Kozol Chps. 8 & 9

Chapter eight, “False Promises,” consists of a string of increasingly depressing programs, policies, and promises that have made claims that they can ‘fix’ the American education system only to meet with failure. As Kozol points out, at the heart of every one of these reforms is the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with our education system. I’m not entirely sure that I don’t agree – there are numerous problems that need addressed. One of these problems seems to be the way we go about addressing problems with the system. Reading about all the different strategies that have employed over the last 40 or 50 years, it seems to me that they all have just been variations on a theme – if we buckle down with tougher standards and throw more money at the problem, we can whip the system into shape. Kozol himself seems to fall into the trap of viewing money as a kind of cure-all. While I am not going to argue that equal funding and at least sanitary buildings would not be a step in the right direction, I don’t think money is the silver bullet everyone is looking for.  Forgive me for saying it, but President George W. Bush might have been onto something with increasing qualification requirements for teachers. The idea for improving teachers that is implemented in NCLB is more damaging than helpful, but if there was a way to provide more training and education for teachers, it might go a long way. This has its own set of issues, however – how do you attract people to an already sparse profession where you get little support from the general public, little financial reward, and more work than I honestly care to think of at the moment, while requiring more education of them? In any case, I argue that the responsibility of fixing the situation falls squarely on our shoulders as teachers – it is our job to take what little we are given and still work wonders. This won’t be easy. And a lot of us will burn out. But that’s the job.
Chapter nine seems to promote the idea that a genuine social upheaval of the kind seen in the early days of the civil rights movement is necessary to bring an end to de facto segregation in school systems. I would agree that there need to be more people pushing for this reform – unless someone raises the issue powerfully and in full view of the national consciousness, this could fly under the radar for another 40 or 50 years. The observations made by Gary Orfield at the end of the chapter were wonderful, however. While we have these terrible examples of segregation that can be used to get the attention of society, there are also good examples out there that can be modeled.

Not a cheery post

Depressing.

…is the first and last word that come to my head after reading these two chapters by Kozol. Honestly, it’s almost enough to make you switch your profession. He explains the history of attempts made by people, schools, and the nation over the last century to fight for change, subsequently followed by an explanation of how these attempts were either derailed, not genuinely enforced, or deliberating falsely analyzed. I am realizing—in their retrospect—that not only is nothing changing, but in fact many situations are becoming more grave. This again, is all very depressing.

The programs that Kozol mentions are all blending in my head into one giant unfulfilled idea. Cities and school districts across the country claim they have the answer, evidenced by their hopeful lingo: “Compensatory Programs,” “Civil Rights Commission,” “Higher Horizon,” “Accelerated Schools,” “What Works” “A nine-year crusade,” “No Child Left Behind”… Of these titles, some are old and some are new; some are familiar, some seem foreign. Have any truly succeeded in what they set out to do? No.

So none of the answers work in the formula. Well, what is the formula? Absent of attempts to rectify, what direction are we heading in? If we removed programs and unnatural structures for schools to fit into, what would remain? If citizens chose their own system, what would it look like?

“Choice, left to itself, will increase stratification.” This quote is wildly important. Its implication is that we as humans, when left to our own devices, will draw to those similar to us in color, socioeconomic status, culture, etc. To force the integration of groups that have magnetized to each other essentially to be working against nature. Of course many times people have very limited choice when they choose a neighborhood or a school, but if the options really were wide open, would a poor, black family thrust their child into a rich, white, suburban neighborhood? Truthfully, probably not. By forcing integration, we are depolarizing people’s natural magnetic direction. The uncomfortable question arises: is it right to force a shifting of class and culture when it is not happening naturally?

As a democratic nation, we are pushing for desegregation. Because we BELIEVE it is the right step. And maybe it is, but yet it isn’t working, so will we ever know? And whose job is it to force this change? Kozol also addresses and debates this responsibility. Politicians? Some think so, many don’t. Riots or revolutions? Maybe, but who would participate? Teachers…?

To become a teacher is to have faith in an idea, to believe that your individual time, effort, and talent can reach into a child’s life and into the educational system and make a positive change. To become a teacher is to hope for something better than already exists; it is a tugging of the mind and spirit that is not quieted by high pay at some business job. Teaching is a profession that draws those without hope for money and prestige, but hope for change and equality. When change and equality do not happen it seems to me that teaching no longer has an appeal.

Clearly, my summary of these chapters has quickly turned into a personal rant, but this dilemma is one that resonates so deeply within me, I cannot possibly stick to analyzing sentences and discussing ideas. The issue is becoming painfully elucidated to me: the evidenced impossibility of bringing equality and opportunity to all people in the educational system is dissolving the spirits of almost all the dedicated, quality teachers making this profession one that is not hopeless but increasingly devalued. If there IS an “answer,” someone needs to figure it out quickly, and if there isn’t, we all need to accept that and shut up.

Because all this talking and complaining isn’t solving anything.

So on the same note I began, I end. Depressing. I am so sorry.

Chapter 8 and 9

Blah Blah Blah. That is exactly what I feel like right now. Just kidding! Kozol starts this week of talking about different programs that have been put in place over the years to somewhat close the gap between the education that more privileged students receive and those that are not so privileged.  Most of the programs he talked about failed and showed that putting money into the schools is definitely not the problem.  He also talked about the “new schools” or “pilot” schools that were being started.  I know from experience that in the beginning a lot of those skills appear to do alright but as years pass they do not differ much from the schools that are lacking.  “Lean on me. When you’re not strong and I’ll be your friend.” This is what came to mind when he brought up the infamous Joe Clark with the bat in his hand (Lean on Me).  I could not imagine being in a school where teachers walk around with bats and kick 300 students out.  In the movie, the students that were put out of the were those that were actually endangering the lives of others, but being an educator or any type of authority figure in a situation like that must have been scary and confusing for teachers who had no clue what to do.  The Houston incident mentioned was not surprising. I’m sure that they are not the only ones.  What caught my attention was where they helped the students cheat.  Walking around during a test and giving students the answers is not helping them understand the material. It’s actually hindering them. In the next chapter, different educational authority figures speak of the dire need for reform and change in the school system.  Educators need to be prepared to step outside of their comfort zones.  They need to be more willing to voice their concerns and fight both for their students as well as themselves. What stood out for me

           

Kozol Chapters 3 and 4

In chapters 3 and 4, Kozol talks more about the isolation and career focus in the school system.  Chapter 3 really focuses on the labeling and classroom management that takes place within the inner city school systems.  Some of the things mentioned such as the “salute” the students did in response to their teacher’s call to their attention.  I remember the teachers in my elementary used to turn the light off to obtain our attention but the salute seemed so military like.  The labeling that starts as early as kindergarten is what caught my eye.  We think that the children do not notice that they are being separated off but they actually do.  It really affects their self esteem and overall outlook on life.  I never experienced labeling until I reached middle school where I was in “honors” courses until I reached 12^th grade.  My sisters were not in the program and talking to them on a daily basis they understood that a lot of the teachers did not expect as much from them as my teachers did of me and I did not like that.  I felt that being students in the same school teachers should have exceptionally high expectations for their students whether they were in honors or remedial courses.  Every student deserves the same shot, but the harsh reality is that there are some teachers that feel that preparing their students to do their minimal best is an accomplishment.  Now that my sisters are in college they are being presented with challenges that they are not prepared to take on because they were never challenged.  The scripted curriculum brought up made me see how passive education is being made in some educational settings.  Being scripted without any type of variation does not leave room for any type of student creativity and knowledge being brought out. I am realizing that I am not too excited about entering a school where the curriculum is strictly laid out and followed by all.  It will be jut my luck to enter an institution that values this type of instruction.  I do not feel comfortable having a classroom where exploration within learning is not highly valued.  I wasn’t excited about reading this week, which is why my blog is so short! Kozol depresses me.  

Kozol – Chps. 3 & 4

Reading chapter 3, I sometimes wondered if Kozol hadn’t got lost and found his way into a prison. The descriptions of Mr. Endecott’s classroom, for example, are really hard to swallow. The children in this classroom have been trained to respond to hand signals in an astonishing way. Trained well. Kozol mentioned that he “couldn’t find a single statement made by any child that had not been prompted by the teacher’s questions.” This must be difficult for any teacher in these systems who subscribes to a social theory of learning. Also mentioned was a lack of “references to any child’s traits of personality or even physical appearance .” The whole process of teaching and learning in these systems has become completely automated – it is an assembly line in which students are trained to mindlessly follow their teacher’s instructions before the assembly line moves on and the teachers begin to repeat the process anew. The teachers seemed to have been stripped of all creativity and individuality, and at times it sounds like they almost had a script.

I was very intrigued by the passage where Kozol attempted to extract the meaning of the word ‘meaningful.’ The students were only able to describe the word in relation to their curriculum standards. This caused me to think about the kind of learning going on at this school – students were learning facts and procedures, but were doing so out of context and totally without relevance. I would suggest that this kind of curriculum would produce almost no higher order thinking skills.

Chapter 4 read somewhat like Huxley’s Brave New World. For the children at that school, their future had been decided for them. At an age where kids generally allowed to think big, wanting to be doctors, lawyers, firefighters, policemen, pilots, and the like, these children are pushed toward a bright future in management. The principle’s comments later in the chapter, concerning her desire to instill in her students the belief that they can succeed, no matter what they have done, did nothing to change my low opinion of the practices at this school. No matter what they have done? Some of these children are five years old! Isn’t it a bit presumptuous to be talking about future felony arrests at five years old? Looking for a way to classify these views, Kozol hits upon a business model wherein schools produce a human product, and investments in this product might or might not pay off in the future. It seems to me that this neglects some things of immense intrinsic value. What of the value of these children’s youth? Of their understanding of their world? Of their hopes and dreams? Can we afford to these for whole generations of students in certain locations?

Kozol–4

The concept of “school-to-work” designed schools introduced in chapter 4 was new, and rather appalling, to me. I realize that part of schooling is to prepare students for their future adult lives, a large part of which involves their careers or jobs, but the fact the as early as elementary school they are actually structuring schools around this purpose, seemingly almost solely, is ridiculous, especially since they are pushing students, from a very young age, towards a certain job path. I feel that this system is set up much like the factory people speak of to pump out new workers. This is not what our jobs as educators should be. It is especially suspicious that these schools tend to be supported by local businesses. It is “business leader and political conservatives” who support such programs a segregated, low-income schools. To most educators this idea should seem detrimental to our children. We want to encourage children and help them to realize their full potential, such that they could have a different career in they so choose and strive for, rather than simply preparing their “minds for market”. I am incensed by the statement from Murray that falls in line with this mindset of education, “‘For many children,’…schools provide ‘their only chance to learn how to be adults companies can train…’” (p. 105).

Kozol– Chapter 4

Kozol shows us in Chapter Four what these kids are being prepared for with the Skinner techniques outlined in Chapter Three. The inner-city school students are gearing up to enter the job market. Kozol talks about the emphasis on management in these schools through the ‘school-to-work’ programs they have instituted. From kindergarten on up, school is simply preparation to enter the work force. College is not an option.

Kozol describes a school in which “Help Wanted” posters hang throughout the hallways. The jobs available are different sorts of management jobs, such as “Absence Manager” and “Paper-Collecting Manager.” This is designed in part to give the students a sense of ownership in their education; not only are they learning, but they have an increased sense of responsibility. However, the hidden agenda (which is not well hidden) is revealed by this quote from a principal: “Even if you have a felony arrest, we want you to understand that you can be a manager someday.”

 

Do you hear what she’s saying?

 

The expectation seems to be that these students will, at some point, end up in jail. But that’s okay. When they are released, they will still be able to find work in some kind of management position.

Business terms are in full use in these schools, terms like “negotiate” and “ownership.” Some school-to-work programs are sponsored by corporate entities, such the culinary arts program Kozol writes about, which is run by Hyatt Hotels. Upon graduation, students are offered positions or internships with the company.

 

I don’t believe that is necessarily a bad thing. It’s a different version of vocational/technical training in other schools. These students are learning a trade and some may be making better money now than their former teachers. The problem lies in the conditioning. These students are not informed that any other choice exists for them. No one mentions college; it is the work force, right after high school, or nothing.

 

Are we selling these students short by keeping them in ‘career paths’ throughout their schooling? If a high degree of aptitude is shown, is there any reason why they should not be encouraged and prepared to go on to college? Have we become so worried about the abundance of “Help Wanted” signs in the adult world that we have to start hanging them in elementary school hallways? And where in all this efficiency does the joy of learning, gaining knowledge simply for the joy of gaining knowledge come in? It doesn’t.

 

There is a difference between getting an education and mastering a specific set of job skills. Unfortunately, the ‘managers’ in these schools haven’t had the opportunity to learn the difference.

Kozol- Chapter 4

In Chapter Three, Kozol introduces us to how inner-city students are labeled, ordered and placed into career paths through standardized teaching procedures that leave no room for discussion or spontaneity. These procedures put students into a Skinner box instead of a classroom and teaching is replaced by conditioning. Kozol mentions that these approaches are “…commonly employed in penal institutions and drug-rehabilitation programs… (p. 65).”

 

These methods strip away the joy of learning by means of carefully timed lessons, hand signals to control class behavior and convoluted names for simple things (e.g. “English Language Arts Number E-2” means writing a story).

 

The children are also categorized according to levels. The highest performing children are referred to as “Level Fours.” This makes the lowest performing children the “Level Ones.” The Level Ones are rarely praised and are overlooked, thereby ensuring they will remain Level Ones. The children even refer to each other by their Level numbers (e.g. “I’m just a Level Two”), accepting the caste system given to them by the mandated curriculum.

 

All of this brings to mind not education, but re-education, which is another term for brainwashing. These kids are learning, but they have no concept of why they’re learning. Maybe learning isn’t even the right word. They seem more like they’re responding to external stimuli.

 

These kinds of teaching approaches take classroom management to an oppressive new level. When there is no room for discussion during a class and teachers are encouraged not to deviate from their given teaching script so they don’t go over the time limit given for each segment of the school day, something major has been lost. There is no human element, no real interaction. There is only rote memorization and the sense of being prepared for something, but unsure of what that something may be.

 

I certainly believe in order in the classroom, but the fact that this kind of regimented teaching only seems to be appearing in the inner-city schools is bothersome, to say the least. Would we treat our white upper-middle class students like this? If Buffy and Tad came home and said they learned ten different hand signals that signified ten different class actions, would their parents think that was just fine and dandy? And how do we deal with the fact that in the schools where these Skinneresque approaches are used, college is never mentioned as an option? How do we break students out of a system like that when we, as teachers, are part of the system?

Kozol Chps. 1 & 2

As I read the introduction and opening chapter of Kozol’s book, a theme from our last class meeting kept coming to mind – segregation and racism are still alive and well, they are just much better hidden today. As Kozol went through lists of high ninety percent minority schools, many of which were named after civil rights leaders, it became harder and harder to deny that. Page 18 in particular seemed to be aimed right at me; “Many Americans… who live far from our major cities… have a rather vague and general impression that the great extremes of racial isolation… have gradually, but steadily, diminished…” It would appear that that is simply untrue. Kozol exposes a system that has not only not made steady progress, but has reverted to levels not seen in decades. Blogger utchem felt that this probably has more to do with SES, and I would certainly agree that SES has a lot to do with it. The problem is that in many cases problems of low SES and ethnicity are nearly inseparable. Though many would like to think there has been a great deal of progress made in the last few decades, I submit that it would be hard to follow Pineapple for a week, look her in the eyes, and tell her that things are getting better.Chapter 1 is very aptly titled.

The idea from Chapter 2 that hit me the hardest (and apparently everyone else as well), was the statistics given on the amount of money spent on different school districts. These numbers are staggering, especially when considered in an equity as opposed to equality setting. The schools that could benefit most from more attention (money being a part but not all of ‘attention’) seem to be the schools that are receiving the least. Another striking point, which is somewhat related to the one above concerned pre-school attendance. The students from low SES homes would be the ones who need pre-school instruction in order to level the playing field, and they are the ones least likely to get it. A child is much easier to teach as a young child – it is then that they learn the habits that, sadly, might determine much of their future. If I were going to propose a solution, I believe that it just might be pre-K instruction for a significant part of the day.

Kozol 1 and 2: (De)segregation

“To give up on integration, while aware of its benefits, requires us to consciously and deliberately accept segregation, while aware of its harms.”

With the inclusion of the word, “apartheid” in the title, it is no surprise that Kozol’s very first chapter jumps into the issue of the (de)segregation of schools. Recently, in replace of attempts by the government and individual school systems to integrate different races into the same schools, “segregation has somehow come to be viewed as a type of school reform.” Schools are almost entirely Caucasian, and in other neighborhoods, almost entirely African American and Latino. Kozol gives examples of cities around the countries that have schools are 95-99 percent minorities. Incidentally, these schools are often named after Martin Luther King Jr. or Rosa Parks, creating a oxymoronic situation in which those that fought for integration are immortalized in segregated institutions.

Lonsdale Elementary in Knoxville is a perfect example of the disproportionate ratios of students of different races. In the class I work with, there are ten African Americans and five Latinos. The teacher is also black, meaning the entire class is part of a minority group. The building is not up to par with many others in Knox county, and their technology is not equal either. Still, even if the actual structure was equal to others, Kozol argues that separating students creates unequal opportunities simply because of the peers you are surrounded by.

Kozol poses a question that many educators have asked: whether we should aim to simply strengthen the neighborhoods the minority groups are already a part of, or should we completely break down the neighborhood delineations and start everyone together from square one? I lean towards the option that internal development and strength is necessary before a new system can be initiated, unless it is absolutely impossible for a group to be vitalized. In that case, reformation would be necessary, which would require support from outside groups.

In many cases, it is not yet drastic enough the minority groups have no hope of inner-revival. However, if the schools continue reinforcing inequality among students because of segregation and subtle messages that some students probably aren’t going to succeed, a new approach may have to be considered.

The truth is: not only is inequality present, but students are consciously aware of these differences. Many students have the mindset of “us and them,” evident as they tell stories of “the other people…” The teachers also are aware of the vast differences, evident in their pay! For teachers in New York of the inner city and affluent white suburbs, the latter earn almost double the former!

“There are cheap children and there are expensive children.”
Kozol presents an idea whose reality becomes solidified in its practice: some children are inherently worth more than others. This dehumanizing way of looking at children as investments, where some will result in greater profits than others, is manifested in the funding of the schools that Kozol investigates. In the case of New York, the present per-pupil spending in some areas is around $11,000, while it exceeds $22,000 in other areas. So do students in wealthy suburbs really have twice the potential of students from the inner-city?

The division of students begins early, even before kindergarten, which is why pre-K programs are becoming so popular. With Head Start, a federally funded preschool program, the government is seeking to provide an opportunity for these “less profitable” students to catch up with their peers. However, in areas where this is most needed, many families are being denied the opportunity. This leaves some young children without stimulation while others are attending elite “Baby Ivies” which catapult the richer kids ahead before kindergarten has even begun!

The question that all of these issues surface is: can poor education and inequality be remedied by equally funding teachers, schools, and students? Would it level the playing field to level the payroll? Of course money is not the panacea for American education, but without it, everything else is moot. Proper attention to pre-K programs, as well as programs that address concerns of a family living in poverty, will be necessary to complement equal finances. Equal opportunity does not mean enforced separation, nor does it mean being accepting of such radical discrepancies in child and teacher funding. When we can put our money where our mouth is, we will begin to see change, instead of just hear about it.