Teaching religion has been a part of American education since the colonial era, when theological documents like the New England Primer both taught students to read and indoctrinated them into the Christian faith (Johnson, et. al., 2008). The forward-thinking framers of the Constitution, however, recognized that this could lead to the same government-enforced religious monopoly that they had left and battled England to escape. Thus, the Establishment Clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Most people refer to this clause when they use the slightly pithier phrase “separation of church and state”. In the latter half of the 20th century, this has popularly been interpreted as the need to completely extract any trace of religion from anything publicly funded, especially schools. However, another slightly smaller camp argues that religion can be a part of publicly-funded institutions as long as one religion is not promoted over all the others. I argue that religion has been and continues to be part of the fabric of our society. The traditions and thought patterns of religions have shaped our world, and understanding them is essential to being a responsible citizen of the United States and the global community. Thus, religion can and should be taught in schools under certain guidelines. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted as a need to set up a wall between the sacred and the secular, but a wall leaves us blind while protecting us. Rather, it should be thought of as a fence, where religion and government cannot harm each other, but they can certainly see what the other is doing.
Legal Precedents: Can Religion Be Taught In School?
There are certain plenty of unconstitutional uses of religion in public schools, among them school-mandated prayer and teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design, as well as contested issues such as student distribution of religious publications, religious organizations meeting after-school, and showing religious movies (Johnson, et. al., 2008). Generally, these legal conflicts of religion and education have been judged by the Lemon Test, composed of three questions:
• Does the act have a secular purpose?
• Does the primary effect of the act either advance or inhibit religion?
• Does the act avoid excessive entanglement of government and religion?
An answer of no to any of these questions makes the act unconstitutional. Unfortunately, “excessive entanglement” is a rather vague notion. Many Supreme Court Justices find the Lemon Test to be dissatisfying. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has proposed a popular alternative asking whether a governmental act endorses religion. A more conservative group supports a test developed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, which asks if the act coerces people to support or participate in a religion against their will (Haynes & Thomas, 2001). Teaching religion, when following the guidelines that will be outlined later on, passes all of these tests.
Indeed, it was established almost 50 years ago that teaching in public schools is constitutional. As part of the Supreme Court’s ruling on school prayer in Abington v. Schemp, Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote:
It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. (Haynes & Thomas, 2001)
This is the legal keystone for why and how religion should be taught in public schools. What is first and foremost, however, is that it can be perfectly legal to do so. The Modesto, California Public School District exercised this constitutional right in 2000, when they established a required course in World Religions and Religious Liberty for incoming 9th grade students (Johnson, et. al., 2008). So religion can be taught in school, but should it be?
The Community of Voices and the History of Ideas:
Why Should Religion Be Taught in School?
Educational philosopher Maxine Greene notes that today “we are challenged as never before to confront plurality and multiplicity” (1993). Immigration, globalization, civil rights movements, and the genocides of the 20th century have greatly increased awareness of not only the number of different voices in the nation and the world, but also their right to be heard and the value of hearing them. It is important that various communities have an understanding of what each group is all about, to shatter misconceptions, if not develop empathy. It is, after all, misconceptions and a lack of empathy that paves the way for lynching and genocide. To establish John Dewey’s vision of democracy, “a way of living together in which mutual and free consultation rule instead of force,” (1937), we must be willing to learn about each other’s point of view. What has a greater influence on the point of view of millions than religion? In addition, a “community of voices” (Greene, 1993) must be able to speak and understand each other’s discourses. Even within the English language, there are myriad vocabularies, dialects, grammars, and religious language certainly accounts for some of that discourse. To be able to speak and understand these multiple discourses or “code-switch” (Swords and Wheeler, 2006) will make people more versatile and able to function effectively in a diverse world. Teaching religion will allow students to understand the stories, histories, vocabularies, and worldviews that influence their community, their nation, and the world.
Objectivity: How Should Religion Be Taught in School?
Having determined that religion can be taught and why it should be taught, the time is right for explaining how it should be taught. After all, the danger of teaching religion is that the teacher may try promote one religion, denigrate another, and/or make religious truth claims about the world. However, it is very possible to teach religion without doing so. A coalition of 17 major religious and educational organizations released a study that points out what distinguishes teaching about religion versus the teaching of religion (indoctrination):
• The school’s approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
• The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion.
• The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.
• The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view. (Haynes & Thomas, 2001)
A teacher may say that a certain religious group believes this or that, that a historical event influenced this or that religion, that this text is important for this or that religion. The difference is that (generally) a teacher should not state that a religious claim is categorically true or untrue. This objectivity will help someone teaching about religion to avoid offending students/parents and bringing legal trouble upon themselves.
I have a great deal of interest in teaching both about religion and about religious texts. I think religious vocabulary, history, and iconography so heavily effect media of all types that to not teach it would be leaving a huge blind spot on the cultural lens of my students. In addition, I think religious texts have quite a bit of literary merit outside of the truth claims they make, and analyzing them in that fashion can sharpen their skills as readers and storytellers. Finally, the big questions that religion and religious texts attempt to answer are questions I want my students to ask and to come up with their own answers, and discussing religion is a good way to get them thinking about those questions. Last year, I only used a few creation myths during my mythology unit. Next year, I plan to incorporate modern religions more into my curriculum. It’s nice to know that the Constitution provides me the protection to do so.
References
Dewey, J. (1937). “Education and social change.” In F. Schultz (Ed.), S.O.U.R.C.E.S.: Notable
selections in education (3rd ed., pp. 333-341). Guillford: McGraw-Hill.
Greene, M. (1993). “The passions of pluralism: Multiculturalism and the expanding
community.” In F. Schultz (Ed.), S.O.U.R.C.E.S.: Notable selections in education (3rd ed., pp. 350-361). Guillford: McGraw-Hill.
Haynes, C.C. & Thomas, O. (2001). Finding common ground: A guide to religious liberty in
public schools. Nashville: First Amendment Center.
Johnson, J. A., Musial, D., Hall, G. E., Gollink, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2005). Introduction to
the foundations of American education. 14th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Wheeler, R. and Swords, R. (2006). Code-switching: Teaching standard English in urban
classrooms. Urbana: NCTE
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Internet Literacy: Does it belong in the classroom?
Last Sunday, The New York Times sparked a debate over Internet, literacy and education through its article, “Literacy Debate: Online R U Really Reading?” The article offered examples of young people, who like most of their counterparts, spend an increased about of time on the Internet, compared to students of yester-year. The article then details the woes and fears and some statistics to prove them of those who believe that online time is hurting children’s mental growth. For example, “Last fall the National Endowment for the Arts issued a sobering report linking flat or declining national reading test scores among teenagers with the slump in the proportion of adolescents who said they read for fun (Rich, 2008).”
This has brought up the questions: What are schools to do? Should the Internet be a part of literacy learning? And if so, how much a part? Will students who spend education time on Internet literacy not learn the patience and imagination skills developed by sustained reading of traditional print sources? It could and it might, but that is the very reason why educators should get online and develop curriculum that helps students synthesize online information with what they learn through traditional print texts, and decide when and how to use online information to enhance their learning and understanding. Whether we like it or not, the Internet is here to stay. It is the printing press of the 20th Century. Similar to the way in which we use calculators to find answers to complicated math problems, we will use Google to search for quick, factual information, and never look back.
In a study of how Internet literacy influences classrooms, Rachel Karchmer states, “…global information economies will require students to be prepared to use Internet technologies to quickly gather and evaluate information, use that information to solve problems, and then quickly communicate their solutions to others (2001).” This is in line with the standards of 21st century learning skills—an educational movement that focuses on media literacy, problem-solving, career skills and communication. Indeed, in 2000, the United States Department of Labor predicted that the top five fastest growing occupations for the following eight years would all necessitate technological skills (Karchmer, 2001). If educators are to prepare students to be successful in the world, they must change with the times.
To those who question whether or not schools should count Internet proficiency as literacy, I would like to point out that despite the prevalent use of computer technology and communication in the professional sphere, access to the Internet is still divided along economic lines. People with higher income status (over $50,000) are twice as likely to use the Internet on a regular basis as those in middle to low income brackets ($25.000-$49,999 and up to $24,999, respectively). Additionally, people with college degrees are nearly three times as likely to use the Internet on a regular basis as those without (Bucy, 2000). It only seems right that the public school system use its equalizing power to bridge this social gap in access to information by teaching students to become more Internet literate, so that they can compete in a global society whose Internet connection is only growing stronger by the minute.
References
Bucy, E. P. (2000). Social access to the Internet. The Harvard Review of Press/Politics,
5(1), 50-61.
Karchmer, R. A. (2001). The journey ahead: thirteen teachers report how they Internet
influences literacy and literacy instruction the their K-12 classrooms.
Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442-446.
Rich, M. (2008, July 27). Literacy debate: online r u really reading? The New York Times,
Critical Reflection: "Pay for Performance"
The idea of “paying” students money for improved and/or “good” performances in school (particularly on standardized tests) is a consistently controversial topic in public education – one that invites strong opinions both for and against the effort, even though it has been around for well over a decade.
Those in favor of “pay for performance” agreements often point to the effectiveness of incentives and bonuses in the “real” world, for example the workplace, and refer to research studies that seem to indicate a correlation between monetary awards and increased student achievement. For instance, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University recently found that reward programs lead to an average gain of four percentage points on standardized state reading tests (Robelen, 2008). Likewise, the local school board for Coshocton, Ohio found that students’ math scores were higher in years when rewards were offered compared to years when they were not, perhaps suggesting an important connection between financial incentives and academic performances (Viadero, 2008).
In a sense, the argument for “paying” students boils down this: Many students already receive financial rewards for their scholastic achievements – either from their parents/relatives for “As and Bs” on their report cards or in the form of academic scholarships (at both the secondary and post-secondary levels). As a result, the concept/practice of rewarding students with money for their school achievements is not a new one (nor is it necessarily harmful).
Further, since students (like more or less all people) seem to work harder and do better when rewarded with things for their efforts (i.e. candy or pizza parties or “free time” or gift certificates or homework passes or movies or field trips), and each of these things costs money anyway (paid either by the teacher or the school), wouldn’t it be easier if we dropped the pretense and simply gave them cash instead?
People on the other side of the issue, however, feel that offering students financial incentives leads to false academic performances – performances that primarily reflect the students’ desire for money rather than their actual ability or content knowledge. They argue that cash incentive programs do not “teach” students the inherent personal and societal value of education, only the financial (Viadero, 2008). For instance, as Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing explains, “Bribing kids for higher test scores – or paying teachers bounties for their students’ work – is similar to giving them steroids. Short – term performance might improve, but the long-term effects can be very damaging” (Toppo, p. 3A, 2008).
Additionally, opponents of the “pay for performance” concept point out the fact that most of studies of the programs are done in charter and private schools where regulations differ from full-fledged public schools. Also, since the concept remains rather controversial, most incentive programs are typically funded by/with private donations from individuals and organizations. Therefore, opponents argue, it is difficult to say how these programs would work on a wide-scale basis, particularly in public schools with taxpayer money providing the cash for students’ academic rewards.
Regardless, the idea of “paying” students continues to attract a great deal of interest and attention, especially in the current era of “school accountability” when the funding and/or future of many schools relies on how well (or how poorly) students perform on standardized tests. As a result, many large public school districts, for instance New York City, are examining incentive programs as a possible method for improving students’ academic achievement.
In a recent New York Times article, “Next Question: Can Students Be Paid to Excel?” journalist Jennifer Medina explains that over 200 public schools in New York City are currently experimenting with incentive programs. She notes that in a dozen or so schools, students, principals, and teachers are all able to receive incentive money based on test scores (Medina, 2008). The results/details of these schools’ performances on the New York State math and ELA exams compared to other schools has not yet been published, but the fact remains that nearly everyone in these schools has an explicit financial incentive for performing well.
In terms of public schools, though, Texas was one of the first states to offer cash rewards to students for performing well on tests (in their case Advanced Placement subject tests) and the results have generally been favorable (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). A study at Cornell University, for instance, found increases in both SAT scores and the number of students admitted to colleges in Texas schools that participate in the incentive program (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). As a result, in the past several years, many other states and school districts have followed Texas’ lead and have begun offering financial rewards of one sort or another to their students.
Ultimately, the idea of “pay for performance” elicits strong reactions and responses in many people. At first, it may seem corrupt and unethical. We’re paying students for something they’re supposed to be doing anyway? However, as one continues to examine the concept it becomes difficult to ignore (and consequently unravel) the tangled relationship between schools, students, and money. One of the basic tenets/lessons of education is that if you try hard and do well you will be “rewarded.” Of course, in one sense the reward is entirely personal, meaning you will become a knowledgeable and socially aware member of society. However, in a much larger (and some would argue more important) sense, the reward is financial. Quite simply, you will (most likely) have the opportunity to work “better” jobs and, as a result, will enjoy the accompanying salaries and benefits (not the least of which is social status). Therefore, it seems reasonable for schools to at least consider the possibility of “pay for performance” programs since, in a very basic way, it is how the world already works anyway.
Cash for school grades? it works. (2008, January 28). Christian Science Monitor, pp. 8.
Medina, J. (2008, March 5). Next question: can students be paid to excel? The New York Times,
pp. 1A.
Robelen, E. (June 2008). Reading scores given ‘bump’ by student incentives, study finds.
Education Week. 27(39), 8-8.
Toppo, G. (2008, January 28). Kids’ good grades pay off-literally; controversial programs offer
cash incentives. USA Today, pp. 3A.
Viadero, D. (February 2008). Students in cash-incentives study score higher in math. Education
Week, 27(25) 6-6.
Those in favor of “pay for performance” agreements often point to the effectiveness of incentives and bonuses in the “real” world, for example the workplace, and refer to research studies that seem to indicate a correlation between monetary awards and increased student achievement. For instance, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University recently found that reward programs lead to an average gain of four percentage points on standardized state reading tests (Robelen, 2008). Likewise, the local school board for Coshocton, Ohio found that students’ math scores were higher in years when rewards were offered compared to years when they were not, perhaps suggesting an important connection between financial incentives and academic performances (Viadero, 2008).
In a sense, the argument for “paying” students boils down this: Many students already receive financial rewards for their scholastic achievements – either from their parents/relatives for “As and Bs” on their report cards or in the form of academic scholarships (at both the secondary and post-secondary levels). As a result, the concept/practice of rewarding students with money for their school achievements is not a new one (nor is it necessarily harmful).
Further, since students (like more or less all people) seem to work harder and do better when rewarded with things for their efforts (i.e. candy or pizza parties or “free time” or gift certificates or homework passes or movies or field trips), and each of these things costs money anyway (paid either by the teacher or the school), wouldn’t it be easier if we dropped the pretense and simply gave them cash instead?
People on the other side of the issue, however, feel that offering students financial incentives leads to false academic performances – performances that primarily reflect the students’ desire for money rather than their actual ability or content knowledge. They argue that cash incentive programs do not “teach” students the inherent personal and societal value of education, only the financial (Viadero, 2008). For instance, as Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing explains, “Bribing kids for higher test scores – or paying teachers bounties for their students’ work – is similar to giving them steroids. Short – term performance might improve, but the long-term effects can be very damaging” (Toppo, p. 3A, 2008).
Additionally, opponents of the “pay for performance” concept point out the fact that most of studies of the programs are done in charter and private schools where regulations differ from full-fledged public schools. Also, since the concept remains rather controversial, most incentive programs are typically funded by/with private donations from individuals and organizations. Therefore, opponents argue, it is difficult to say how these programs would work on a wide-scale basis, particularly in public schools with taxpayer money providing the cash for students’ academic rewards.
Regardless, the idea of “paying” students continues to attract a great deal of interest and attention, especially in the current era of “school accountability” when the funding and/or future of many schools relies on how well (or how poorly) students perform on standardized tests. As a result, many large public school districts, for instance New York City, are examining incentive programs as a possible method for improving students’ academic achievement.
In a recent New York Times article, “Next Question: Can Students Be Paid to Excel?” journalist Jennifer Medina explains that over 200 public schools in New York City are currently experimenting with incentive programs. She notes that in a dozen or so schools, students, principals, and teachers are all able to receive incentive money based on test scores (Medina, 2008). The results/details of these schools’ performances on the New York State math and ELA exams compared to other schools has not yet been published, but the fact remains that nearly everyone in these schools has an explicit financial incentive for performing well.
In terms of public schools, though, Texas was one of the first states to offer cash rewards to students for performing well on tests (in their case Advanced Placement subject tests) and the results have generally been favorable (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). A study at Cornell University, for instance, found increases in both SAT scores and the number of students admitted to colleges in Texas schools that participate in the incentive program (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). As a result, in the past several years, many other states and school districts have followed Texas’ lead and have begun offering financial rewards of one sort or another to their students.
Ultimately, the idea of “pay for performance” elicits strong reactions and responses in many people. At first, it may seem corrupt and unethical. We’re paying students for something they’re supposed to be doing anyway? However, as one continues to examine the concept it becomes difficult to ignore (and consequently unravel) the tangled relationship between schools, students, and money. One of the basic tenets/lessons of education is that if you try hard and do well you will be “rewarded.” Of course, in one sense the reward is entirely personal, meaning you will become a knowledgeable and socially aware member of society. However, in a much larger (and some would argue more important) sense, the reward is financial. Quite simply, you will (most likely) have the opportunity to work “better” jobs and, as a result, will enjoy the accompanying salaries and benefits (not the least of which is social status). Therefore, it seems reasonable for schools to at least consider the possibility of “pay for performance” programs since, in a very basic way, it is how the world already works anyway.
Cash for school grades? it works. (2008, January 28). Christian Science Monitor, pp. 8.
Medina, J. (2008, March 5). Next question: can students be paid to excel? The New York Times,
pp. 1A.
Robelen, E. (June 2008). Reading scores given ‘bump’ by student incentives, study finds.
Education Week. 27(39), 8-8.
Toppo, G. (2008, January 28). Kids’ good grades pay off-literally; controversial programs offer
cash incentives. USA Today, pp. 3A.
Viadero, D. (February 2008). Students in cash-incentives study score higher in math. Education
Week, 27(25) 6-6.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Critical Reflection: A "Dream Deferred"
Since the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954, the courts, communities, and countless individuals have made efforts to abolish racial segregation in schools through the process of desegregation. This process experienced tremendous gains through affirmative action policies in higher education and race-conscious decisions in school assignments for K-12 education. Yet, while it is clear that such strides have been made towards realizing the vision of Brown, a lot of work remains to be done. Under a closer examination of the judicial system’s role in desegregation, a degree of ambivalence and inconsistency emerges as a racial hierarchy has not only lasted but also thieved in our society over the last sixty years. Moreover, with a lack of equal opportunity in under-funded urban public schools, Brown fails to be fulfilled in education on several accounts. Not until more individuals, dedicated and mobilized to demanding immediate equal opportunity, will we progress towards erasing de-facto school segregation from the American consciousness and instituting a more equitable system of education in its place.
Two major areas of education reveal progress towards integration--- affirmative action initiatives in higher education and race-conscious school assignments in K-12 education. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many statues and court decisions have sought to ensure that minorities have equal opportunity in higher education (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 198). This movement finds its legal basis in Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and involves designating a specific number of places for minority students in college admissions (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 198). In 1978, the Bakke case held that, in a similar interest for diversity, race could be considered among other factors in an educational admissions policy. Years later, in Grutter, the University of Michigan Law School Admissions policy, which gave special consideration to racial minorities, was held constitutional as well (Smith, 2008, p. 301). With a related effort in K-12 education, race-conscious school assignments, including consideration to race in magnet schools admissions, have experienced some success in creating student diversity as well (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 197).
Despite such evidence of progress forward, the distance towards the ideals of Brown in American education remains great. De-facto segregation re-inscribes the lack of equal opportunity in public schools, separating races and classes while building psychological barriers that are perhaps harder to tear down than legal ones. Gary Orfield’s study reflects the continued struggle to provide equitable education in public schooling as he investigates the de facto segregation of urban schools (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). In his most recent study, based on data from the 2001-2002 school year, Orfield reveals that the end of court-ordered de-segregation initiatives resulted in a dramatic increase of re-segregation (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). His work also discloses that while about one-quarter of students live in states comprised of a mostly non-white population, the majority of heavily segregated schools, which service primarily minorities, exist in communities of poverty--- a horrific fact that only compounds educational inequality (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 188). With almost 50% of school funding coming from inequitable, local property taxes, it seems just to assume that according to the system, “the quality of a child’s education [may be viewed as] a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors” (as cited in Johnson et al, 2008, p. 170). Simply put, de-facto segregation, operating under the constructs of an inequitable system of school funding, will continue to perpetuate educational inequalities for minority students within these communities of poverty--- unless the psychological barriers of racism are overcome.
Personal experience can further inform a discussion on de-segregated and segregated sectors of education. Graduating from the University of Michigan, I was fortunate to attend an institution of higher learning that promoted diversity on campus and assumed one of the leading roles among institutions of higher learning to not only encourage but actually look to institute equal opportunity. Entering as a freshman, the university functioned under an affirmative action admissions policy with a ranking system that gave automatic points to all racial minorities (Smith, 2008, p. 301). The benefits of this system were enormous, as various backgrounds, cultures, and life-experiences were brought together to enrich the classroom and campus community. During the spring of my freshman year, however, in the landmark case of Gratz, the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions was held unconstitutional for not considering race on individual determinations (Smith, 2008, p. 301). While the university received this devastating blow to its mission to promote equality, many supporters within its community refused to be discouraged by the set-back. Efforts to promote diversity on campus in the following years remained high, continuing as one of the primary objectives of the institution. With a message of equal opportunity not lost on its students, many advocated race-conscious admissions.
Drawing on my personal experience as a teacher, however, I have also witnessed the damaging effects of segregation in urban public schools. Some schools I have visited lack the basic essentials such as textbooks, paper, a copy machines available to teachers, computers with functioning printers, and an updated library. This limited supply of resources is a direct function of insufficient funding--- a relationship that denies the basic right to equal opportunity. Psychological effects of this function are devastating and far-reaching, suggesting to a child that his/her peers from a wealthier community somehow “deserve” a better education. Furthermore, the environment of such urban schools is as Kozol suggests, “ by and large extraordinarily unhappy places. With few exceptions, they [are reminders] of ‘garrisons’ or ‘outposts’ in a foreign nation” (as cited in Schultz, 2001, p. 362). Without providing these students with a better learning environment, or more generally, equal opportunity in education, we only further inscribe our educational system in segregation, widening the achievement gap rather than closing it.
It is evident that while steps towards realizing the vision of Brown v. Board of Education have been made, particularly in the race-conscious admissions processes of higher education, and consideration to diversity in school assignments of K-12 education, much work still needs to be done towards integration. De-facto segregation pervades society, particularly as seen in the re-segregation of urban schools in recent years (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). This segregation only further perpetuates the lack of equal opportunity for students and leaves potentially damaging psychological effects. In order to move towards a more equitable system of education, and realize the vision of Brown, we must look, as educators, to promote diversity in the classroom. Reflecting on personal experiences in both de-segregated and segregated sectors of education, it is clear that in an atmosphere, which not only encourages equal opportunity but actively looks to realize it, a spark will emerge for a dedication to this ideal as a fundamental right of all students. Ultimately, it is my vision to see this “dream deferred” finally become a reality… where this small spark demands larger, more immediate social change towards an equitable system of education.
References
Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2008). Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Russo, Charles. (2004). Brown v. board of education at 50: an update on school desegregation in the u.s. Education and the law. 16 (2-3) 183-189.
Schultz, Fred. (Ed.) (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.
Smith, Bryant. (2008). Far enough or back where we started: race perception from brown to meredith. Journal of law and education. 37 (2), 297-305.
Two major areas of education reveal progress towards integration--- affirmative action initiatives in higher education and race-conscious school assignments in K-12 education. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many statues and court decisions have sought to ensure that minorities have equal opportunity in higher education (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 198). This movement finds its legal basis in Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and involves designating a specific number of places for minority students in college admissions (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 198). In 1978, the Bakke case held that, in a similar interest for diversity, race could be considered among other factors in an educational admissions policy. Years later, in Grutter, the University of Michigan Law School Admissions policy, which gave special consideration to racial minorities, was held constitutional as well (Smith, 2008, p. 301). With a related effort in K-12 education, race-conscious school assignments, including consideration to race in magnet schools admissions, have experienced some success in creating student diversity as well (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 197).
Despite such evidence of progress forward, the distance towards the ideals of Brown in American education remains great. De-facto segregation re-inscribes the lack of equal opportunity in public schools, separating races and classes while building psychological barriers that are perhaps harder to tear down than legal ones. Gary Orfield’s study reflects the continued struggle to provide equitable education in public schooling as he investigates the de facto segregation of urban schools (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). In his most recent study, based on data from the 2001-2002 school year, Orfield reveals that the end of court-ordered de-segregation initiatives resulted in a dramatic increase of re-segregation (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). His work also discloses that while about one-quarter of students live in states comprised of a mostly non-white population, the majority of heavily segregated schools, which service primarily minorities, exist in communities of poverty--- a horrific fact that only compounds educational inequality (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 188). With almost 50% of school funding coming from inequitable, local property taxes, it seems just to assume that according to the system, “the quality of a child’s education [may be viewed as] a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors” (as cited in Johnson et al, 2008, p. 170). Simply put, de-facto segregation, operating under the constructs of an inequitable system of school funding, will continue to perpetuate educational inequalities for minority students within these communities of poverty--- unless the psychological barriers of racism are overcome.
Personal experience can further inform a discussion on de-segregated and segregated sectors of education. Graduating from the University of Michigan, I was fortunate to attend an institution of higher learning that promoted diversity on campus and assumed one of the leading roles among institutions of higher learning to not only encourage but actually look to institute equal opportunity. Entering as a freshman, the university functioned under an affirmative action admissions policy with a ranking system that gave automatic points to all racial minorities (Smith, 2008, p. 301). The benefits of this system were enormous, as various backgrounds, cultures, and life-experiences were brought together to enrich the classroom and campus community. During the spring of my freshman year, however, in the landmark case of Gratz, the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions was held unconstitutional for not considering race on individual determinations (Smith, 2008, p. 301). While the university received this devastating blow to its mission to promote equality, many supporters within its community refused to be discouraged by the set-back. Efforts to promote diversity on campus in the following years remained high, continuing as one of the primary objectives of the institution. With a message of equal opportunity not lost on its students, many advocated race-conscious admissions.
Drawing on my personal experience as a teacher, however, I have also witnessed the damaging effects of segregation in urban public schools. Some schools I have visited lack the basic essentials such as textbooks, paper, a copy machines available to teachers, computers with functioning printers, and an updated library. This limited supply of resources is a direct function of insufficient funding--- a relationship that denies the basic right to equal opportunity. Psychological effects of this function are devastating and far-reaching, suggesting to a child that his/her peers from a wealthier community somehow “deserve” a better education. Furthermore, the environment of such urban schools is as Kozol suggests, “ by and large extraordinarily unhappy places. With few exceptions, they [are reminders] of ‘garrisons’ or ‘outposts’ in a foreign nation” (as cited in Schultz, 2001, p. 362). Without providing these students with a better learning environment, or more generally, equal opportunity in education, we only further inscribe our educational system in segregation, widening the achievement gap rather than closing it.
It is evident that while steps towards realizing the vision of Brown v. Board of Education have been made, particularly in the race-conscious admissions processes of higher education, and consideration to diversity in school assignments of K-12 education, much work still needs to be done towards integration. De-facto segregation pervades society, particularly as seen in the re-segregation of urban schools in recent years (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). This segregation only further perpetuates the lack of equal opportunity for students and leaves potentially damaging psychological effects. In order to move towards a more equitable system of education, and realize the vision of Brown, we must look, as educators, to promote diversity in the classroom. Reflecting on personal experiences in both de-segregated and segregated sectors of education, it is clear that in an atmosphere, which not only encourages equal opportunity but actively looks to realize it, a spark will emerge for a dedication to this ideal as a fundamental right of all students. Ultimately, it is my vision to see this “dream deferred” finally become a reality… where this small spark demands larger, more immediate social change towards an equitable system of education.
References
Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2008). Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Russo, Charles. (2004). Brown v. board of education at 50: an update on school desegregation in the u.s. Education and the law. 16 (2-3) 183-189.
Schultz, Fred. (Ed.) (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.
Smith, Bryant. (2008). Far enough or back where we started: race perception from brown to meredith. Journal of law and education. 37 (2), 297-305.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)