Chapter Seven

Chapter Seven begins by introducing us to racial and ethnic identification.  “The year 2000 census in the United States acknowledges this; for the first time, U.S. residents will be able to classify themselves in more than a single ethnic category” (p.257).  Can you see where this is going yet? The authors now define for us some of the commonly used terms when discussing different racial and ethnic identifications.  Race, according to early anthropologists and some sociologists, describes “a group of people with common ancestry and genetically transmitted physical characteristics” (p.258).  The authors go on to say “The term race is too vague to have much meaning for contemporary scientists, since biologists have found few genetic or real differences between members of so called racial groups…Thus, 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” (p.260).  Ethnicity is the characteristic of people who conceive of themselves as being alike, by virtue of their common ancestry and…are regarded by others (p.261).  The authors characterize an ethnic minority with four traits: identifiablility, differential power, differential and pejorative treatment, and group awareness (p.262).  After defining commonly used terms, the authors go on to discuss prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, racism, and the different things that impact our society and unfortunately impact our school system.  As we discussed last week, the authors bring up again the idea of ability grouping, saying “Students perceived to come from poor homes- as determined by their appearance as well as informal knowledge of family background- were placed in lower-ability reading groups and provided with less direct instruction… Consequently, the “fast” group was able to complete the kindergarten curriculum while the “slower” groups did not. The slow group entered first grade already far behind their peers academically.” This is a sad thought, but I feel like it is exaggerated a bit to be the teacher’s bias.  I am just not inclined to teach homogeneous groups, unless someone is able to tell me how to do it effectively, while still maintaining an effective time management plan.  Basically, this chapter was an easy read, but brought up some uncomfortable issues and I will be interested to see how discussion goes.  I was raised in a home that was VERY open-minded; however, these types of issues were never talked about.

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?

Societal and Educational Inequality

“The form of action men adopt is to a large extent a function of how they perceive themselves in the world.”

-Paulo Freire

 

A group of people who share similar “characteristics of prestige, patterns of taste and language, income, occupational status, educational level, aspirations, behaviors, and beliefs” are defined to be a part of the same social class. Assigning a person to a social class then implies a level of wealth, power, and prestige, all chief indicators of social class. To expand, wealth is the possession or control of material resources, power implies authority (or coercion through force), and prestige has to do with acceptance of one’s cultural ideals.

 

What does one’s social class say about a person? Throughout history, the answer to this question has changed; historically, it was synonymous with moral virtue and intelligence, and it was a position you were born into. More recently, social class is a reflection of socioeconomic level, which although malleable, is being made rigid by society. Both of these definitions have put the higher social class into the stronger authority roles, either because of moral superiority, or economic ability to do so.  As higher classes continue taking roles of power, the lower classes remain without voice, and the cycle continues, convincing many that the system is set.

 

What does this have to do with education? Schools are only recently expanding their role as an institution whose task was simply “nation building and developing citizens” into moral teachers and social mobility catalysts. The good news is that schools have begun to take responsibility for the occupational future of their students, the bad news is that this empowering instruction is almost strictly found in middle and upper class schools, to students of parents who are of a higher class and have the means to petition for this type of education. Because 40-45 percent of a school’s funding comes directly from the property tax in the neighborhood in which it lies, it disturbingly makes sense that poorer neighborhoods will consistently be less funded, hire worse teachers, have less resources, offer less programs, etc. If a child’s education is a strong indicator of their future social class, the current school system offers very little hope of mobility, and thus from an early age, a child is set in a mold that will define them for the rest of their lives.

 

Of three key theorists of social class, Max Weber placed the most emphasis on education. Weber asserted that schools could “facilitate the succession of the elites through merit and rationally assessed competence, rather than through inheritance of some other non-rational means of selection.” If schools could offer similar opportunities to all students, maybe then we could have a society based on merit and not on birthright.  The principal claim of another theorist, Pierre Bourdieu, is the idea of cultural capital as a resource. Every group offers a cultural contribution to society, and society in turn has the ability to accept these offerings as equal. Because this does not happen, and some groups’ cultural capital is worth less than other, the people belonging to these group begin to be viewed as worth less. Through socialization, also according to Bourdieu, people develop a habitus, or “a set of ideas about how the world operates, what is to be valued, what one’s own place in society is, and which actions are correct or proper.”  Oxymoronically, the habitus that people develop is simultaneously predetermined by their social group and determines their social group.

 

What other way can social class be viewed? The third and most well-known theorist is Karl Marx.  Marx spoke strongly of the link between social class and economic power. He believed that wealth meant ownership and control, which engenders empowerment and authority.  The truth is that social class is determined by all of these factors: economic standing, education background, and cultural identity. Wealthier students, whether materially or culturally, have statistically been given more attention and resources in school, allowing the pattern of oppression and poverty to continue.

 

Inequality has been weaved into our history. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson ruled that “as long as facilities are equal, they can be separate.” This was not overturned until 1954 in the case of Brown v. Board of Education when it was finally decided that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” From that point in history, many Acts have been presented as attempts to speed up and smoothen desegregation. Unfortunately, all groups across the socioeconomic spectrum are noting that this process cannot be forced, and although it may result in different cultures and ethnicities attending a school together, it does not create equal test results, teacher attention, and certainly not cultural pluralism.

 

Instead of an ideal cultural pluralistic society, where cultures can embrace their uniqueness and coexist, assimilation, accommodation, and rebellion are becoming the possible courses of action for disadvantaged ethnicities. Assimilation is a bleaching type process which acculturates the minority into the majority’s culture through language, dress, preferences, etc. This is seen as some as the only way to move up the social ladder. Accommodation is a little more friendly to the native culture, allowing a person to maintain their ethnic identity at times, perhaps in their home, while assimilating appropriately in school enough to succeed without being ostracized.  Rebellion takes an entirely different direction—without hope of success in the dominant culture, a person latches on to the stereotypes of their cultural group and seeks to epitomize all things anti-dominant culture.  This will not allow for social mobilization, but those who choose this route feel they are not neglecting who their roots.

 

To conform or not to conform? That is the question. Sometimes students have a choice, but sometimes conformation and assimilation is coercive, taking form in schools as teachers “colonize” the minds of students.  The acceptance and promotion of certain social groups, ethnicities, and cultural identities are no longer acts that can be identified and rectified. Often, these manners are so ingrained in curriculums, classrooms, mindsets, and in our very societies that they go unnoticed—or at least unchanged.

 

I recently spent a couple months living with a family in Chile. My Chilean sister, who is in school to become a teacher, informed me of the reality in their country: “Children here are never told ‘you can be anything you want to be,’ because they can’t.  There are limited professions that will actually result in financial stability, so from youth, we are told that we have to fill a certain role if we want to be successful.”  I see the same becoming true of disadvantaged citizens of the United States; no longer can children, across all ethnicities and cultures, follow a path in life that they have created. In fact, children must assimilate or accommodate to the dominant culture if they want to get by, let alone rise above their low social class. 

 

In a country defined by equality, opportunity, and freedom, we have none of these. The dominant culture, with the power, becomes the architect for the predominantly white edifice we are creating, and the taller the building grows, the more difficult it becomes for any other cultures to contribute. The answer cannot be for those of the upper classes to lend a hand to those below them, offering services, money, and “false generosity,” because this will just maintain the system as the disadvantaged cultures succumb to learned helplessness.  Change must come from within the struggling classes; empowerment must be instigated by a member of the oppressed group. When finally white lawmakers and learned scholars stop with the programs and aid, and the former recipients speak for themselves, there is chance for social equity.

 

Revolutionary? Yes. And of course it is not as simple as all minorities coming together and stomping down the street with catchy posters.  The dominant culture must let go of their superiority, and recognize that allowing others the opportunity to rise will not bring them down; it will probably draw they up. A professor of mine always said, “if the water level is raised, everyone is the boat is goes up.”  No, it doesn’t make complete sense to me, but the idea is simple: power does not have to be a see-saw—higher on one end lower on the other—instead, we can all rise together.

 

Ok, Nina. So what is the first step? I haven’t quite figured our the first step. But I know it has to be individual change. Unless we can identify and remove these mental splinters of social class and racism in ourselves, how can we even begin addressing the entire system?

Chapter Five

Chapter five begins by introducing us to the idea of social class, from past societal concepts to the present. DeMarrais defines social class as “groups of people who share certain characteristics of prestige, patterns of taste and language, income, occupational status (though not necessarily the same jobs), educational level, aspirations, behavior, and beliefs (p.196). Social class, according to the authors, is a hierarchy based on wealth (material resources), power (political authority), and prestige (cultural influence).
In the past social class was recognized that class status was determined by how valued, wise, and virtuous a person was (p.197). Interestingly enough, they believed this class came about by the concept of the “divine right”, not just recognizing family inheritence for their ability to achieve a decent education and money to hold up their “class”. During this time the general belief of social class led to the idea that “to help the poor would be harmful, since they would only enciourage the reproduction of people who were mentally or morally defective and would waste resources that could better be used for more deserving populations” (p.197). This whole idea reminded me of a book a read recently by Jonathan Kozol, ‘Prisioners of Silence’. By keeping the poor poor, we never let them out of the cycle of poverty, inevitably allowing them to maintain a meager existence. Although I would like to say that this has changed, I still believe that there are people who view the poor as lazy and useless, rather than taking into account all of the different hurdles the have.

DeMarrais then goes into explaining some of the tehoretical beginnings with discussing the contributions of Marx, Weber, and Bourdieu. I felt like this part of the chapter was boring and uninteresting, but the point this section is to show that “all three felt that educational systems were a reflection of the societies in which they were embedded” (p.203). Marx was concerned more with the structure of society and economy. Weber believed that domination was based upon more than economics, and Bordieu in social and cultural knowledge.

The chapter continues as it walks us through some of the different models of social injustices and the relationship everything has to education. A section that I found interesting was ‘The Rosenfield Model” Race and Gender Bias’. “At their potential, white men recieve greater returns to their human capital [education and training] than white women. They recieve higher returns in terms of both status and wages to their years of formal schooling, get greater returns in terms of status to their white collar training, suffer less of a status disadvantage from having some formal prepartion for a blue collar job, and receive considerably greater wage returns from both kinds of training” (p.214). Right below that quote is a sentence that says ‘Only nonwhite males do worse than white women.’ What a tragedy.

Another section of the chapter I found interesting was the one on ability grouping. With phrases like “teachers classified children who were clean, were quiet, and acted respectfully as brighter. Teachers also tended to favor children who shared their own values, regardless of the student’s measured ability” (p.216). Okay, I don’t know if anyone will read this, but I have a major issue with this topic. Last week in class we discussed homogenous vs. ability grouping for reading groups and I got VERY heated over it. I even went home and contacted some of my past professors asking for their opinions. How is it that people can say “putting children in ablity groups is horrible”, but then have no opinion about how we can solve this. Believe me, I want to improve our education system, but if we have no answers to problems like this then are we not doomed anyways. Why are there not programs and studies taking place to see what will be effective. This chapter was much more interesting than last weeks and I look forward to discussing with my group about this section in particular.

chapter 7

In the past few chapters we’ve read about discriminatory practices in schools based on student social status and teacher ideologies.  Now deMarrais is adding race into the mix, although she explained to us in chapter 5 that race and social status should not be combined.  She starts out with a sort of history of labels that distinguish the races from each other.  Typically we have African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and White as our most popular categories.  deMarrais tries to give meaning to the category “white” by calling it European-American.  I can’t help but think instead of revamping these labels every few years to keep up with the political correctness that we just do away with the categories all together.  As far as I see categorizing people based on their complexion, language, “eye shape” is modern segregation.

deMarrais goes on to explain the difference between race, ethnicity and what the ethnic minority is.  She discusses ethnocentrism, stereotyping, social distancing, and racism which are all important elements that exist in our society and in turn in our schools.  It is interesting to think that we hold educators up on a sort of “neutral” pedestal, never really taking into account the fact that they bring their own prejudices into the classroom.  And deMarrais again reminds us on page 277 that teachers’ perceptions of students has an enormous impact on the student success in a classroom.    deMarrais gives us a historical background regarding changes in the school system and federal funding for minorities.  At the end of the chapter we see the ways that minority students generally react to the school system.  They either accomodate, assimilate or resist.  Not much different than the first chapter we read. 

Chapter 5

The chapter 5 gives us a historic and modern view of social class.  The main point brought up here is that social class has been related to intelligence for hundreds of years, and still today we have these archaic stereotypes that we live with (pg. 197).  Next deMarrais talks about the “mythical middle class” and the idea that no matter how we live or where we work, most Americans will label themselves as middle class (pg. 202).  deMarrais then gives a thorough background on the beliefs of three social theorists; Karl Marx, Max Weber and Pierre Bourdieu.  Finally deMarrais relates social status to the structure of society and to the structure of education. 

I thought the first part of the reading was pretty interesting regarding the perceived correlation between status and itellegence.  deMarrais claims, “social Darwinists even argued that social policies to help the poor would be harmful…would only encourage the reproduction of people who were mentally or morally defective and would waste resources” (pg 197).  I don’t see that this statement is much different than how welfare receivers are treated in some political arenas.

On page 200 deMarrais breaks down the hierarchy of class for us into upper-upper, lower-upper, upper-middle, lower-middle, upper-lower (or working class), and lower-lower.  In the reading we are told that going to school was a privilege for wealthy people only, not something that was equally attainable to all of the population.  However, here teachers are equated to the working class which is another way of saying “lower class.”  I guess these people didn’t see the hypocrisy.

Marx, Weber and Bourdieu all had interesting contributions to the discussion about social class.  Marx didn’t take education into account at all in his theory; he was more concerned with those working in the factories during the Industrial Revolution.  Weber was more interested in curriculum related to student status and the recruitment of students to certain schools.  Bourdieu’s theories of habitus and trajectory were telling of how stubborn we can be in our set beliefs and can’t compromise to facilitate everyone in the community. 

deMarrais’ section on “Caste and Class” seemed sort of irrelevant.  I did enjoy reading about the studies performed by different groups in an attempt to discover how much influence parents’ education and expectations have on a child’s success or failure in life.  It seems obvious to me that in the extreme cases of rich and poor those children are set up to succeed or fail.  The middle area is where it becomes important to look closely at environmental factors.  I would have liked to see a wealthy family who is drenched in emotional turmoil compared to a poverty stricken home that is nurturing and encouraging. 

When we get to the section of ability grouping on page 216 I was really mortified again with the actions of teachers in the schools systems.  deMarrais claims that a teacher’s perceived ability regarding a child has much more influence on how they are taught than any form of testing or display of ability.  It’s sick, really.

So, in all this section was sort of hard to read and boring, but it did have some important points in that students are dealing with hurdles based on where they live, who their parents are, what they look like and who they know in determining what sort of education they will get in a public school system. 

deMarrais– Chapter 7

I’m glad this book isn’t dated or anything. After years of political correctness, I’m so happy that the first five pages of this chapter were spent defining race and ethnicity.  In fact, the whole chapter is the anthropological history of race.

Are we surprised that ethnic minorities were doing poorly in school as compared to Anglo-Americans? No, because this book was written before the rise of multi-culturalism. I really don’t believe this is the case anymore. Race is becoming less of an issue. Classrooms are focusing on students as people while still celebrating their diversity and heritage. You won’t find African-Americans embarrassed to be African-American, like in Vivian’s story (pg. 260) in which a girl tells her Anglo-American friend that if her mother washes her “real clean,” she won’t be black anymore and they can still play together.

deMarrais– Chapter 5

DeMarrais—pgs. 196-221

 

This chapter deals with social classes and how schools have a tendency to reinforce certain class expectations, pandering mainly to the middle class. The author seems to believe that most public schools are geared towards the middle (thus being geared towards mediocrity) while lower class kids are steered towards trade/shop classes and the upper class kids are moved into college prep classes. 

 

I don’t believe this is true. I think you can transcend the class system. It’s rare, but it can be done. We’ve all accepted people into our social circles that we never thought would actually fit in, but they have and they do.

 

“Teachers classified children who were clean, were quiet, and acted respectfully as brighter. Teachers also tended to favor children who shared their own values, regardless of the student’s measured ability… They had difficulty giving failing grades to students they liked.” (deMarrais, 216)  Teachers, as humans, have biases. They are going to like some people more than they like other people. However, if you are a strong teacher, you can set you class up the way you want to, leaving your biases at home, and focus on the students with no regard to their class status.

 

Chapter 7

            The first section of chapter 7 defines the terms race, ethnicity, ethnic minority, prejudice, and discrimination.  Race is “a term with no scientific or biological basis…used historically to categorize people based on beliefs about their common ancestry and/or physical characteristics” (337).  “A group of people bound by a sense of peoplehood based on shared cultural traits such as religion, ancestry, national origin, or language” defines ethnicity (335).  The authors point out that there is a choice in identifying one’s ethnicity, and that one’s ethnicity may change over time.  An ethnic minority group is defined as being able to be identified, having a different status of power, being treated differently, and having group awareness (262).  Discrimination and prejudice can take two forms, stereotyping, which can be positive or negative, and social distancing.  Racism, another way to discriminate against others, is defined in the United States as “ethnocentric beliefs and behaviors based on the notion that European Americans are superior to African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and other ethnic groups” (265).  There are two different types of racism, individual and institutional.  Institutional racism is often unseen, and according to the authors, can be seen in schools in the form of ability grouping, standardized tests, etc…

            The next section discusses the way the federal government does and does not aid schools.  It is pointed out that in attempts to be equal, there is a difference between equal access and equal opportunity.  The groundbreaking case, Brown v. Board of Education, is discussed, the 1954 decision to desegregate schools.  This section goes on to discuss how the federal government paid schools money to integrate their schools, and apparently to this day, some schools are still not integrated.  The authors raise a good point that even with desegregation, “the fact of residential segregation often meant that most children still attended racially isolated schools” (268).  To solve this, bussing, involuntary desegregation, voluntary desegregation, magnet schools, affirmative action, compensatory education were presented as a variety of solutions.  People were still angry, as I was surprised to read that in the 1993-1994 school year,  parents in a
Wisconsin school district were upset about bussing.  1993-1994?!

            Three theories are presented as to why minority students perform poorly when compared to European American students.  The first of these, the theory of unequal resources and treatment, states that “an imbalance of financial resources available to minority students and the differential treatment they receive in school” is to blame (276).  The thinker behind this theory advocates that this problem can be solved by the redistribution of wealth.  The second theory, based on cultural background, has two parts, cultural deprivation and cultural differences.  Cultural deprivation refers to the fact that because minority students’ homes reflect a ‘culture of poverty,’ they are deprived of the mainstream culture and therefore do not do as well in schools.  The cultural differences theory states that “school failure is a result of differences between the culturally derived white-middle-class communication patterns of the school and those of the students’ home culture” (278).  The labor market theory is a third thought as to why minority students do not perform as well.  It attributes failure in school to “the connection they see between schooling and how successful they will be in the job market” (281). 

            A final point made in this chapter is about assimilation and cultural pluralism.  The assimilation idea supports the ‘melting-pot’ idea, while cultural pluralism is in favor of the ‘stew’ or ‘salad’ idea. 

            I found this chapter to be portrayed in an objective manner by the authors.  I was upset by the federal government’s poor attempts to change the existing structure of schools.  One thing I found to be difficult to take in was referring the section where the authors stated they were going to refer to white people as European Americans.  I am considered white, however, my ethnic background is not European.  I did find the comment made about white being a color interesting, as well as the fact that there is a ‘white culture.’    

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 covers issues of social class and education.  Social class is defined as “groups of people who share certain characteristics of income, occupational status, educational levels, aspirations, behavior, and beliefs” (338).  Social class is arranged as a hierarchy based on wealth, power, and prestige.  The authors point out that some people equate being high in the social class hierarchy means that a person is also high in intelligence and morality.  This is based on the idea of ‘divine right,’ which gives members of royalty ‘approval’ from God to be appointed to their thrones.  However, as the authors point out, “characteristics that were attributed to a superior intellect and morality were often simply functions of superior wealth” (197), meaning that because those on the upper ranks of the social class hierarchy have the means to achieve a good education, they demonstrate higher learning.  Therefore, because the lower classes do not have as much, some presuppose that it means that those people are unintelligent, immoral, and without aspirations.  Social class status was thought to be something passed down genetically; this is a ridiculous thought. 

DeMarrais and LeCompte mention a number of studies done to see how much one’s social class relates to intelligence and moral stature.  They mention several studies by ‘scientists’ who altered their data to make it appear as though there was a relation between low intelligence and certain minority groups.  Although these studies are obviously flawed, people still believe the results, which shows “how deeply embedded the genetic perspective is in our cultural thinking” (199). 

The theories of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Pierre Bourdieu are reviewed in this chapter.  DeMarrais and LeCompte point out that “all three felt that educational systems were a reflection of the societies in which they were embedded” (203).  Marx focused on the economy, Weber based his ideas on politics and government, and Bourdieu looked at the way power plays a role in the structure of society.  In terms of education, Marx believed that schools play a role in passing down one’s social status generationally.  He also discussed the role of alienation in society which results from “social structures surrounding people change in ways over which they have no control and to which they have difficulty adjusting” (205).  Max Weber believed that “each society created educational systems uniquely suited to indigenous systems of power and authority…to select and train the leaders” (205).  He theorized that there were three types of authority, traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal.  Two contributions of Weber were the extent of which students could be successful based on merit and competence, rather than inheritance, and if curriculums could be standardized.  Bourdieu defined the term culture capital.  It is “a resource…not all forms of it are valued equally…the most valued…is that possessed by the dominant culture” (207).  Through the process of socialization, culture capital is gained, as well as habitus, which is “a set of ideas about how the world operates, what is valued, what one’s own place in society is, and which actions are correct or proper” (208).  Habitus is flexible, and can be altered with the forming of a trajectory. 

Five concerns of educational sociologists are discussed in the next section of this chapter, social mobility, relationship between classes, academic achievement, social stratification, and the occupational structure.  The authors pointed out an important point that “Americans tend to conceive only of upward mobility” (210).  The truth is, people are always moving down too.  Schools are mentioned as being the “primary locations where the process of social differentiation takes place” (212).  This is based on standardized testing, ability grouping, and inequalities in school funding.  Schools are not all bad; some researchers think that schools can be used to empower and enable students to go beyond the roles that hold them back.  This requires the school, the teacher, and the students to help each other achieve this. 

I think that the authors raised some interesting points in this chapter, and compared to the readings we did last week, the information seemed more objectively presented. 
Reading about theories in regards to why lower class students do not do as well in classes brought to mind Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  If students are not achieving physiological, safety, and belongingness and love needs due to poverty and unsafe living environments, how can they be expected to achieve esteem and self-actualization?  Schools should help students with these lower needs so that they can reach self-actualization.  Something that made me angry was the part about inequalities in school funding.  I did not know how schools were funded; I thought the government paid for supplies, salaries, etc… It turns out that I was a bit naïve in this.  I do not understand why and how education is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and yet all children are required to attend school.  How can we expect students in the poorer school districts to learn if they are lacking supplies, and how can we expect teachers to teach at those schools if they are not getting paid well?  Both the state and the federal governments need to get their act together in regards to their ideas and the importance they place on schools.  They cannot say school is important if their actions do not reflect this thought.