Education and inequality

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4861855n SC schools video Why are there differences? Should we try to overcome those differences?

The American Dream What do Hochschild and Scorvronick Describe as the paradox?

The american dream Schools as the great equalizer Compared to white, middle and upper class students Minorities more likely to go to a high poverty school Low income students more likely to go to high poverty school Along with effort and ability, achievement is a function of the type of school one attends

Why is this important Different schools offer unequal access to Facilities Teachers Money Coursework Afterschool programs

The result?

Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990-2010 Year Total1 Race/ethnicity White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native 1990 12.1 9.0 13.2 32.4 4.9! 16.4! 1995 12.0 8.6 30.0 3.9 13.4! 1998 11.8 7.7 13.8 29.5 4.1 1999 11.2 7.3 12.6 28.6 4.3 ‡ 2000 10.9 6.9 13.1 27.8 3.8 14.0 2001 10.7 27.0 3.6 2002 10.5 6.5 11.3 25.7 16.8 2003 9.9 6.3 23.5 15.0 2004 10.3 6.8 23.8 17.0 2005 9.4 6.0 10.4 22.4 2.9 2006 9.3 5.8 22.1 14.7 2007 8.7 5.3 8.4 21.4 6.1 19.3 2008 8.0 4.8 18.3 4.4 14.6 2009 8.1 5.2 17.6 3.4 2010 7.4 5.1 15.1 4.2 12.4 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045), Indicator 33.

POVERTY AND ACHIEVEMENT: Average mathematics score of public school 4th-graders, by whether the student was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and the percentage of students in the school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2005 (NCES)

Figure 13-2: Average mathematics scale scores of 12th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 2005 and 2009 (NCES)

The american dream Absolute success---learning to read and write Relative success—attaining more than someone else Competitive success—some succeed at the expense of others

What are the collective goals addressed in the chapter?

Collective goals Equal opportunity Ability to deal with others Produce democratic citizens Common core of knowledge

Why have collective goals not been achieved? Multiple goals Competing interests What are the competing interests? Bureaucracy $$ spent makes interest groups compete

Nested nature of inequality states Districts student Schools Class rooms

Surface tension Water molecules stick together Cohesion of similar molecules Allows some items that are denser than water to float Surface tension creates the “skin” around the water droplet Reason that oil and water do not mix Caused by the tension of two dissimilar materials

Inequality in the classroom Heterogeneous grouping Allowing all students into same classes Pros? Cons? Homogeneous grouping Putting students into academic courses based on perceived ability Cons

Inequality in the classroom Tracking Unintended consequences Segregates students by race and class Why? Expectations from teachers Unequal learning opportunities Worksheets v. group projects Different levels of critical thinking Students in lower tracks not as respected by their peers Students at the high end of a low track often have higher achievement than those at the low end of a high track

Tracking What was the point of disagreement between Hallinan and Oakes?

Objective v. subjective criteria Objective criteria Subjective criteria Who are the gatekeepers?

Who is tracked where? Because of subjective nature of tracking: Middle class whites more likely to be in upper tracks regardless of ability Second generation segregation Often schools that are racially and economically diverse at the school level become resegregated at the classroom level.

Groups Examine tracking from two different theoretical perspectives Would someone coming from this theoretical framework argue for or against tracking? Why?

Tracking and culture Work reflects expectations for future outcomes Peer effects Behavior, attitudes

Parental involvement in the family Inequalities at home Factors affecting parental influence on children’s achievement and behavior Family Structure Parental involvement in the family Satisfaction Income Parental Education Test scores Grades Behavior Race Sex

Family background and Parental Involvement Levels of parental involvement shaped by economic resources social resources opportunities for involvement own orientation towards education

Family background Family background accounts for over ½ achievement differences, followed by school composition Coleman Report (1966) Most people have high educational aspirations Not all have means to achieve those aspirations

Family factors influencing achievement Number of siblings More siblings=more dilution of time and resources Boys with small # of siblings often complete more education than fathers Single parent homes Compared to two parent homes Lower grades More drop outs Lower test scores

Family factors influencing achievement Parental Education The more education the parents have, the more they are likely to expect from their children More educated parents have more understanding of how the system “works.” Socioeconomic status Low status parents often feel intimidated by the school Clear separation between home and school

Invisible Inequality What type of research was conducted? limitations?

Invisible Inequality What are the dimensions of child rearing approaches found by Laureau? Concerted cultivation Accomplishment of natural growth What types of activities did they engage in? How were activities organized differently? activities organized by adults Informal activities Language Social connections Interventions in institutions consequences

Invisible Inequality Why does social class matter? How does social class affect interactions in the “real world?”

Schools cannot do much to influence what happens at home Are there things schools can do to try to counter some of the home effects?

Inequalities in education--Desegregation A few key court cases (of many) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Brown v. Board (1954) Civil Rights Act (1964) Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971)

Desegregation Desegregation slow to happen Rationale for desegregation 1964 Civil Rights Act 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1968 Housing rights act Dejure v. defacto segregation Rationale for desegregation Results Achievement gaps decreased Increased tracking (within school segregation) Increased minority goals and aspirations Increased group interactions Desegregated children are more likely to work in a diverse environment and attend a diverse college Increased college attendance

Desegregation Schools are resegregating Court orders lifted Milliken decision (1973) No integration between districts Neighborhoods still segregated Schools with lifted desegregation requirements go back to neighborhood schools Children more diverse Schools more segregated than in 1972

Magnet schools Military Increased scores when diversity is achieved More desegregated than other institutions Black students who go to military schools score higher than those who do not Heterogeneous classrooms, high expectations

Desegregation Responses to lifting of desegregation requirements Increase in school choice plans Increase in districts that assign students to schools by income

Although most people surveyed (black and white) agree that students should not be segregated in schools, why are some blacks and whites ambivalent about desegregation?

Why? Blacks Whites Equal opportunities should not need integration Want to attend local schools Desegregation has not addressed collective goals of schooling Segregated schools are not imposed by legal (dejure) segregation but rather defacto segregation Whites Do not like busing View racial composition and achievement as the same thing Want to go to neighborhood schools

Why Does it matter? How are the educational aspirations for these boys changed by the school they attend? Initial aspirations Result based on school type A tale of two schools part one and two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjiQup4DW2g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTg7fuE9f8

Collective identity and the burden of “acting white”---Ogbu Discrimination does not explain gaps Collective identity Cultural frame of reference

Collective Identity, cont…. Feeling of “we” Status problems Involuntary status Institutional discrimination Residential/social segregation Mistreatment

Collective identities, cont. Voluntary v. involuntary minority

Collective identity, cont. What is “acting white?” What are responses from peers? How do they adjust?

Burden of acting neither white nor black Extends Ogbu’s theory Asian Americans Model minority status---how could this be a burden?

Burden of Acting Neither White Nor Black How did parents, schools, peers affect achievement? How did the experiences of lower class and upper class Koreans differ? Who did they identify with?

Burden of acting neither black nor white, cont. Conclusion Not as simple as Ogbu theorized Race and ethnicity interact with culture, class and school context

Seeking Equity What should we do to educate children who do not know English? Why are there so many unqualified teachers if there is a demand?

Accountability practices