Kozol Ch. 8 and 9 – Uhm…I Agree?!?!

 I was running late today in submitting my post, so I didn’t include any fun information in my introduction .

Chapter 8
Initially, Kozol seems to doubt the successful outcomes of politically motivated programs such as Higher Horizons and Schools of Excellence to improve education. His doubt is soundly based as the research behind the programs’ progress is often manipulated to show a positive outcome, which is clearly not the reality. However, he shouldn’t be surprised that a politically motivated program is being spun into a success story for a candidate to hype. That is the nature of the political machine. Unfortunately, Kozol never seems to find (or more likely doesn’t look for) a program that has achieved some gains in improving educational opportunities for inner city students. It seems hypocritical not to fault him for skewing his own research to promote his personal politics. Although, I happen to agree with him that most of these politically designed programs often throw more money at the problem with little effort going into the actual planning or organization of the proposed idea. It seemed odd for Kozol to incorporate a discussion on eugenics within this chapter, but it is a topic that needs to be discussed. It would seem that notions like eugenics wouldn’t hold sway over public perceptions in the 21st century, but a quick Google search brings up 2,710,000 entries on the subject. Since returning to UT, I have worked on and off (currently off) as a staff writer for The Daily Beacon. Less than a year ago, the news staff was asked to do a story covering the opposing sides of the eugenics debate. There are still plenty of people who buy into the notion that the races are unequal when it comes to a comparison of mental ability, with those having a European background being the gold standard for intelligence. Fortunately, I don’t think our country’s best and brightest support this opinion.

Chapter 9
“He [Gary Orfield] was speaking of strategies to break the back of segregated housing patterns in the suburbs, one of the most impenetrable obstacles to school desegregation; and he was speaking as if he believed that this was actually possible” (224). Finally, Kozol finds someone who is working outside of the school system to make a correction. In my opinion, this is largely a social problem that cannot be fixed by feeble attempts at school integration alone. “A survey revealed that the number of black parents who believed their children’s education had improved under the busing plan exceeded those who took the opposite position by a ratio of six to one” (228). Why were some of the black parents opposed to the busing program? Kozol never provides any insight or answers to this question. Were some families resistant to having their children immersed into “white culture” in public schools? “‘That effort…will be flawed even if it succeeds.’ The 1954 decision…’was not about raising scores’ for children of minorities ‘but about giving black children access to majority culture’” (229). Here, I have to strongly disagree with Richard Rothstein as originally integration was an attempt to create social acceptance between white and black students, but today, it is largely based on raising scores and improving education. The racial and cultural understanding issues have largely been forgotten. There is a clearly an assumption that we all get along, and better teachers and better schools are the sole focus for improving education.

Kozol 3 and 4 – Oh how I hate thee!

The fun always comes first. Here are a couple of worthwhile Web sites to visit.

Adtunes.com is an ad music blog that serves as a guide to music used in television commercials, shows, film trailers, soundtracks and more.

OrwellProject.com is the online hub of reality TV, and it provides dedicated and up-to-date news, links, forums, casting calls, and more.

In last week’s class, Jonathan Kozol was described as an anthropologist. If I recall correctly (and I always can) from my previous courses at UT, anthropologists are first and foremost supposed to be objective observers. Kozol doesn’t seem to fit this description in the slightest. Funny how he never provides any details into how he selected the urban schools he chose to “observe.” But, I’m sure the selection process for his research focused on the worst of the worst in inner-city education. He makes bold statements about no “white student” ever being allowed to learn in the conditions of the urban poor. Yet, he never mentions looking for or visiting an underachieving school in any predominately “white” locale. It seems easy to draw broad controversial conclusions when you avoid any type of real world example that contradicts your beliefs. Additionally, he never seems to find an inner-city school in his cross country search that actually performs well or at least meets the “separate but equal” dictate of Plessy v. Ferguson. So here’s my sweeping conclusion of Kozol…you are an Ivy League Hack posing as an anthropologist and pseudo-authority on public education. By the way, how about turning that narrowly-focused gaze of yours on the “apartheid education” going on in higher education…or would that be considered crass (probably pronounced as “cross”) by your Harvard alums?

Chapter 3
“‘If you’re told to memorize something and you memorize it right,’ a child who had been identified to me as one of the best students in the class replied, ‘you get 100–and that’s Mastery…’” (83). Kozol then goes into his 20 questions to confuse a child routine to show how the student can’t possibly understand the word mastery. This is of course after he has ridiculed the school for not allowing the child to converse in a natural way based on his (or Kozol’s idea of an) age-appropriate vocabulary. “So a curriculum that was imposed, in part, to compensate for staffing needs of schools that had a hard time in recruiting teachers ends up by driving out precisely those well-educated men and women whom school systems have worked so hard to attract into these neighborhoods” (85). Wasn’t this turnover already happening before this new curriculum got implemented? Kozol is right that the canned curriculum provides a passive system for providing instructional continuity for the students given the teachers’ revolving door often found in inner-city schools. Yet, he still finds time to criticize any attempt at rectifying the situation by any means. Kozol seems to prefer the status quo rather than trying any alternate means to better the situation…oh yeah that’s right, he’s just an anthropologist (a.k.a. finder of flaws) and not an actual change agent. Didn’t ole Ralph Waldo, your fellow Harvard grad, say something about foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds? Jonathan, you can’t point out the need for change and then do everything in your power to mock it because it doesn’t fall in-line with your wishes! Wait, that would mean that you actually might have to state what you think would be a solution and then other people could hold you accountable, wouldn’t it? Apparently, it’s just much more fun to write whiny books than proposals.

Chapter 4

“We all got gold stars in my elementary school if we brought in completed homework; many teachers give their students sticky decals…as rewards for finishing a book report of simply treating one another with politeness. Most Americans, I think, would smile at these innocent ad pleasant ways of giving small children small rewards” (97). Jonathan, if you had done some recent reading on educational philosophy, you might find that these types of reinforcement are also frowned upon now. “In the market-driven classroom, children are encouraged to believe they “own” the book, the concept, the idea. They don’t engage in knowledge; they possess it” (96). Once again, a frequently used term in current educational psychology literature that promotes students learning the value of “responsibility” for their education. It’s not trying to brainwash them with capitalistic ideologyyou jackass! Throughout this chapter, he talks about “HIS” problems with tying market-driven examples into educational processes. Has he ever studied the gaps in minority vs. white populations of the Fortune 500 companies? If he did, he might see some correlations between the racial differences in education and occupation. Perhaps these market-driven processes are trying to prepare them for a more successful life outside of high school and/or college. Kozol only sees it as a preparatory step into becoming a line cook, mechanic, or any other blue collar career path. He seems to think the world abounds with poets, painters, authors, dreamers, etc. Actually, people following those professions who find success are not quite as numerous as he would like to believe…and that is probably reflected across color lines. All in all, I really, really loathe this guy, and I wish someone would challenge his conclusions about the realities of urban education rather than just “yessing” him at every moment.

Kozol–1&2

Prior to opening this book, or our discussions in class, I knew that segregation in schools was still a very real problem. My mother works in a school that is almost entirely minority, but I think the real problem that leads to this large degree of segregation is the same as that in the area in which my mother teaches—it is a socioeconomic issue. Unless there is a large degree of busing, schools will remain segregated, and I believe the SES segregation is the more important issue. As far as busing is concerned, deMarrais stated that in the past there has been opposition to this, even by the students being bused and their families. Also, Kozol brings up an example of a school built in an upper class neighborhood where the families who lived in the neighborhood sent their children elsewhere when low SES students were brought into the school. And we know that there are very few high SES parents who would stand for their children being sent to a segregated low SES school, such as those described by Kozol.

As I said, although I believe minority segregation is a major problem, I feel the real problem with the school segregation is the SES segregation, and the resulting disparity of funding. It is absolutely amazing to me that one 3rd grade student in New York public schools was only “worth” $8,000 per year, while another merited $18,000 per year. This absolutely astounded me, especially since these funds feel along SES lines and the pupil who was already having $18,000 of public funds spent on him was attending a school where the parents could raise over $100,000 per year for the school (and specific programs or more teachers), if they so desired. It’s no wonder the students in these poorer, segregated schools, with a few exceptions, don’t excel in the same way students from wealthier schools might. I am also amazed that there are some individuals who think money does not play a factor, after viewing the results, or lack there of, after one year of increased spending. I agree that there are personal factors that need to be overcome, but more importantly, that the effects of under spending and under attention are cumulative. If you want to make a difference, you need to start early (as early as Kozol states upper class parents do) and continue for the duration. This system is definitely not fair, as pointed out by some very young children. As far as the use of public funding is concerned, it is an outrage to me that the chancellor of school funding could reject the use of private funding to reduce class size, only to come up with public funds for this very same school, while other schools, worse off to begin with, continue to suffer because parents do not raise the same kind of stink or, perhaps, do not have the same kind of influence. Further, if we know that it is important to start early, why are public funds used to partially underwrite the cost of preschool for middle class children, while so many poor children receive little to no preschool (according to their kindergarten teachers). I especially like the statement of a former NYC principal to sum this up: “‘I’ll believe money doesn’t count the day the rich stop spending so much money on their own children.’”

(One thing I want to comment on, that is slightly off topic, is the idea of parents sending their children to an 11 hour program, as early as the of two. No child, especially a two-year-old, should be spending 11 hours in any kind of schooling program. And, if they are in preschool for 11 hours, what time do they have with their parents? It seems as if these parents are paying to have someone else raise their children, not just give them an academic advantage. Just because they can afford it doesn’t make it right.)

Kozol Chapter 1 and 2 – Stop Bashing NYC!

If you are interested in a unique source of information, please sign up for the Daily Candy newsletter at http://www.dailycandy.com. It is where I learned about “Pretty Darn Swell,” an online art vendor that sells limited editions of imaginative pieces that only cost $20, with $5 going to a charity of the artist’s choosing.

I liked some of the points Kozol made about  segregation in public schools, but as it currently stands, I find it to be more of a socioeconomic problem than an educational issue. Public schools serve the neighborhood in which they are located, and when they underachieve, students are given a choice to abandon them for a better opportunity. However, socioeconomic status plays as much of a significant role in the solution as it does in the problem. Students can only make a change if they have the means to transport themselves to a new location. The public school system does not make provisions for transport outside of the neighborhood. It is only the students who can afford to make alternate arrangements that end up leaving the underachieving school, further weakening the overall student body with their absence. My main problem with Kozol is his consistent bashing of the public school system in NYC. After living there for 9 1/2 years, I’m aware of many governmental and educational policies that are trying to remedy the situation. It is not the bleak educational landscape that Kozol presents in his book.

The governments of New York State and New York City have instituted some programs that provide low-income housing options within high-income areas of NYC. Unfortunately, I don’t recall the specific tax/real estate codes that would allow you to research these programs further. One program offers significant tax credits to real estate developers who are providing new residential housing. To receive the tax credit, the developers are required to set aside 20% of the total available units for low-income families. Another program called “inclusionary zoning” allows developers who are renovating or building residential property to receive tax credits for providing exclusive low-income housing adjacent to the high-income property. These are two NYC programs that are trying to address the huge divide in socioeconomic makeup of  the city’s neighborhoods. However, it should be noted that large urban centers like NYC are often famous for having ethnic enclaves (e.g. Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.) that appeal to residents and tourists alike. While these are superficial examples of social segregation, these ethnic groupings provide opportunities to provide specialized services for the residents who gather in these neighborhoods.

NYC also makes it a point to differentiate its educational system to benefit its students rather than segregate them. No one can deny the social problems thrust upon people who openly identify themselves as LGBTQ. Imagine complicating that situation further by placing LGBTQ students in the microcosm of high school culture. Realizing that the need for a safe place to learn is a basic physiological need, NYC established the Harvey Milk High School (HMHS) that caters specifically to LGBTQ students. Here is some brief information about the HMHS that I pulled directly from its official Web site (http://www.hmi.org/) . 

Q: What’s the Harvey Milk High School?
A:  The Harvey Milk High School is an inclusive voluntary public high school focusing on the educational needs of children who are in crisis or at risk of physical violence and/or emotional harm in a traditional educational environment. The Harvey Milk High School has been in existence for almost two decades, and is now a four-year, fully-accredited high school. 95% of HMHS students graduate, well above the NYC average, and over 60% of HMHS students go onto advanced programs or college.

Q:  Why can’t at-risk children remain in their current schools?  Isn’t this segregation? 
A:These are children that have been in traditional schools, but have needed to leave or have dropped out because of physical violence and/or emotional harm. Thanks to HMHS they have a safe place to learn so that they can graduate with an education, a diploma and their lives ahead of them. Being in a separate space during the school day doesn’t mean that these students will never learn how to adjust to the demands of the larger world. Every day they face real-life pressures, including harassment. It is not segregation to remove a child from a dangerous situation in order to give them a chance to learn safely. HMHS is a successful refuge for a small portion of youth, who have fled unsafe schools in order to secure their right to a safe educational environment; no one is arguing for a totally separate school system.

On a personal note, my niece attends Norwood Elementary, which also happens to be my childhood alma mater. In the recent past, the school has moved toward the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. With a diverse population of students, there is likely to be an equally diverse set of issues presented by the population of learners. Last year while in 4th grade, my niece contracted head lice from her fellow classmates on three separate occasions. This required my brother’s family to scour themselves as well as all of the clothing and bedding in their home. My niece of course took the brunt of the guilt for causing each of three problems. That is a lot for a 4th grade child to be emotionally responsible. She started having psychological problems because of the lice which included bouts of depression and her physically pulling out her hair in a never-ending search for phantom pests. Clearly, she didn’t want to be blamed for infesting her home with vermin again. Personally, I loved my public school education because it enhanced my social skills, but I don’t think it was fair to my niece that she had to go through this experience. Our family contemplated pulling her out of Norwood and placing her in a private school. Largely because Norwood refused to accept any responsibility for the health problems affecting the kids at the school. The blame was placed on our family for issues of poor hygiene. I can only say that proper health maintenance and cleanliness have never been a problem for our family. I wonder what Kozol would say about a 4th grade child developing psychological problems due to her interactions with children from a lower socioeconomic background in this instance. Unfortunately, I think he took a largely superficial look at the overall problem.

Thought this was funny. You can find it at http://www.nandahome.com.

Chapter 5: Social Class and Its Relationship to Education
This book frustrates me, but not because I disagree with the content presented within its pages. “Schools play such an important role in maintaining existing patters of domination. They perpetuate middle-class ideology which states that status and social mobility in American society are based upon merit, earned competitively, and facilitated by schooling” (203). deMarrias just finished condemning cultures where social class was based on heredity and caste, but she continues to find fault with all of the corrections (such as meritocracies) being made to improve opportunity as well. She disapproves of the benefits of social gradualism to make ongoing repairs to the system, but it seems that wholesale changes or complete overhauls of the system would be just as damaging. Also, deMarrias states (according to research presented by Blau and Duncan) that “the most powerful predictor of educational level obtained was found to be social class background of parents, as measured by their income level, occupation, and education” (214). This is where it gets disheartening for future teachers because most of the limitations on their success come from outside of the school. There are so many educational influences outside of the classroom (parents, peers, culture) that cannot be controlled by the teacher, however, the education system takes the brunt of the responsiblity for not being able to achieve success. It is a bigger problem that adaptive teaching and learning styles cannot address alone. Are we asking too much of teachers?

Chapter 7: Ethnic Minorities: Equality of Educational Opportunity
“Leslie Roman (1993a) reminds us that being white is not ‘colorless’ and that people who are considered white in this society have their own ethnic identity, racial subjectivities, interests, and privileges” (258). This is one point that I think a lot of educational studies fails to address. While most textbooks are aimed toward Euro-American students, these same students don’t really develop an ethnic identification for themselves outside of the realm of white Americans. “Race, a term with no scientific meaning, is a concept that has been used historically to categorize people in the ethnocentric belief that one race is superior to others” (260). Race is another problematic concept because America is based on a white-black binary that polarizes students in an us vs. them perception. This again places a great deal of responsiblity on the teacher to resolve a problem that is plagueing society rather than just the classroom. Teachers are asked to embrace diversity within their classrooms only to have their efforts trampled upon every time the afternoon bell rings. Again, deMarrias inlcudes research from Scimecca that states, “family backgrund was the most important determining factor in students’ educational achievement” (276). How are teachers supposed to resolve this problem? We’ll have the students for five 90 minute blocks across a 4 month period of time, while the lessons learned from home have at least 18 years to develop.

As far as student resistance to education is concerned, I count myself lucky that I’ll be teaching English. I can provide writing assignments that will allow the students a chance to communicate their frustrations. What happens when children are resistant to learning math and science? Those seem like two subjects where cultural differences cannot be addressed by a specialized curriculum. There aren’t opportunities for students to culturally identify with the material, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to alleviate resistance to education. What do teachers do in this instance?

I appreciated Bennett deMarrias’s conclusions about the information that is included and omitted from the classroom via the approved textbooks. “Anything in the texts that may offend particular groups can eliminate their [publishers] books from a state’s textbook adoption lists” (228). First and foremost, the textbook should contain material that will prepare the student for state assessments. Unfortunately, assessments typically are based on knowledge of the rules of grammar and comparisons of American versus British literature (a remnant of our competitive national spirit). However, textbooks adhering to rigid criteria for content in order to remain profitable may have little intrinsic interest for students, who are supposed to be challenged by reading and writing exercises that require them to think critically.

While it is necessary for teachers to have content knowledge of the material within the textbook, they should also be passionate about the information being presented. Depending on the cultural mores of the community, parents as well as special interest groups also want a say about what their children are learning. Additionally, critical theorists are trying to extend their agenda via the textbook’s content. These theorists are primarily concerned with including voices and styles other than the customary reliance on white male literary figures. Taking all of this into account, there are multiple forces in play whenever textbook selection and therefore, lesson planning are being coordinated.

Currently, my older brother is angry that one of his daughter’s teachers (who is black) is including so many African American authors within her English curriculum. He feels that many valuable authors (mostly white males) are being excluded to make room for the teacher’s personal literary interests. Additionally, he is annoyed that her attempt at literary diversity is strictly limited to black authors and does not include any cultural voices outside of her own race. Based on deMarrias’s conclusions, he is presenting a similar reaction to the non-traditional curriculum and atypical teaching methods witnessed in other areas of the country from like-minded parents. His position is not irrational, and it clearly displays the strong opinions everyone has on the right way to teach and operate a classroom. Personally, I think my niece will value from the experience and will probably be exposed to voices she most likely will never hear again in an English classroom. Being in 7th grade, she’s a little too young and unruly to truly understand my point.

Hello world!

I’ve taken some liberty with your blog… I encourage you to change it around