1. Education and inequality

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

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

4. 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

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

6. The result?

7. 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,
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 ), Indicator 33.

8. 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)

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

10. 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

11. What are the collective goals addressed in the chapter?

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

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

14. Nested nature of inequality
states
Districts
student
Schools
Class rooms

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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

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

20. 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.

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

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

23. 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

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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Invisible Inequality
What type of research was conducted?
limitations?

29. 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

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

31. 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?

32. 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)

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

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

37. 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?

38. 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

39. 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

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

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

42. Collective identities, cont.
Voluntary v. involuntary minority

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

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

45. 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?

46. 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

47. 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?

48. Accountability practices