met.

Moreover, there are many protections that apply before a disabled student could be considered for suspension or removal for substantial periods of time. Often, these protections are ignored, and the services that should be provided are not.

Change is needed

Suspension of students for minor infractions is certainly not the solution. We don’t have to look far to see the consequences of policies that take students out of school and place them in vulnerable, nonproductive settings.

The cost – a life of poverty or incarceration – further continues to perpetuate a cycle of failure.

Myriad systems have worked against poor children of color to deprive them of the educational opportunities that their white counterparts have taken for granted. Poverty, violence, inadequate housing and other systemic inequities place these children in a pipeline for failure. Most of us would not be able to endure the burden, if placed in their small shoes.

A great deal of change is needed to combat these pervasive educational inequities. The US Departments Of Education and Justice have begun to take some important steps by issuing guidelines to school districts to reduce the numbers of students who are being removed or suspended from school and encouraging schools to find alternatives to suspensions.

These are important steps, but much work remains to be done.

______The Conversation

Esther Canty-Barnes is Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Education and Health Law Clinic at Rutgers University Newark .

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform

Why music education needs to incorporate more diversity

Jacqueline Kelly-McHale, DePaul University

As presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to insist upon banning Muslims from entering the U.S. and espousing a need for a wall along the Mexican border, heating up anti-immigration and racist rhetoric, it’s essential we consider this: one in four students under the age of eight in the U.S. has an immigrant parent.

Classrooms are getting more diverse as the percentage of minority students increases. In the fall of 2014 there were more minority students in the the public education system. According to a report from the Pew Research Center, 50.3 percent of students in 2014 were minority, whereas 49.7 percent of all students were white. By 2022, 45.3 percent are projected to be white, and 54.7 percent are projected to be minority.

How can classrooms become more culturally responsive in their teaching practices in classrooms and foster respectful behavior?

As a music educator and music teacher educator focused on culturally responsive teaching, I believe a music classroom is an ideal place to begin. Music is an experience found across all cultures, and music classrooms are a logical place where difference and respect can be recognized, practiced and celebrated.

Music programs lack diversity

Music education programs in the high school setting typically bring to mind the images and sounds of bands, orchestras and choirs. In the elementary context, general music classes are viewed as places where children sing, dance, and play the recorder and other classroom instruments.

Each of these experiences is rooted in either a Western view of music that is focused on placement of Western classical music as the highest form of musical experience, or on methods of teaching that grew out of European music education practices.

In my research, I found that the reliance on a method of general music instruction within a classroom where the majority of the students were the children of Mexican immigrants resulted in a the creation of an inherent bias against the students’ culture and a sense of isolation for the students. This bias was the result of the the teacher’s views, which created an environment that did not support the integration of cultural, linguistic and popular music experiences.

This finding was supported by music education professor Regina Carlow, who found that when the cultural identity of students in a high school choir setting was not respected or even acknowledged, students developed a sense of isolation.

This isolation can result in an unfair learning environment.

Teachers lack diversity

So why don’t classrooms engage students in musical practices that are rooted in their cultural and musical backgrounds? The answer can be found in the traditions of American music education.

In 2011, music education researchers Carlos Abril and Kenneth Elpus found that 65.7 percent of music ensemble students were white and middle class; only 15.2 percent were black and 10.2 percent were Hispanic. These data demonstrate that white students are overrepresented in high school music ensembles. Students for whom English was not their native language accounted for only 9.6 percent of ensemble members.

The majority of teachers are white and middle-class.
Andy Bullock, CC BY

Additionally, Elpus found that the majority of music teachers – 86.02 percent – entering the profession were white and middle-class.

Adding to this reality is the fact that the process of becoming a music teacher is rooted in the Western classical tradition. Though the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) does not stipulate a classical performance audition, it is required in a majority of cases.

Based on my experience as a music education professor, aspiring music teachers must pass a Western classical performance audition with an orchestral instrument, classical voice or classical guitar in order to even begin down the path of becoming a music educator, even though no school explicitly states that.

Given this, music education programs not only primarily reflect Western European classical music, but they also create a self-perpetuating cycle.

Start with understanding music

In fact, music curriculum can be an ideal place to start culturally responsive teaching. Music crosses cultures and is an experience that can be considered universal.

Education researcher Geneva Gay describes culturally responsive teaching as a practice that supports learning through and about other cultures.

This includes cultural values, traditions, communication, learning styles, contributions and how people relate. It is not just taking a week or month to study the folk music of Mexico. It is about building a curriculum that enables students to experience, discuss, and perform music that is culturally and socially relevant.

This happens when teachers draw on musical styles and genres that are varied. For example, learning to sing the folk song “Frog Went a Courtin’” based on its American variant, then comparing and contrasting it to the Flat Duo Jets’ rock version of the song.

In this regard, music education researcher Chee-Hoo Lum recommends that music teachers start with the students’ cultural and musical background in order to get them to better understand and interact with different musical experiences.

The cultural values and contributions of diverse musicians and genres provide the perfect avenue to explore and learn about the “other” in a classroom environment. Additionally, the chance to sing, play and listen to the music of other cultures creates an understanding that transcends personal experience, and creates a more global perspective.

Reimagine and reconfigure

This is not to say that we should forgo the current practices. Band, orchestra, and choir programs provide wonderful educational experiences for students throughout the country.

And these programs should continue.

However, there are other music programs that focus on guitar as a popular and folk instrument. Such as this one:

And there are programs that run rock bands within the school day. Then, there are programs where students learn to write songs, sample and compose. In addition, there are music education blogs that celebrate the many “other” ways that students learn about music, outside of band, orchestra and choir.

These programs can help us reimagine and reconfigure.

Building walls and excluding groups do not engender respect and democratic growth in our classrooms or in our political arenas. Rather, they foster fear and prevent equality and opportunity. Music classrooms can and should become the places where diversity is embraced and integrated.

The Conversation

Jacqueline Kelly-McHale, Associate Professor of Music Education, DePaul University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share