Educational Opportunities John C. Tacapan California State University, Long Beach
PART I Synthesis of Literature The educational system of the United States of America has been hailed by some countries as the landmark of its democratic ideals and as the foundation of its equity principle. Americans have this general belief that their education is their passport to upward economic and social mobility. The general assumption about the relationship between education and development has been validated by many scholars around the world. For instance, Phillips and Schweisfurth (2008) claim that there is a positive relationship between an educated population and national development in all its forms, and that education can be used as a weapon against poverty and other forms of underdevelopment. Darling-Hammond (2000) also asserts that education is not only the ticket to economic success but to basic survival [sic] (p. 265). However, because of its complexities where contradictory objectives, values, and forces frequently converge, our educational system has been meritorious in some ways and prejudiced in others (Tsui, 2003). Historically, despite the popularity of the American educational system, it has also been instrumental in reproducing social injustice and structural inequalities. As Cremin (1970) claims For all of its openness, provincial America, like all societies, distributed its educational resources unevenly, and to some groups, particularly those Indians and African Americans who were enslaved and even those who were not, it was for all intents and purposes closed. For the slaves, there were few books, few libraries, few schoolsdoors of wisdom were not only not open, they were shut tight and designed to remain that way. (pp. 411-412). De Facto Segregation The structural inequalities are still pervasive in our contemporary educational system, and these are reflected through the de facto segregation, tracking placement, funding inequity, curricular inequalities, and unequal access to qualified teachers. Historically disadvantaged low-income groups of students and students of color do not receive the educational opportunities that are available to those who come from privileged and middle-class groups; the former usually have low academic achievements which further marginalize them. In her study, Darling-Hammond (2000) reports that students of color in the U.S. face persistent and profound barriers to educational opportunities and that schools which serve large numbers of African American and Hispanic students are least likely to offer the kind of curriculum and teaching needed to meet the new standards. Moreover, Taylor and Piche (1991) claim that these schools are typically funded at lower levels than schools serving a white and more affluent population; they often lack courses, materials, equipment and qualified teachers that would give students access to the education they would need for social and economic participation (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Oakes (2003) states that many schools in California are severely overcrowded that they run a multi-track schedule offering a shortened school day and school year. Despite the Williams legislation, Oakes observes that these schools lack basic textbooks and materials, do not offer the courses students need to be eligible for college, and are staffed by a large number of untrained, inexperienced, and temporary teachers. Structural inequality is manifested in the de facto segregation of the communities. In various studies, Oakes (1996), Tatum (1997), and Wells (1996) reveal that even within integrated schools, students are often either segregated by academic tracking or re- segregated themselves along racial and ethnic lines. Guinier and Torres (2002) also observe that schools in most areas of the U.S. remain largely segregated by race. The continuing segregation of neighborhoods and communities is alarming because de facto segregation intersects with funding formulas and school administrators practices that create substantial differences in the educational resources made available in different communities (Darling- Hammond, 2004). Kozol (1991) warns that de facto segregation creates apartheid schools that serve racial and ethnic minority students exclusively and with little political clout where resources are extraordinarily scarce. As Kumashiro (2012) argues, From its history of segregating students by race to its current system of inequitable funding between communities, the educational system has worked to disadvantage certain groups, making the achievement gap inevitable (p. 9). Undeniably, de facto segregation produces ongoing inequalities in educational opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 2004). Tracking Placements Another structural inequality in our educational system is the tracking placements embedded covertly in the magnet school, the Advanced Placement (AP), and the Higher Education Master Plan programs. In the 1970s, magnet schools were established based on the premise that there are students who have natural talents and abilities that justify their inclusion in these programs (Vopat, 2011, p. 60). In the early part of 1950s, the AP program was conceived and during its initial stages, students had to be sorted and separated so that the best and brightest could be STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 2
challenged and subsequently assume leadership positions in a Cold War in which science and diplomacy mattered more and more each day (Sneider, 2009, p.813). The contradictions in these programs, however, are reflected in the programs very selective admission process which further stratified the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy students. Additionally, Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan (2004) claim that academic tracking continues to be prevalent in most schools that serve language and minority student population. For example, Tsui (2003) claims that Black students have been tracked into vocational training instead of college preparatory classes. The tracking placement exacerbates educational inequalities because school achievement expectancies channel students into different curricular tracks (i.e., remedial, vocational, non- college bound, college bound, gifted and advanced) with different messages about students academic potentials (Ochoa & Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). The unequal educational opportunities due to tracking placements that students of color receive from their basic education are further exacerbated and extended in their quest for equal access to quality higher education. As a result, many of the traditionally marginalized and economically disadvantaged students of color are ill-equipped to access and to navigate higher education institutions (HEIs), further constraining their educational, economic, and social mobility. The legitimization of dominant forms of knowledge and culture in higher education creates a greater challenge among students who have different social and cultural experiences prior to their tertiary education. Darling-Hammond (2000) contends that the educational systems in many urban schools with large numbers of traditionally marginalized population focus their curriculum more on rote learning of basic skills than on problem solving, thoughtful examination of serious texts and ideas, or assignments requiring frequent and extended writing. These curricular emphases are apparently disconnected from what the HEIs emphasize and validate. Naidoo and Jamieson (2005) claim that in industrialized countries like the United States of America, there has been an increasing pressure on universities to impart to students the skills, knowledge, and dispositions related to innovation and the ability to learn how to learn in order to continuously upgrade their skills in tune with the demands of a changing global economy. Rizvi and Lingard (2010) state that these types of knowledge are essential to meet the challenges of globalization and the knowledge economy and to prepare students for workplaces that are increasingly transnational and transcultural. Thus, those who have been tracked to college preparatory, honors, and advanced courses have more educational opportunities. Funding or Fiscal Inequity Another structural inequality in our educational system is reflected in funding or fiscal inequity. Generally, districts serving large proportion of poor children have the fewest resources (Darling- Hammond, 2004). Kozol (1991) argues that because school districts funds are typically raised and spent locally, districts with higher property values have greater resources with which to fund their schools, even when poorer school districts tax themselves at proportionally higher rates. These disparities in financial resources translate into real differences in the services provided in schools because higher spending districts have smaller class sizes, higher paid and more experienced teachers, greater instructional resources, better facilities, more up-to- date equipment, and a wider range of course offerings (Darling-Hammond, 2004). On the contrary, students of color are disproportionately likely to find themselves in poorly-funded schools with few facilities and inadequate resources (Zirkel & Cantor, 2004) or assigned to non-college preparatory courses of study (Fischer et al., 1996). Ostensibly, these inequitable systems of school finance inflict disproportionate harm on economically disadvantaged students of color (Taylor & Piche, 1991). As organizations like NEA (National Education Association) call for more funding for public education, other organizations such as First Class Education counter that the problem is not the amount of funding but the ways in which that funding is spent (Kumashiro, 2008). Curriculum Inequalities Educational issues related to de facto segregation, tracking placement, and funding inequity are further exacerbated by curriculum inequalities. According to Ochoa and Cadiero-Kaplan (2004), Our public schools are stratified institutions in which some students are provided with high status knowledge that yields social and economic control, while others are relegated to a second class citizenship both within our K-12 public school system and in the larger society (p. 27). At the high school level, for example, Oakes (1996) asserts that students of color have been traditionally underrepresented in academic programs and overrepresented in general education or vocational programs where they receive fewer core courses like mathematics, science, and English. Darling- Hammond (2000) also claims that when schools which have large number of students of color offer any advanced or college preparatory courses, they offer them to only a very tiny fraction of students. Moreover, in many racially integrated high schools, a large number of Black students have not been STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 3
sufficiently prepared in lower grades to take on the AP curriculum (Russel, 2005). Lack of Access to Qualified Teachers Students access to equitable educational opportunities is further constrained by their lack of access to qualified teachers. Perez Huber, Huidor, Malagon, Sanchez, and Solorzano (2006) claim that access to qualified teachers is one of the most inequitably distributed educational resources among poor and minority children and that this lack of access contributes to the achievement gap between students of color and white students. Holding socio- economic status constant, Ferguson (1991) asserts that the single most important predictor of increased student learning is teacher expertise, which is measured by teacher performance on a state certification program, along with experience and masters degrees. A significant number of better qualified and more expert teachers are usually found in schools in affluent neighborhoods serving middle- class and white students; on the other hand, less qualified teachers are found disproportionately in schools serving large numbers of economically- disadvantaged students of color (Kumashiro, 2012; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). In their study, Perez Huber et al. (2006) report that almost 98% of teachers at the Beverly Hills Unified School District (BHUSD) which has a large enrollment of white students hold a full credential compare to the 79% at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) which has a large enrollment of poor students of color. Moreover, while 2.4% and 1.7% of LAUSDs teachers hold District and Pre-intern credentials, BHUSD has none (Perez et al., 2006). Moreover, Kumashiro (2012) reports that teachers receiving traditional preparation are more likely to be teaching in the most elite schools while those from fast-track alternative preparation programs are far more likely to teach in schools with large percentage of students of color and students living in poverty. For example, students in Californias most segregated schools with large number of students of color were more than five times as likely to have uncertified teachers as those in predominantly white schools (Shields et al., 2001). Ferguson (1991) confirms that these schools usually have large class sizes, high rate of poverty, and large percentage of students of color whose parents have low educational level. In another study, Darling-Hammond (2004) concludes that access to high quality teachers and teaching has positive and substantial impact on students school achievement. In fact, Darling- Hammond claims that a 1% increase in teacher quality, as measured by NTE (National Teacher Examination) scores, was associated with 3-5% decline in percentage of students failing the (standardized) examination. According to Kumashiro (2012), When teachers are not learning new ideas, they fall back on their own experiences and observations, and turn to common sense, which are often the very ideas and practices that need to be questioned and improved upon (p. 48). On the contrary, good teachers construct active learning opportunities involving student collaboration, help students access prior knowledge, structure meaningful learning tasks, and engage students higher order thought processes (Braddock & McPartland, 1993, as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2000). The aforementioned structural inequalities are further exacerbated by cultural deficit thinking framework prevalent among some teachers, staff, and administrators in schools with large numbers of students of color. They have this presumption that the continued low levels of achievement on the part of students of color must be a function of genes, culture, or a lack of effort and will (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001; Valencia, 2010). Howard (2010) asserts that while there is a myriad of reasons for the achievement gap, one of the most important factors in this perennial underachievement is that teachers do not expect all students to succeed, believing instead that poverty makes some students incapable of high academic achievement. The complex structural inequalities caused by the overlapping of de facto segregation, tracking placement, funding inequity, curricular inequalities, and unequal access to qualified teachers significantly influence students educational outcomes. These inequalities reveal that educational outcomes for students of color are much more a function of their unequal access to key educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality curriculum, than they are a function of race (Darling-Hammond, 2004). Solorzano and Yosso (2001) claim that these students fail because of the unequal conditions (e.g., structures and processes) at the schools they attend and because schools reinforce and reproduce societal inequalities. These inequalities confirm Reids (2007) argument that the structures, practices, and outcomes of public schooling have not always been democratic in the sense that they have been implicated in helping to reproduce an unequal status quo. Thus, Darling- Hammond (2000) reiterates that if we do not recognize that students experience very different educational realities, policies will continue to be based on the presumption that it is students, not their schools or classroom circumstances, that are the sources of unequal educational attainment.
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 4
PART II Theoretical Analysis The American educational system has been historically marred by issues of inequality and injustice. Despite the common rhetoric that education is an important aspect of the national culture and the economy, and that it is essential for international understanding, social cohesion, and multiculturalism, our educational system has failed in its mandate to deliver equitable and quality education to all students. Many of the students especially from urban cities with large number of working class, immigrant, and impoverished population perform far below the proficiency level academically when compared to their counterparts from more affluent urban and sub- urban neighborhoods. Our students in general compare poorly in international competitions such as in PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) and in TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). Unfortunately, teachers become the scapegoats. Educational policymakers apparently overlooked the structural and institutional biases and historical legacies regarding oppression and injustice which continually breed social injustice and educational inequality. These structural inequalities, however, could be understood better and analyzed further using the capitalist globalization and cultural reproduction theories. Using these social frameworks, we could formulate and identify some culturally and socially transformative resolutions to the pervasive educational inequalities. Globalization, economy, and education are, in so many ways, interrelated and interdependent with each other. Because it affects employment, globalization touches upon one of the primary traditional goals of education which is the preparation for work (Burbules & Torres, 2000). The global educational discourses, explicitly supported by multinational organizations such as the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), the UN (United Nations), and the WB (World Bank), validate the concept that education is an economic investment with the goal of developing human capital or better workers to promote economic growth and multiculturalism (Spring, 2009). Rury (2009) points out that education has become an increasingly important aspect of the national culture and the economy. Burbules and Torres (2000) also state that the broader economic effects of globalization tend to force national educational policies into a neoliberal framework that emphasizes performance. Although globalization of education aims to promote multiculturalism, its most obvious goals are to prepare students for knowledge economy and to educate them for work within the knowledge economy. There is also an assumption that the neoliberal ideology of globalization, particularly those implemented by bilateral, multilateral, and international organizations, is reflected in an educational agenda that privileges, if not directly imposes, particular policies for evaluation, financing, assessment, standards, teacher training, curriculum, instruction, and testing (Burbules & Torres, 2000). Kumashiro (2012) outlines the reforms aligned with these policies, namely: students must be focused exclusively on scoring well on standardized test, teachers must be held accountable to raising those test scores, and parents must be given the choice to move their children out of failing schools. Apparently, the capitalist globalization theory, as reflected on its neoliberal ideology and as highlighted in the Race to the Top initiative of the Obama administration, similar to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of the Bush administration, presumes that competition will solve all problems, and that school systems will improve when structured like a marketplace where schools, teacher preparation programs, educational services, and even teachers compete. Unfortunately, this ideology promotes an understanding of equality and freedom that presumes a level playing field and that encourages competition (Kumashiro, 2012). Oftentimes, the decisions related to educational agenda are made and influenced by individuals or groups who belong to the core societies. Seidman (2008) describes them to be economically, politically, militarily, and culturally dominant. Certainly, curricular programs in public education reflect the kinds of knowledge the global community and the labor market need, and we can infer that educational agenda implemented in public schools promote social reproduction and class domination. Class domination, according to Seidman (2008), is accomplished insofar as the knowledges, lifestyles, tastes, and aesthetic judgment and social mannerisms of the dominant class become socially legitimate and dominant (p. 143). The emphasis in standards movement to certain subject areas such as mathematics, science, and reading is a classic example of class domination. These are the academic skills that carry a premium, and educators at all levels of the school system are struggling with the challenge of improving students achievement in these subject areas (Rury, 2008) because these subject areas have the highest national and global relevance and legitimacy. In fact, these subject areas are most frequently linked to various sectors of economy and to the higher demand for advanced educational credentials (Kumashiro, 2008, 2012; Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005; Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2008; Rury, 2008; Tsui, 2003). STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 5
Globalization has paradoxical and contradictory implications too; while it provides opportunities to prepare individuals for engagement in a globalized world, it also polarizes, stratifies, and reproduces different zones in our society. The proponents of capitalist globalization see this social stratification essential for core societies to dominate and exploit the weaker and subordinate (periphery) societies (Seidman, 2008). This social reproduction is also replicated in our current educational system. Currently, there is the growing global demand for individuals who have strong mathematical, critical thinking, technological, and communication skills in the world of employment. International assessments are even conducted in order to gauge students competencies in these areas. Recently, the OECD released the results of its 2009 PISA tests of 15-year old students in 65 countries in the areas of Math, Reading, and Science which revealed that all participating regions of China outperformed the United States, which ranked 23 rd in Science, 17 th in Reading, and 32 nd in Math (Dillon, 2010). In TIMSS, the Americans did not perform well either. This relatively poor performance of Americans in PISA and TIMSS fueled interest in intensified testing policies in the United States (Kumashiro, 2012). Subsequently, educational policy makers re- evaluated, modified, and strengthened standards- based curriculum and reforms. As offshoots of capitalist globalization framework in the educational system, standards- based reforms highlight the rewards and sanctions based on students achievement in standardized assessments. The outcomes of standardized assessments determine grade retention or promotion as well as graduation for students, merit pay award or threats of dismissal for teachers and administrators, and extra funds or loss of registration, reconstitution, or loss of funds for schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Howard, 2010; Kumashiro, 2012). The implementation of the NCLB Act of 2002 strengthened the Title I accountability by requiring States to implement statewide testing systems covering all public schools and students. According to the NCLB law, districts and schools that failed to make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) toward proficiency goals were subject to corrective actions and restructuring measures, while those that met or exceeded AYP objectives were eligible for academic awards (Kumashiro, 2012; Rury, 2008). However, because of structural inequalities poor students of color experience, they are further marginalized in their educational and social spheres. Rury (2008) claims that urban children often lack the social and cultural capital to compete for higher education opportunities, and Greene, (2000) observes that schools in neighborhoods are thought to be ineffectual in the face of such obstacles. There is also a common perception that children who come from impoverished families that are concentrated in larger cities, from single-parent households, and from minority ethnic and racial groups have lower academic achievement compared to those who come from middle-class and more affluent neighborhoods. According to Leonardo and Valencia (2007), much of the public imagines people of color in urban areas as drains of the school system, lazy, helpless, and hopeless. This phenomenon validates Bourdieus concept of social reproduction which explains that individuals who share a structural or class position have similar, repetitive experiences that produce a common habitus which, in turn, structures their social practices sets out guidelines and limits but allows for individual innovation (Seidman, 2008). Although Rury (2008) argues that differences in social and cultural capital appear to have accounted for great disparities in the school performance of children from different backgrounds, Bourdieus theory of social reproduction explains that those who come from traditionally marginalized groups have opportunities to break the social barriers that hinder their economic and social mobility if they have innovation and creativity (Seidman, 2008), and if their environment provides them an atmosphere for creativity, innovation, and learning. If schools provide equal educational provisions and equitable structural conditions to all students, schools can mediate the process of realizing and increasing such cultural, social, and educational capital for all students. In a study conducted by Peterson (1989, as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2000), the researcher concludes that 7 th grade at risk students randomly assigned to remedial, average, and honors mathematics classes showed that at risk students who took the honors class offering a pre- algebra curriculum outperformed all other students of similar backgrounds. Oakes (2003) also claims that when students of similar backgrounds and initial achievement levels are exposed to more and less challenging curriculum material, those given richer curriculum opportunities outperform those placed in less challenging classes. The findings of these studies affirm Bourdieus argument that individuals are neither totally free agents nor passive products of social structure and that habitus always operates in relation to fields and capital (Seidman, 2008, p. 142). As Howard (2010) claims, Among the more important aspects of understanding poverty is the recognition that while there are complex obstacles involved in teaching students from impoverished backgrounds, students are still capable of being STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 6
academically successful (p. 47). Howard thus confirms that students have the capability to achieve regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds. Overall, the findings from relevant social researches reveal that students from privileged backgrounds have different and enriched educational experiences relative to the desired and valued cultural forms and practices of the dominant society. Most often, these students are found in selective enrolment schools where politicians and wealthy families send their children, such as the school where President Obama sent his children (Kumashiro, 2012). Kumashiro states further that these schools are well-resourced with up-to-date curriculum materials, advanced laboratories, safer and healthful facilities, opportunities for extracurricular activities, and small class sizes. Students experience different learning opportunities because of structural inequalities in the educational system and disparities in access to well- qualified teachers, high quality curriculum, and small schools and class sizes. English language learners in our nation, specifically Latino students, are viewed as having linguistic deficits (Ochoa & Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). Even among the college bound, non-Asian students of color take fewer and less demanding math, science, and foreign language courses (Pelavin & Kane, as cited in Darling-Hammond, 2000). These structural inequalities define students higher educational opportunities as well. Likewise, the emphasis put on the English language is perceived by some critics as a sign of neocolonialism and new imperialism which are embedded in the ideology of global capitalism. The domination of English-speaking institutions in the global trade in educational services contributes to the growth of English as the global language (Spring, 2009). Even branches of universities from non- English speaking countries often use English as the medium of instruction because they believe that the use of English language could lead to global educational culture although the emphasis given to English language is seen by some critics as the perpetuation of hegemony and dominant culture. Regardless of how people perceive it, English now serves as the main international academic language (Spring, 2009; Rizvi & Lingard). Although there are studies that show the academic success of students of color and of those who were traditionally marginalized, the structural inequalities as manifested in de facto segregation, tracking placement, funding inequity, curricular inequalities, and lack of access to qualified teachers undeniably play crucial roles in cultural reproduction and educational inequity. The cultural-deficit thinking framework of some school personnel exacerbates the dehumanizing conditions of some students. As a result, our educational system serves the purpose of neoliberal and capitalist globalization agenda that promotes meritocracy and competition in education and in society in general. As advocates of social justice and educational equity, we must acknowledge and problematize the structural inequalities in our educational system so we can reframe the dominant educational discourse that have been historically accepted as common sense and provide all students with a genuine equality of access to meaningful and equitable educational opportunities. As Howard (2010) argues, there is undoubtedly a correlation between socio- economic status and school outcomes, and a litany of data highlights the nexus between race, social class, and school performance, which must be recognized in any analysis of the achievement gap across racial groups (pp. 46-47).
PART III Implications and Strategies for Social and Educational Justice The educational capital of the members of the community serves as an instrument to increase the nations human and economic capital. To illustrate, Sweetland (1996) claims that individuals and society derive economic benefits from educational investment in people. Apropos to this ideology, educators should provide all students with equitable educational opportunities so students develop their fullest potentials as self-actualized individuals and responsible global citizens. Kyburg, Hertberg-Davis, and Callahan (2007) report that students who take more rigorous and more challenging courses are better prepared for college than those who have not. Moreover, Handwerck, Tognatta, Coley, and Gitomer (2008) assert that high school students who take and succeed in rigorous academic coursework are more likely to enjoy later academic and professional success. Thus, equitable investment in education is the key to sustainable human development. Despite the promising rhetoric attached to education, it is apparent that the United States has failed to deliver equitable education to its people. According to Andrade-Duncan and Morrell (2008), equitable education means that people should receive an education specific to their needs as defined by their circumstances and that educational institutions provide service on the basis of specific needs (social, economic, linguistic, political) of the people being served. Equitable education means employing different resources and pedagogy that match the specific needs of the community, and it does not employ an assessment that measures student achievement on the basis of assimilation into white, middle-class norms. STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 7
In contrast, our educational system reflects the glaring and overlapping structural inequalities found in all levels of schooling. These challenges, however, serve as focal points for hope and possibilities especially among those who work in educational institutions and their allied agencies in various fields. There are socially- and culturally-transformative strategies that could promote social justice and educational equity; these strategies include the following: reimagining the roles of critical educators, redefining the responsibilities of teacher education programs and improving teacher recruitment strategies, reframing educational policies and challenging disproportionate allocation of resources, developing a school-based talent curriculum and promoting a college-going culture in high schools, expanding access to more rigorous courses and ensuring high academic expectations at all levels, and reframing the dominant discourse in educational system. Reimagining the Roles of Critical Educators Acknowledging the seriousness of the negative impacts of structural inequalities in our educational system, we need to revisit the traditional roles of educators perceived from the common sense perspective and reimagine their roles crucial for the promotion of genuine educational equity and social justice. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) suggest that educators should create a critical counterculture in their classrooms and programs that mount a deliberate attack on any and all forms of low expectations and social, political, and economic exploitation, replacing them with a culture of excellence and justice. They should create an academic culture that integrates the confrontation of the immediate material conditions of the community where the teaching is taking place and should connect the local struggles for freedom to larger, state, national, and global struggles over similar issues (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). When students see the interrelationships of their own struggles with those outside their spaces, they will be able to develop a close awareness of their own issues and challenge the oppressive racial microaggressions which have been accepted as common sense assumptions. Howard (2010) further suggests that educators should be empathetic because only empathetic educators can eradicate deficit-based thinking that frequently serves as a major obstacle to academic success for countless students, particularly those from culturally diverse and low-income backgrounds. According to Howard, empathetic educators hold students accountable despite difficult circumstances, see promise and possibilities and assets in students, become active problem solvers, and develop critical and complex teaching practices to engage students. These educators also listen and learn from students experiences to inform teaching and view learning as a reciprocal process between teachers and students. Reeve and Jang (2006) assert that teacher expectations correlated with students motivation to succeed; thus, when students feel their teachers support, they are more likely to feel a sense of connection to school and more likely to be academically successful. Through teachers pervasive and consistent belief that students could succeed and through their scaffolding to support and challenge able students, schools help create an environment that nurtures the growth of academic talent among students of diverse backgrounds (Kyburg et al., 2007). Developing a School-based Talent Curriculum Critical educators should create opportunities for students to use what they are learning in ways that directly impact their lives (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). These educators should help prepare their students develop common goals and prepare them to work collectively toward their goals. Moreover, critical educators should develop a curriculum and pedagogy that address the material concerns of students and their community and that permit and encourage students to use what they are learning to act upon those concerns. These can be done by encouraging students, through the supervision, guidance, and collaboration of any discipline-specific and English Language Arts teachers, to conduct research studies related to their immediate social realities and experiences. By providing culturally congruent and socially relevant learning experiences in schools, critical educators make education more meaningful to their students. Establishing Culturally-relevant and Meaningful Assessment Tools Since educators are equally responsible in assessing the growth and progress of their students, they should develop a valid and reliable form of assessment in order to gauge whether genuine and meaningful learning has been achieved by students. One central tenet of critical pedagogy is reflective learning where students reflect on what they have learned to evaluate their own work and to move forward with their work on the basis of the knowledge that gained from that reflection (Duncan- Andrade & Morrell, 2008). Through reflections, students will be able to evaluate their own efforts on the basis of their own growth, and they will be able to progress gradually from the stage when they require adult guidance and supervision to the stage when they can perform independently. This type of assessment reflects the theory of Vygotskys (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD), as opposed to the norm-referenced assessments inherent in high- stakes tests which are not reflective of students STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 8
genuine growth and development, since historically these assessments are culturally-bias and socially- incongruent. Redefining the Responsibilities of Teacher Education Programs and Institutions Another strategy that can promote social justice and educational equity is by redefining the roles of teacher education programs and institutions. According to Levine (2006), more than half of the teachers who graduate from teacher education program feel as though they have not been adequately prepared. This observation should prompt us to strengthen our contemporary teacher education programs by creating centers of excellence for teacher education. These institutions should employ a rigorous selection of best candidates for teacher education programs. They should focus on the preparation of teachers for urban contexts, teach about critical pedagogy, critique the banking model of education, and eliminate the pedagogy of poverty (Haberman, 2006, as cited in Duncan- Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 179) that emphasizes back to basics, drill-and-kill scripted literacy, zero tolerance discipline policies, high-stakes testing, and one-size fits all standards based instruction. Increasing Teacher Education Research and Enriching Teacher Education Programs Teacher education programs should increase the impact of teacher education research and improve coursework in teacher education programs. This can be done by including discussions of critical theory and history or sociology of urban education in addition to the common methods and foundations courses (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). There should be a strong focus on the research studies that document the various ways that beginning teachers are drawing upon critical pedagogy to make powerful connections with their students. Kumashiro (2012) emphasizes that teacher education programs should establish and strengthen connections to the surrounding urban school system by preparing and supporting teachers who are finding innovative and effective ways to improve education for Black and Latina/o students, the group of students who dominate the school system but whose levels of achievement and attainment are disturbingly low. Improving Teacher Recruitment Strategies Recruitment of diversified pool of applicants and faculty in higher education benefits the general college population in general and the students of color in particular (Perez Huber et al., 2006). Thus, college of education should create scholarships that target students of color because, oftentimes, financial issue is a determining factor in the persistence of college students (Perez Huber et al., 2006).
Reframing Educational Policies Educators and policymakers who are serious about addressing structural inequalities in the educational system must find the courage to commit resources to low-income urban schools. Duncan- Andrade and Morrell (2008) suggest that schools serving poor children should receive resources substantially more than schools serving wealthy children, because despite the Title I initiative, an honest assessment of school funding reveals that wealthy parents more than make up for that funding gap with the social and economic capital that they provide to their local school. Challenging Disproportionate Allocation of Resources Educational policymakers should challenge the disproportionate allocation of educational resources in low income and rural areas that further perpetuates educational disparities between the wealthy, elite, and impoverished or low-income students (Russell, 2005). By using the Critical Race Theory framework, educators, researchers, and policymakers should critique school practices and policies that are both overtly and covertly racist (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Perez Huber, 2011). Since CRT acknowledges how social class and gender intersect with race, it is imperative that educators and researchers uncover and unmask the persistent and oppressive nature of the normativity of Whiteness, the co-option and distortion of oppositional discourses, and the ways in which policies that are offered as remedies to underachievement and educational disparity that are not in the best interest of marginalized groups, but rather serve the elite (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Promoting a College-going Culture Schools should also promote a college-going culture. They should create a culture of college expectations and provide opportunities for students to be exposed to college-related activities (DeVance Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby, 2007) such as visiting colleges and universities, participating in programs such as Upward Bound, EAOP, etc., and inviting alumni who are either currently enrolled in universities or have graduated from universities to give motivational talks to students. Schools should provide an environment where teachers, parents, and student peers have high expectations and encourages students to prepare for college (Perez Huber et al., 2006). Perez Huber et al. further assert that teachers who expect their students to go to college improve students chances for a successful transition to college by increasing their opportunities to learn. Furthermore, Wing (2004) states that the most academically successful students of color or students from poor families were those who found or created a network of adults at school who cared about their college and career aspirations (p. 3). Therefore, if STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 9
teachers expect students to go to college and succeed, Devance Taliaferro and DeCuir-Gunby (2007) suggest that the academic community should encourage students to believe that college is in their future, and teachers should relay their expectations from their students to graduate from high school and to attend college. Extending Educational Opportunities to Traditionally Underserved Gifted Learners Increasing access alone will not resolve the inequities experienced by students in many urban educational environments. Educational opportunities should be extended to traditionally underserved gifted learners, and teachers should recognize the diversity and complexity of their students backgrounds; moreover, teachers should be cognizant of the potential limitations of students who are less prepared to engage in more rigorous academic study (Kyburg et al., 2007). Hallet and Venegas (2011) assert that administrators, counselors, and teachers must understand the course-taking patterns and opportunities for highly motivated students who attend low-income and academically at-risk high schools. Reframing the Current Dominant Discourse in Education An equally important strategy towards the attainment of educational equity and social justice is reframing the current dominant discourse in education. Lakoff (2004) explains that our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies, and that reframing is social change. Essential to our reframing of the dominant discourse in education is imagining more effective ways to collectivize, collaborate, and build coalition (Kumashiro, 2012). Kumashiro emphasizes forming coalition based on constituents (i.e., teachers, school employees, parents, students, community advocates, taxpayers, researchers, and anyone concerned about our children and our future) strengths in order to amplify different voices, energize different groups, and interweave different causes. It is, therefore, important that as we form our coalition, we have to acknowledge the different forms of community cultural wealth such as aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, resistant, and spiritual capital (Perez Huber, 2009) which we can use to reframe our ideals, values, aspirations, and hopes. According to Greene (2000), through reflective and impassioned teaching we can do far more to excite and stimulate many sorts of young persons to reach beyond themselves, to create meanings, to look through wider and more informed perspectives at the actualities of their lived lives (p. 172). Conclusion Because education is perceived to be the great equalizer, the school environments must promote equity to realize equal opportunity as an outcome (DeVance Taliaferro & DeCuir-Gunby, 2007). Given the educational constraints of structural inequalities, we can still achieve social justice and educational equity by reimagining the roles of critical educators, redefining the responsibilities of teacher education programs and improving teacher recruitment strategies, reframing educational policies and challenging disproportionate allocation of resources, developing a school-based talent curriculum and promoting a college-going culture in high schools, expanding access to more rigorous courses and ensuring high academic expectations at all levels, and reframing the dominant discourse in educational system. Above all, it is imperative for us to reframe what the purposes of U.S. education really ought to be in these times, and to reimagine what it means to be concerned about our youths futures.
References Barker, C. (2008). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. 3 rd Ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and education: An introduction. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Cremin, L. (1970). American education: The colonial experience 16071783. New York: Harper & Row. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263- 287. Retrieved from ProQuest Library database. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and student achievement. Du Bois Review, 1(2), 213-246.doi: 10.1017/S1742058X0404202X. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they arent that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 26-31. Retrieved from JSTOR database. DeVance Taliaferro, J., & DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2007). African Americans educators perspectives on the Advanced Placement opportunity gap. The Urban Review, 40(2), 164-185. doi: 10.10071/s11256-007-0066-6. Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang. STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 10
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498. Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Sanchez Jankowski, M., Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., &Voss, K. (1996). Inequality by design: Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Guinier, L., &Torres, G. (2002). The miners canary: Enlisting race, resisting power, and transforming democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Handwerck, P., Tognatta, N., Coley, R. J., & Gitomer, G. H. (2008). Access to success: Patterns of Advanced Placement participation in U. S. high schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from www.ets.org/research/pic. Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in Americas classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown. Kumashiro, K. K. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the right has framed the debate on Americas schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Kumashiro, K. K. (2012). Bad teacher! How blaming teachers distorts the bigger picture. New York: Teachers College Press. Kyburg, R. M., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2007). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs: Optimal learning environments to talented minorities? Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(2), 172-215. Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. New York: Chelsea Green. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24: 3762. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. New York: Education Schools Project. Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2000). The state, globalization, and educational policy. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge. Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Knowledge in the marketplace: The global commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 119-140). The Netherlands: Springer. Oakes, J. (1996). Two cities tracking and within school segregation. In E. C. Lagemann & L. P. Miller (Eds.), Brown v. Board of Education: The Challenge for Todays Schools (pp. 8190). NY: Teachers College Press. Oakes, J. (2003). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Ochoa, A. M., & Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). Towards promoting biliteracy and academic achievement: Educational programs for high school Latino English language learners. The High School Journal, 87(3), 27-43. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library database. Prez Huber, L. (2009). Challenging racist nativist framing: Acknowledging the community cultural wealth of undocumented Chicana college students to reframe the immigration debate. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 704-729. Prez Huber, L. (2011). Discourses of racist nativism in California public education: English dominance as racist nativist microaggressions. Journal of Educational Studies, 47(4), 379-401. Prez Huber, L., Huidor, O., Malagon, M., Sanchez, G., & Solorzano, D. (2006). Falling through the cracks: Critical transitions in the Latina/o educational pipeline (Rep. No. 7). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2008). Comparative and international education: An introduction to theory, method, and practice. London: Continuum. Raduntz, H. (2007). The marketization of education within the global capitalist economy. In M. W. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies, & politics. New York: Peter Lang. Reid, A. (2007). Rethinking the democratic purposes of public schooling in a globalizing world. In M. W. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies, & politics. New York: Peter Lang. Reeve,J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students autonomy during STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 11
learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge. Rury, J. L. (2008). Education and social change: Contours in the history of American schooling. New York: Routledge. Russell, M. L. (2005). Untapped talent and unlimited potential: African American students and the science pipeline. Negro Educational Review, 56 (2 & 3), 167-182. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library database. Seidman, S. (2008). Contested knowledge: Social theory today. 4 th Ed. MA: Blackwell. Shields, P. M., Humphrey, D. C., Wechsler, M. E., Riel, L. M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Youg, V. M., & Price, T. (2001). The status of the teaching profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Sneider, J. (2009). Privilege, equity, and the Advanced Placement program: A tug of war. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 813- 831. Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York: Routledge. Sweetland, S. (1996). Human capital theory: Foundations of a field of inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 341-359. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library database. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Taylor, W. L., & Piche, D. M. (1991). A report on shortchanging children: The impact of fiscal inequity on the education of students at risk. Prepared for the Committee on Education and Labor, US House of Representatives. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Tsui, L. (2003). Reproducing social inequalities through higher education: Critical thinking as valued capital. Journal of Negro Education, 72(3), 318-332. Retrieved from JSTOR database. Valencia, R.R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), The critical educator. New York: Routledge. Vopat, M. (2011). Magnet schools, innate talent and social justice. Theory and Research in Education, 9(1), 59-72. doi: 10.1177/1477878510394811. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, A. S. (1996). Reexamining social science research on school desegregation: Long versus short term effects. In E. C. Lagemann & L. P. Miller (Eds.) Brown v. Board of Education: The challenge for todays schools (pp. 91106). NY: Teachers College Press. Wing, J. Y. (2004). Closing the achievement gap in diverse California high schools. (UC/ACCORD Public Policy Series Rep. No. PB-003-0504). Los Angeles: UC/ACCORD. Zirkel, S., & Cantor, N. (2004). 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education: The promise and challenge of multicultural education. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 1-15.