Fifth-graders at a Title I LAUSD elementary school in
Teaching
Usually a skeptic when it comes to reports of improvements in student achievement due to a new curriculum, I could not ignore the 31 percentage point increase. A 69% increase in test scores from just a two year period is worthy of our attention. Also, since
1,836 expected teacher layoffs in Orange County alone. The news stems from a suspension of Prop 98 proposed in January which permits the state to spend less than the minimum amount guaranteed to schools next year. We're talking $4 billion dollars in cuts. That’s a four followed by nine zeros.
The state worries itself so much lately with its own deficit that the governator decides to bring the pain to the public schools to relieve its own stresses. It’s easy to see the results in the micro/immediate sense, but what of the macro/big-picture sense? We have invested human capital in the young students generated from these very schools. To take away their resources in school is to guarantee that fewer of them will succeed in school and life. It seems as though most school officials and parents agree that this suspension is a bad idea, but what power and what say do they have against big government? Groups and organizations form to protest against the suspension of Prop. 98 but the decision is ultimately in the hands of California Legislators. This is just the bureaucracy trying to please the people by skimming the budget as much as possible. They fail to see that the students who will be affected by this suspension will end up being the adults and leaders of California one day. If we force schools to spend less than they already do, there would be less teachers, desks, buses, outdated textbooks, but of course, more and more students.
What time period do we live in, 1900? This is definitely an issue we need to worry about.
-JOHNNY NG, ED175The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Finnish teenagers are the “among the smartest in the world.” Interestingly, high schools in Finland do not have honor societies, valedictorians, school uniforms, or gifted classes. Students complete about a half hour of homework per night and there is little standardized testing.
The most likely reason for the Finns’ success, however, is the homogeneity of the population in terms of language and social class. Very few students do not speak Finnish and there are few disparities in income level among Finns. Furthermore, the Finns spend less per pupil than the U.S., but Finland has a “high-tax government” that ensures that schools receive roughly equal funding (unlike the U.S.). The gap between Finland’s low and high performing schools is the smallest of any country on the international measure. Finally, college is free in Finland. The fortunate Finns enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.
With that said is the idea of a bureaucratic school district a bad one? Ideally, no. Having a centralized curriculum and a board to problem solve other issues as well as a pecking order for these problems to progress through are good concepts. Why then does it seem to work so poorly? The article ends with a poignant point. “This is the conundrum that faces the L.A. public schools: To attract good leadership, it has to have good leadership.” This pecking order is not going to work if you do not have good people in place to lead the schools. Why does this seem to be the case for LAUSD since many of us have been alive? That I do not know. However the red tape that ties up the time of many people within the district that are attempting to accomplish positive things for the students is at times sickening. With the differing agendas within a district of this size it is hard to work collectively toward a common goal which would make the bureaucracy most effective. Imagine if you had all of the staff in the nations second largest district working for a common goal just how much could be accomplished in a short amount of time. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case in LAUSD and it doesn’t look like that will be the case anytime soon.
-SHELDON SHEEHY, ED175
This raises two questions. First, given that schools have been historically unable to meet the unique educational needs of low SES students and students of color, is it fair to hold the students individually accountable for learning? And, second, the Pettit and Western article we read this week says, “Among black male high school dropouts, the risk of imprisonment has increased to 60 percent, establishing incarceration as a normal stopping point on the route to midlife.” Given that the Texas article shows a effect of education policies on the differential dropout rate of African American and Latino students, can it be argued that school policies are contributing to putting these young men at risk for incarceration?
How is cultural capital signaled through dress? I had not given this question much thought until I met Dario and Dagoberto (pseudonyms) a little under a week ago. They are Juniors at a local high school and volunteered to participate in my qualitative study about Latina/o students’ perceptions of their educational environment. Both Dario and Dagoberto are successful students—they participate in a college preparation program, are taking AP courses, have high educational aspirations and a strong sense of direction about how to achieve their academic and professional goals. They interacted with me respectfully, they answered my questions thoughtfully and intelligently—I got the sense that they are ‘serious students’. Stop for a moment to recognize the image of a ‘serious student’. Who/what does that look like?
Dario and Dagoberto were dressed like “cholos”. Matute-Bianchi (1991) asserts, “students who affect the stylistic symbols of this category are frequently identified by others [students, school personnel, and police] as ‘gang-oriented’, ‘gang bangers’, or ‘gang sympathizers’. Some of the most common identifying characteristics of cholo attire can be generalized as baggy pants (often Dickies or Ben Davies brand), solid colored t-shirts (white, black, navy blue, etc), and perhaps a flannel shirt in the winter.
Through our interviews I learned that neither of these students were gang members. I also learned that they were aware that dressing like ‘cholos’ and being ‘good students’ was perceived as contradictory by their peers and their teachers. Dario felt it necessary to explain that “just because I dress like this doesn’t mean I can’t do good in school” and Dagoberto recounted an experience where he was confronted by a bona fide ‘gang banger’ who confused him with a member of the rival gang. I got the sense that they recognized their attire evoked negative reactions—that it was a liability. I also implicitly understood that the unintended consequences of their dress were simply collateral damage and that it was worth it to them. I got the sense that shedding their ‘cholo’ attire would leave them vulnerable—that they would also be shedding their hard image and this image was their protection.
Dario and Dagoberto are doing all the right things, but is their dress making all the wrong statements? What does ‘cholo’ attire signal to school personnel? Are they perceived as threatening and dangerous like the ‘other gang bangers’? Are they perceived as less serious about academics? Does it signal a lack of cultural capital in the schools and the right cultural capital in their neighborhoods? Are the social consequences of shedding this attire greater than the educational consequences? Are they compromising?
-IRENE VEGA, ED261In the United States, unfortunately, many immigrant students receive negative social mirroring from the classroom and outside world. Immigrant students tend to feel segregated and discriminated against in school. In comparison with European immigrants, Latino and Asian immigrant students tend to have a hard time assimilating into mainstream society due to their skin color. Some immigrant students believe their skin color is the barrier keeping them from fitting into the mainstream society. Some have experienced being laughed at for their foreign accents and non-fluent speaking skills. Immigrant students consider "being white" and speaking "correct," "fluent," and "native-like" English as pathways to success in American society. Their painful experiences usually lead to negative feelings towards school and then contribute to their low academic achievement in comparison with white students.
Moreover, as white students regard receiving higher education as pathways towards higher socioeconomic (highly-paid) occupation, immigrant students have a tendency to believe that many doors are closed, many job opportunities are limited, and social stratification exists in the society even when they obtain educational credentials. In fact, immigrant students tend to get low-paid jobs and the least desirable jobs because of the class stratification and restricted social mobility. Limited job opportunities may hinder immigrant students' motivation towards going to school, and they may consider going to school as a waste of time. Developing the above perspectives, the issue of to what extent formal education can help immigrant students succeed in the society should be taken into serious consideration. How can schools provide all students with a supportive environment and offer them equal opportunity for future development? Could the supportive school environment compensate for negative social mirroring that immigrant students receive from the outside world?
Following along with our discussion of race and how it relates to education, I just read an article called Deconstructing Whiteness as a Part of a Multicultural Framework (Rhoads & Ortiz, 2000). This was a fascinating article in that it looked at how we as educators on a university level should approach multicultural education. The authors challenge the "universalization of whiteness" and propose a framework where "deconstruction" of whiteness is important when taking a multicultural approach.
I found this article fascinating and important because the white race is often "universalized", or seen as the norm, while not ever really being talked about. White people in America are not normally thought of as having race and the authors assert that this reinforces whiteness as the dominant culture. I agree that these issues must be addressed, in particular in college classrooms as they suggest in the article.
-JIMMY LEAK, ED261
By teaching immigrant parents simple ways to help their children and to reinforce what is being learned in class, kindergarten teachers at Lillian Elementary in Los Angeles are taking practical steps to reduce immigrant children's drop out rates in Southern California. Parents are instructed to direct their children in tracing numbers in salt on cookie sheets, make letters with play-doh, or simply improve children's verbal abilities through increased communication. The teachers believe that lack of parental help sets children up for a disadvantage when they enter school, so the course emphasizes parents acting as the primary educators.
I think this program sounds very beneficial as long as there are parents, like the ones mentioned in the article, who are eager to help their children achieve academically and have the time to consistently make the extra effort to build their children's academic foundation. The article mentions how the principal gave incoming kindergarten parents exercises and goals the May before the school year to help their children catch up, however when they entered kindergarten the same children were still behind. While parents may want to try and help their children, it may just come down to a time issue rather than simply not knowing how to help their children. However, if parents can make the commitment, I can see that teaching them how to help their children will be extremely beneficial and will effectively reduce the dropout rate, especially since LA Unified policy does not aid these children until second grade.
-EMMA CONLEY, ED175
After the presentation about the importance of early education we had in class today, it got me thinking about how much we prioritize the schooling we have before kindergarten. On edweek.org an article talks about a situation in Idaho where a movement is afoot to change state law to include funding for children less than 5 years old (a.k.a. money for Pre-School programs). The current law prohibits the use of money for public schools for children under 5.
In the end, the responsibility lays on parents to decide whether their child needs education before Kindergarten. I would imagine the idea of free public pre-schooling is very attractive for the working class. It would give an option to have your children in a highly stimulated area of learning while you wouldn’t have to look for a babysitter. I see a trend of starting children their educational process at a younger and younger age.
-KEN RADOMSKI, ED175Financial management is a skill is that many young people of this generation lack. Today, only 17 states require economic course in public schools as a graduation requirement, and most teens are unaware of the consequences of irresponsible spending. Educators are beginning to propose more financial education programs in schools across the United States. According to the the chief executive offer of the National Endowment for Financial Education "there's been a steady building in recognition that we need to give students basic financial skills." Although different organizations have been providing assistance on the education of high schoolers through interactive lessons, more effort is needed to assist kids to understand the concept of credit, loan, saving, and stocks. The national economy is heavily affected by financial choices people make. As a result, it is crucial for educators to teach teens about financial decisions.
The articles also points out that, "Many parents are unwilling or unable or uncomfortable about providing financial education to their own kids, or they've made mistakes themselves, or are part of the unbanked population." The lack of financial knowledge among lower class kids is a reflection of the theory of social and cultural capital. Without having parents that are well versed with managing money, kids from disadvantaged communities lack the knowledge needed to achieve greatly mobility. Because many parents do not expect their kids to be able to handle money well, their children find it hard to achieve financial independence in adulthood. People who lack such background really miss out on opportunities as well as economic success. Elites on the other hand, tend to do a better at teaching their children about investment and economic strategies.
A great way to narrow this gap is to provide financial education for pubic school kids. Instead of having people learn the hard way, funding of financial education programs is a small investment to make considering the potential benefit to the economy. Whether if it is accepting a credit card offer, buying a car, or opening a checking account, financial improvement comes from knowing all the options and consequences of different decisions. Curricula in economy will provide the much needed resources that lower class kids would otherwise not get.
The Los Angeles Times has two front page stories that are endemic of education today. First up is a story about Stanford University, which has pledged to use part of its $17 billion endowment to fully pay for tuition for students who come from families earning less than $100,000/year. This follows the move of other private universities with large endowments (Harvard, Yale, Pomona, and others) who have pledged to fund tuition for their lowest income students. While these actions are laudable, it is worth asking how many students are actually affected by these policies. At Stanford, 15-20% of students come from families who earn less than $60,000/year and Stanford has pledged to pay all fees for these students (room, board, and tuition). The truth of the matter is that the bread and butter of these schools are rich, often legacy, students with stratospheric family incomes. How else could they amass endowments greater than $1 billion? Its a nice PR move, but it doesn't change the imbalance in elite, private institutions which weighs heavily toward reproduction of cultural and economic elite.
The second article looks at the looming budget crisis in California's K-12 system. The budget see-saws in California have been a significant drag on the state's efforts to adequately educate its students. This most recent crisis, like most of the ones before it, will disproportionately affect students in poor, often urban districts. These are, ironically, the same types of students whom Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, are willing to give a free ride to. I guess the elite colleges figure that if a student is strong enough to make it out of Compton, for example, that should be worth something. How many students, however, are going to make it out of Compton, to stick with the example, to actually take Stanford et al up on their offers? When you do the math, you see how it is possible for these elites to make these "generous" offers.
The community college is in large part the major entry institution of higher education for Latina/o students. The community college is one of the 3 levels of public higher education outlined in California's Master Plan of Education, which admits a large number of students seeking vocational certificates, remediation courses, workforce training, community services courses, and finally but not least to the long list of community college missions is the lower division education for university transfer. In May 2007, a Latino Policy and Issues Brief from UCLA's Chicano Studies Research Center examined the Latino transfer function to 4-year institutions.
According to the CA Postsecondary Education Commission (2004), of 100 Latina/o first time college students, 75 will enroll in a community college. Just 7 of these students will transfer to a public 4-year institution, 1 to a UC and 6 to a CSU. The need to increase the pipeline for more transfers to higher education institutions is critical and requires policy attention. Why aren't Latina/o students transferring from the community college? The answer is multifaceted and under critical research. Key theorists would argue that the community college is an institution of stratification and social reproduction. Sorokin would argue that society places individuals in their proper position within society and the community colleges are societal sorting machines. In addition, some community college administrators would also mention that the community college goals are not simply to transfer students but to address all of its missions. The article recommends the need for more effective transfer programs in which the responsibility is on the institution to disseminate information. How can the community college balance all of it missions while serving their respective community and exhibiting appropriate 'transfer cultures' for Latinas/os?
-JOYCE ROYS, ED261Each student's worth is somewhat decreased because of the superficial nature of the reward. Money leads students to a hollow understanding of what they are being taught. Whereas a student learning information on their own would gain a thorough understanding that would most likely stay with them throughout their educational careers. This follows with the ideal of cultural capital in that these students that follow the economical motivation will most likely not gain the necessary background to succeed. The families of the students who are succeeding in school are usually high income families. These families already have expectations from their children. A student's human capital would also inevitably be affected. Schultz would argue that this would be an investment that each student would be involved in.
Instead of actually helping students in lower classes, we think that this incentive scheme could be an instance of "the rich getting richer". High income families will take advantage of this opportunity because of the advantage that they themselves already have academically and socially.
-GROUP 5, ED175
We have all heard it before – the education offered in U.S. schools trails much of the developed world. In science, American 15-year olds ranked 17th out of the 30 industrialized nations that participated in the 2006 Program for International Student Assesment (PISA). American students did even worse in math, ranking 23rd.
That’s bad news, but for poor students in the U.S., the news gets even worse. In America, student socioeconomic background is considerably more closely related to student math and science performance than in other PISA countries. While affluent students in the U.S. are globally competitive, poor students in the U.S. do far, far worse than their peers in high-performing nations like Finland and Canada.
Ross Wiener of the Education Trust says the exam’s results are not surprising. “We give students less of everything that makes a difference in school.” Wiener argues that the PISA study “demonstrates that we’re simply not doing as well as we can for these students.”
Every student should have an equal opportunity in having a distinguished education. This relates to the class reading by Bourdieu where he speaks upon the stratification in terms of status and money. We can simply make a change in the structure of our financial allocations to schools, instead of just complaining about how low our PISA scores are. This way we will see a more productive outcome among all the students in America, not just the privileged. Making an effort to make education an equal opportunity for all students should not just be a concern for few but rather an obligation.
-GROUP 4, ED175
I think it would be interesting to note that in some ways, the current post-secondary educational system is one extremely large multi-tracking system. We have stratified everything from two year community college schools, certificate programs, and vocational schools, to the very elite, top tiered and Ivy League status universities. Furthermore, within the post-secondary educational system, tracking stratifies by major, educational goals, career ambitions which can or may determine admissions into graduate schools, professional schools, or employment.
For example, the desire to attend an elite school or an elite program is a motivating force behind the post-secondary stratification system. It comes down to a matter of resources: time and money. Prestigious program offer elite professors and researchers, doctors, and business corporations who carry clout, experience, and large foundations as a consequence of their accomplishments. It could be in the best interest of any students to attempt to gain admission into those types of programs. Having said that, if all of us came out with the same education, with no means to signal the most hardworking from the least, how would anyone ever be able to advance? Lets say, you really wanted a job with corporation X because they could pay you a lot of money. How much time would it take corporation X to interview and try out with every equally eligible applicant until they found the one with the most potential to employ? The “signal” is informative in such circumstances. Perhaps the opposition against tracking is an opposition against the idea that the educational systems serve to “signal” ability and accomplishment; a signal that stratifies to be efficient.
-NAYSSAN SAFAVIAN, ED261
The elementary school I described yesterday in ED175 provides us with an example of within-school inequality as well as tracking. To recap, the student population is highly diverse, with 70% Latino, 16% White, 10% Asian, 2% Filipino, and 2% African American students. However, achievement, as measured by the 2006 California Standards Test (CST) in English Language Arts (ELA), shows that groups of students are much more successful than others. Specifically, 83% and 70% of Filipino and Asian students, respectively, are achieving at the proficient or advanced levels, however only 57%, 42%, and 34% of White, African American, and Latino students, respectively, are proficient or advanced. Which sociological concepts could explain this disparity?
Sorokin would argue that schools in the U.S. serve to sieve students into their proper place within our stratified society. Thus, highly successful Filipino and Asian students are meant to fill jobs as doctors, lawyers, and the like. White students will fill white collar jobs, such as managerial positions. African American and Latino students will take menial positions that reflect their low status. Bourdieu would concur with Sorokin that this school is effectively doing its job of reproducing the social classes.
Another possible explanation lies within the distribution of human, social, and cultural capital. As we have seen, these forms of capital are distributed unequally within our society. More specifically, Coleman would say that it is likely that Asian, Filipino, and White families have a higher level of social capital. It may be that these families have closed social networks in which many of the mothers know each other and can serve as a support system for their children. The parent-teacher network is more likely to be closed as well; when a problem arises for a child at school, the parent has access to speak to the teacher about it and come up with solutions. Schultz would say that higher levels of human capital are also at work in this example. The highly successful children most probably have parents who possess skills and knowledge that are conducive to school learning, such as literacy, computer skills, and math skills. If the parents don’t possess the skills themselves, they probably have access to outside resources, such as tutoring, to help their children. Finally, cultural capital comes into play as parents provide their children with what Bourdieu calls “cultural wealth”, in the form of exposure to literature, the arts, science, etc. This cultural knowledge provides children with a rich background knowledge from which to draw that helps them to be successful in school.
Oakes would argue that the summer achievement gap probably also comes into play in this particular example. Only 33% of the students on free lunch (economically disadvantaged) achieved at the proficient or advanced levels on the ELA CST. It is highly likely that the high- and possibly middle-SES students at the school have access to enriching summer activities, such as museum visits, summer library reading program, science camp, etc. that enable them to continue their cognitive growth. The lower SES children probably don’t have access to these activities, resulting in flat growth over summer, and this is reflected in lower test scores at the end of the academic year. We don’t know this for sure, because this school, like most schools, only tests students once per year (in May).
The outcomes of this inequality are evident in the numbers of students represented within the gifted (GATE) classes at the school. Rather than mirroring the general student population of the school, the 5th grade gifted class is comprised of 38% Latino, 35% Asian, 21% White, 3% African American, and 3% Filipino students. We can see that early tracking in 1st grade occurs, with English only (EO) students tracked into 2 classes (one high achieving) and English Language Learners (ELL) tracked into 4 classes by their English language abilities (beginning, middle, or high ELL). The EO classes are comprised of White, Asian, African American, and Latino students. Virtually no White students and very few Asian students are enrolled in the ELL classes. This tracking actually begins in Kindergarten; all children are assessed on skills such as alphabetic knowledge and counting in the summer. This data is used by the teachers to sort students into Kindergarten classes that are distributed roughly by language status and Kindergarten readiness. The tracking continues in a less prominent way in 2nd and 3rd grades. The students are all tested for gifted in 3rd grade, then in 4th grade tracking become much more prominent again, with students sorted very clearly by achievement into 4th grade GATE and regular education classes. Students are retested in 4th grade and any newly identified students or “gifted potential” students join the GATE students in the 5th grade GATE class. 6th grade also has a GATE class. We know that school readiness, such as phonological awareness (e.g., ability to rhyme words, knowledge of letter-sound relationships), is predictive of later reading success. Thus student differences in pre-Kindergarten may account for achievement gaps later on in students’ academic careers. Don’t forget only 20% of all ELL at this school achieve at the proficient or advanced level of achievement. So language is clearly an important factor.
This example brings up some very interesting issues. Oakes’ (1985) research questions related to her study of tracking within high schools seem appropriate here. Namely,
· Do the children at this school have the same opportunity to learn content (e.g. math, science, social studies, and literature)? Or are the differences only in terms of pace of instruction or mode of presentation?
· Do some groups receive more instruction than others?
· Are some children exposed to more highly valued content?
· What is the role of school opportunities in determining how much students learn?
Food for thought…
-LAURIE HANSEN, ED261School tracking has been a major topic of controversy since the Reagan Administration backed A Nation at Risk. This document declared, "The educational foundations of our society are being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people". With the increased curricular requirements as well as standardized testing, more and more schools have begun to turn to tracking and pathway systems to keep up with the rigid demands placed on the school systems. The question is whether these tracking systems are beneficial or detrimental to the student body. Many say the tracking system is detrimental.
Tracking is a common part of the education system within the United States, but when does it go to far, where should the line be drawn? In the article written by Damien Jackson, he describes how eighth graders in North Carolina are being forced into a "pathways" program in which the students must choose one of four pathways or career options. They choose from a four-year college or university track, a community college or technical college track, a direct entry into job market track, and lastly an "occupational" pathway that is reserved for students with disabilities. There is much controversy over this system.
Many argue that students are too young to make such an important decision. Others argue that once a student is in one pathway it is very difficult to change to another pathway. Some guidance counselors think that the system will result in more summer school students and less students graduating in four years. They say it may take many students five years to graduate. One parent in the article, Idola Scimeca wonders what this system will do for black and brown children. She says, "It's like they're categorizing these kids by the eight grade and telling some you're going to work at IBM and you're going to work at McDonald's". The negative view of tracking is not only demonstrated in Jackson's article, but it is also seen in Jeannie Oakes article, The Distribution of Knowledge. Oakes shows that there are a disproportionately larger number of non-white students in the lower tracks and a disproportionately smaller number of non-white students in the higher tracks at multiple schools. Oakes also demonstrates the overwhelmingly large difference in what the students learn in the high tracks vs. the low tracks. Student responses in the higher tracks demonstrate a general positive interest in the topics being learned where as the responses in the lower tracks demonstrate a lack of interest and enthusiasm in the topics being learned. Both authors depict an overall theme of inequality due to the tracking and pathways systems. It seems that students who fall into the lower tracks are at a definite disadvantage. Maybe tracking is not the answer to improving out education systems. It may be that tracking is causing more inequality and making the achievement gap even larger.
Students should be encouraged by their parents, teachers, school counselors, mentors, and peers to challenge themselves to take college-prep courses. All courses should be open for all students. School should look at the student's ability in each subject (their previous level grade and performance in classes, not only on one-spot placement tests) before placing them in classes. Offering after school programs (although it is a lot of work to accomplish this in public schools) such as more extra help or classes to catch up for students who are behind in their classes. Students should not be limited to classes that they have chosen as their "pathways". Many teenagers, even college students and adults cannot decide their future path. It is important to let the students and their parents know the importance of education.
One of the biggest problems with the tracking system is the difficulty of switching "pathways" in the event that a student does change their mind. Countless number of college students who reconsider their majors and have changed them--on some occasions even numerous times. This system does not allow for a sort of "trial and error" period for students, as the path they choose right out of high school is what will determine the rest of their academic and professional future. Because of this, the pathway system, in and of itself, is highly unforgiving.
Above all, it seems most unfair to sort students based on their potential. This sort of program seems to show school administrators focusing on an elite set of students whom they deem full of potential, and simlpy give up on those who fall short. When in hindsight, the sole job of a teacher is foster whatever potential the student does have--regardless of the
amount--and utilize it to help the student grow into the best they can be. These sorts of systems seek to show how students are failing in their school system, when in reality, it is the school system that is failing its students.
Desegregation is not integration when SES factors play a critical role in the social stratification of schools. A completely heterogeneous school is not entirely possible since access to resources, as a result of SES, will inadvertently influence the students’ core educational foundation. Students of dissimilar SES backgrounds will be exposed to different experiences, whether cultural, or ideological, that will color their interest and the identities they develop. Whom students choose to affiliate themselves with will vary as a reflection of their interests, identities, and academic talents. Ultimately, the establishment of stratified and segregated micro communities becomes inevitable within the “integrated” school.
Secondly, desegregation as a means of access to new resources does not entirely equate to adaptation and achievement. It is only a part of the equation. Human capital without cultural capital cannot necessarily be perceived as a complete formula to anything. All the resources possible may be available but without the right circumstance, knowledge, and motivation, the student will not succeed. The problem of low achievement is present not just as a consequent of financial and racial inequalities; rather it varies based on SES, ethnicity, and geographic location. In the end, perhaps it is not the students we should be focused on integrating but rather the parents, teachers, and school administrators.
-NAYSSAN SAFAVIAN, ED261
In Taiwan, people strongly believe that education is the best way to improve social mobility and shorten the gap between the wealthy and the poor. The main reason is because of our entrance examination and tuition.
Junior high school graduates need to take an entrance exam to study in senior high school, and senior high school graduates need to take another entrance exam to study in college. Students have better opportunities to get a good job if they get a high grade that helps them to study in a good school and popular program. Their future job is a reward of their hard work. Diligent and smart students from low SES families have chances to move from lower to higher stratification. As a result, social mobility occurs through this mechanism.
Different levels of tuition also improve this social mobility. Tuition at national/public colleges is much cheaper than at private schools, and most of the top schools in Taiwan are national universities. Therefore, another reward for diligent and smart students is cheaper tuition.
When educational reform started ten years ago, however, it gradually undermined these mechanisms. Before this reform, exam scores were the only criteria that schools used to choose students. Now students have multiple routes to enter a college. They can either apply to a program or take the exam. If they win a prize in an international competition, such as International Mathematical Olympia, they will be recommended to the best school. This policy, however, results in rural-urban inequality. Students can take advantage of their cultural capital to outperform others. Parents also use their physical capital to send their children to all kinds of cram schools, even for Chinese and music!
In sum, though the entrance exam oversimplifies individual differences, this exam and tuition policy helps to reduce inequality.
-CHINHSI LIN, ED261
President Bush called again for a voucher-like program for low-income families in his final State of the Union address. Thinking about Kozol, one can see there are both liberty and equity arguments at play in the voucher debate.
Equity in public education hasn’t been particularly evident throughout history. Nonetheless, the argument against vouchers is that they will further enlarge the gap between the haves and have-nots, siphoning money from public schools to private, often religious, schools. Bush and other voucher supporters take more of a liberty approach, arguing that students and families should have the freedom to opt out of public schools when those schools are failing them. Without vouchers, one might argue, private schools will continue to be the domain of wealthy elite and failing public schools the domain of poor, often minority, students.
This is a highly contentious issue. But when one reads accounts of education in private schools, as in the Byrk, Lee, and Holland study of Catholic high schools, one cannot help but think that these schools are doing something right. Is the answer to allow more low-income students the opportunity to attend a Catholic or other private school, as the Bush proposal would do? I know that if I were a low-income parent faced with the thought of sending my kid to a public school with a poor reputation for positive educational outcomes, I wouldn’t reject out-of-hand a program that offered to help me give my kid a chance for a better schooling situation.
There will always be valid arguments that parents in a position to take advantage of these programs will be the higher-income, higher-social and cultural capital families. However, vigorous outreach programs aimed at parents and children in low-income schools could alter this dynamic. It remains, however, a tough idea to swallow for those of us who believe in public education.
-ERIK RUZEK, ED261Having read a fair amount of articles in the field of educational psychology and taken a few sociology classes focus on inequality in the school system. I've noticed that there is one group of students that has been consistently skipped. Because of their social-economic status and academic achievements, they are just not that interesting to be looked at.
Stereotypically speaking, when investigating school performance and students’ academic achievements, a dichotomized method is often used. Generally, researchers study high performance schools vs. low performance schools, and/or high academic achieving students vs. low academic achieving students. Many significant findings are found from these comparisons between the high and the low. Educational psychologists study high-achieving students from high performance school because they want to know what contribute to these students’ success and assure they reach their potentials. These students can be found in the GATE program. High-achieving students from low performance schools are often studied to figure out why they are able to perform well in an environment that is not optimal for studying. These students were often rewarded with scholarships to pursue higher education. Low-achieving students form low performance schools become an interest of study for people’s desire to help, to close the gate between the high and the low, and to reach social equality. Many intervention programs are the results of this line of study.
One group in this 2X2 matrix is missing.
Few studies have investigated the low-achieving students from high performance school. Why is that? I don’t have an empirical answer for this question. This question has been in my mind for quite a while. I was in this group. I was a so-so student in a high performance high school. I will not go so far by saying nobody cared about my well-being, but I believe this is one area where a lot of educational psychologist and sociologist missed. In depth qualitative researches in the form of interviews (but not inclusively) have been done on all other three groups but not so much in this group. I would like to know more about this group’s emotional development, self-esteem formation, perception of schools and peers, future outlook…etc
As a person who is studying to become an educator, my responsible is to make sure schooling is as rewarding as possible to all students. When there is a group of people that has been consistently overlook because of their fortune being in a nice school, I want to make sure they are receiving equal amount of attention as everybody.
The article discusses how 15 states want stronger oversight and tougher punishment for teachers who engage in “sexual misconduct” with students. A nationwide investigation puts the figure at over 2,500 teachers from 2001 through 2005 whose teaching credentials were revoked or denied due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Of course, the number is bigger due to underreporting.
I think the vast majority of people would agree that it is not acceptable for teachers (both male and female) to have romantic/sexual relationships with students, who are minors. This is an extreme case where I would argue that expecting teachers to uphold certain societal expectations (ex. no sex with students allowed) is a good thing for society. The questions each society/culture must address are—what are the boundaries to limiting teacher behavior? Should we have a moral teacher checklist that individuals will need to meet in order to become a teacher? Who in society gets to determine the moral standards teachers should have?
-TRAN DANG, ED261
Eli Broad believes that in situations where there is a lack of mayoral control, such as in Los Angeles, one needs to redevelop the schools from "bottom up". In response, Broad is donating more than $23 million to LA charter schools because of their successful ability to raise test scores in low income, urban communities. His views are supported by evidence that students attending these charter schools, such as KIPP and ASPIRE, are more efficiently tackling the academic obstacles that these students are facing.
This is an example of a public school adopting some of the positive aspects of a private school, such as increasing the salary of teachers and putting them through more intensive training. Students who live in low income communities and are unable to pay for the high private school tuition are able to attend these free charter schools and potentially achieve higher test scores than students who are attending public schools in the same district.
-GROUP 1, ED175
"According to a UCLA survey released today, a whopping 84% of college freshmen nationwide reported that Mom and Dad showed the right amount of involvement in the decision to go to college. Of those, 80.5% said they were fine with the amount of input their parents offered in choosing a school."
This article by the LA Times based on a UCLA survey of undergraduates shows a trend that is becoming more and more prevalent among young adults of this generation. Parental involvement in students' lives into the "college years" and beyond seems to be increasing all around the country. Some even go so far as to call these parents who hover over their child's every move, "helicopter parents". However, parents' input and oversight of their children also poses an interesting question about cultural capital: Are parents using their cultural capital to not only get their children into college, but also help advance their children through college on a path towards graduation?
The interesting part about this article is that the children seem to welcome their parents' involvement when it comes to academic affairs and do not feel that their parents are too overbearing. In effect, children are allowing their parents to use the cultural capital that parents learned from going through the college system. On the other side, parents are doing everything they can to make sure their child has the maximum benefits from a college education. However, not all students have the luxury of relying on their cultural capital and parental involvement.
This study found that Latino and Asian parents seemed to lack attention towards their college students which was often a result of language barriers or because parents were immigrants to the United States and did not know how to deal with the college system. Since parents seem to be greatly involved in the lives of their college students, what changes can be made to improve the parental involvement and build cultural capital amongst those marginalized groups?
-JIMMY LEAK, ED261