Article Review #4
74 E d u c a t i o n a l lE a d Er s h i p / n o v Em b Er 2 0 1 6 A ll across the United States, decisions cham- pioned in the name of school “reform” are segregating students on the basis of race and class and exacerbating education inequities. In cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit, traditional public schools that serve low-income students of color have been closed, consoli- dated, or co-located with charter schools. The officials ini- tiating these reforms rationalize such drastic measures by claiming funding constraints, low enrollment, or inadequate performance. They also claim the reforms will ultimately benefit disadvantaged students. But this is not what the evidence shows. In many cases, new charter schools serve proportionally fewer students with disabilities and English language learners. The poorest communities lose access to neighborhood schools, some of which have been there for 100 years. School closures impact the most disadvantaged and vulnerable students— students who are undocumented, homeless, formerly incarcerated, or in foster care (see Institute for Children, Poverty, & Homelessness, 2010). The majority of students end up in under-resourced schools that are no better than the ones they attended before (de la Torre & Gwynne, 2009). Students subject to closures typically transfer to schools that don’t facilitate significant gains in achievement (de la Torre & Gwynne, 2009; Kirshner, Gaertner, & Pozzoboni, 2010; Sunderman & Payne 2009). The State of the State Recent reports by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2016) show that educational disparities in discipline and race are widespread. Black preK–12 stu- The (Evasive) Language of SCHOOL REFORM Communities speak openly about the consequences of reforms on race and class, but the public officials they deal with sidestep those issues entirely. Pedro A. Noguera and Jill C. Pierce PHOTO BY BOB COLTER Noguera1.indd 74 9/26/16 1:50 PM A S C D / w w w .A S C D .o r g 75 dents are suspended at higher rates than white students, and K–12 students with disabilities are suspended more frequently than students without disabilities. Further, the Civil Rights Project (Kucsera, 2014; Orfield & Fran- kenberg, 2014) has documented that racial segregation in schools is growing, particularly in the largest cities. For the first time in U.S. history, a majority of children in public schools come from families in poverty (Southern Education Foundation, 2015). But state and federal edu- cation policies have largely ignored the impact of growing economic inequality and demographic change on public schools. For this reason, we’re addressing the “equity impact” of current urban education reforms on poor children of color. New York City, the nation’s largest school system and an epicenter of reform, serves as the case study for our analysis. Bloomberg, de Blasio, and School Reform The inequitable impact of school reform strategies in New York City reflects nationwide trends. Similar to patterns elsewhere, the New York City schools that are scheduled for consolidation serve, on average, a population that com- prises 92 percent black and Latino students, 31 percent students with disabilities, 13 percent English language learners, and 90 percent students living in poverty (New York City Department of Education [NYC DOE], 2016). New York City closed 140 schools from 2002 to 2013 under Mayor Bloomberg (Layton, 2013). Under current Mayor de Blasio, the schools facing consolidations as a result of under-enrollment are simultaneously experiencing the expansion of charter schools in their districts and neighborhoods. Compared with traditional public schools, in which 21 percent of students served have disabilities and 14 percent are English language learners (NYC DOE, 2016), the new charter schools serve an average of only 16 percent students with disabilities and 6 percent English language learners. Ironically, the reforms implemented by a more liberal mayor are exacerbating disparities in access to schools. In New York City, decisions about closing and consoli- dating traditional public schools and about “co-location” of charter and noncharter schools in the same facility require Noguera1.indd 75 9/26/16 1:50 PM 76 E d u c a t i o n a l lE a d Er s h i p / n o v Em b Er 2 0 1 6 a local public hearing and a separate public comment period. The Panel for Educational Policy (the PEP)— which consists of 13 appointed members and the chancellor—then votes on each proposal. From a tech- nical standpoint, the process appears fair. However, close examination reveals that these decisions have long fallen primarily on schools serving disadvantaged student populations. For the last two years, we have monitored local hearings and public comment periods. We wanted to know whether the pledge to address disparities in learning opportunities was borne out in the decisions made regarding individual schools. We examined public discourse from com- munity members and district offi- cials, as well as the language used to rationalize the decisions. 1 We found that although community members speak openly about race, class, and equity-related consequences of deci- sions, district officials prefer to adopt an “equity-blind” response—that is, they tend to defend proposals without acknowledging their impact on low- income communities of color. Such coded language is cause for concern. Those who carry out these reforms often seek to avoid the trou- blesome race and class issues inherent in their decisions. Consequently, under the guise of reform, commu- nities facing poverty and social iso- lation are now experiencing a dramatic disinvestment in their traditional public schools. Community Members Silenced In the hearings, community members drew attention to the demographic characteristics of their student popu- lations, noting that heavy concen- trations of high-needs populations brought significant challenges to their schools. They were concerned that co-locations would perpetuate segregation—for example, by taking away space mandated for services to special needs students even as the co-located charter schools typically underenroll and underserve such students. Speakers noted that school closures have become inevitable for schools that serve populations that other schools have managed to avoid. One teacher described her school’s population as “students who live in shelters, children who have been forced to flee their country to be in a country that will welcome them, and children who have been kicked out of charter schools.” Said one speaker, schools that “happily take all kids who enter our doors” consequently find their space—and their survival—in jeopardy. In their responses, district offi- cials steadfastly avoided these issues, preferring to point out the technical failings of the schools, such as low enrollment, test scores, or graduation rates. They ignored the community members’ equity-conscious comments and considered the complaints about segregated populations, class and racial inequities, and histories of dis- placement “off topic.” At one meeting, a parent noted, “The department of education is only co-locating in communities of color and low socioeconomic standing. There are no co-locations in the schools of rich communities.” Offi- cials typically deemed these remarks as unrelated to the proposal and unworthy of a response. Colormute and Equity Blind When district officials did respond to such comments, they often oversim- plified or evaded the issues. In answer to a concern that a charter school didn’t serve enough homeless stu- dents, administrators merely repeated official policy: “Any child eligible for admission to a district school, including homeless students and students in temporary housing, is eli- gible for admission to a public charter school.” However, as a teacher pointed out, the charter application process presents a barrier to the lowest-income families because “not every parent PHOTO BY BOB COLTER Noguera1.indd 76 9/26/16 1:50 PM A S C D / w w w .A S C D .o r g 77 in our community can negotiate the tedious process of a lottery.” Officials also downplayed parents’ concerns by explaining that differ- ences in student subgroups naturally fluctuated among schools. Although the statement is accurate on one level, it ignores the fact that many charter and public schools have found ways to exclude the most vulnerable students (Caref, Hainds, Hilgendorf, Jankov, & Russell, 2012). Several speakers noted the stark differences in the students served by a charter school that was asking for space in a building to be shared with three other schools. Five percent of the students at the charter school were identified as English language learners, as opposed to 25, 37, and 33 percent at the three other schools. Likewise, 11 percent of the students at the charter school were identified as having dis- abilities, compared with 25, 21, and 21 percent at the other schools. References to schools working with “all students” often served to obscure equity concerns. For example, one communiqué about a school consoli- dation read, “All current and future students enrolled at the consolidated [school] will continue to receive all mandated services if this proposal is approved, and all schools will have sufficient space within their Footprint allocation to meet their students’ needs.” This type of official discourse prom- ising the success of “all students” is indicative of what Mica Pollock (2004) refers to as a colormute approach to education—that is, a refusal to acknowledge that a policy or practice targets or disadvantages a particular student population. Although all stu- dents were supposed to continue to get mandated services if proposals were approved, students have frequently been denied the resources they need once proposals have been enacted. In cases of co-location, the district has often insisted that “space will be dis- tributed equitably.” But that’s simply not what many teachers, students, and parents who have experienced co-located buildings say. Equitable space sharing and thoughtful collaboration among schools were rare in co-locations. Families and school staff members told stories of students losing time in libraries, gymnasiums, and cafeterias or seeing their dental clinic or com- puter labs dismantled when a charter school moved in. Students were often compelled to learn “in hallways and closets,” with guidance counselors and special education teachers providing services in equally cramped areas and stairwells. The schools serving the neediest children typically lost out in the competition for resources. In fact, “all” students were not served equally well. Taking Action on Equity In parts of New York City, conversa- tions about school segregation have proliferated, particularly over the last year (Hannah-Jones, 2016; Wall, 2015a). After the release of a report that cited New York City schools as among the most segregated in the United States (Kucsera, 2014), officials from the city’s department of edu- cation reluctantly conceded that inte- gration can inch forward if particular schools push for it on a case-by-case basis (Fertig, 2016; Wall, 2015b). They’ve also encouraged schools to “brand” and “market” themselves to families (potential customers) (Khan, 2016)—and, in a surprising display of weak leadership from a “pro- gressive” mayor and administration, they’ve said that local parent advocacy groups should be the ones to “deal with diversity” (Haimson, 2016). The public officials seem to have ruled out the possibility of working creatively to balance student populations, investing in education opportunities in high- needs neighborhoods, and satisfying parents’ choices, as other districts committed to desegregation have done (Alves & Willie, 1987; Fiske, 2002). Urban districts could implement a number of strategies to combat segregation and address the under- enrollment that often leads to co- location, consolidation, or closure. In New York City, some community members are pushing for controlled choice, a student assignment policy that would distribute high-needs student subgroups equitably among schools districtwide (Community Edu- cation Council for District One, 2015). Equitable admissions policies would be combined with more compre- hensive support and inclusion of fam- ilies in need, with the aim of helping these families gain access to high- quality educational programming. In addition, some advocates are calling for funding and support so schools can offer students dual-language programs, magnet programs, and programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Increasing opportunities in schools across dis- The schools serving the neediest children typically lost out in the competition for resources. “All” students were not served equally well. Noguera1.indd 77 9/26/16 1:50 PM 78 E d u c a t i o n a l lE a d Er s h i p / n o v Em b Er 2 0 1 6 tricts would provide parents with high-quality choices, lead to more integrated schools, and—combined with proactive admissions strategies and investment from districts—could prevent many schools from becoming under-enrolled. From Equity Blind to Equity Conscious Educators who recognize that equity is vital to the future of public education are joining the equity-conscious con- versations that are now emerging in New York City. Their expertise and their compassion for the children they serve will amplify the voices of parents and community members who are des- perately seeking allies. As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2014) reminds us, equity-blind and colormute discourse perpetuates the status quo by making the needs of the most vulnerable invisible. To make greater progress in meeting the needs of our most disadvantaged students, we must focus on strategies aimed at reducing disparities in education oppor- tunities—and place equity and racial integration at the center of reform. EL 1Citations and full references for quota- tions from public comment hearings and public meetings of the Panel for Educational Policy are included in the online version of this article at www.ascd.org/el1116noguera. References Alves, M. J., & Willie, C. V. (1987). Con- trolled choice assignments: A new and more effective approach to school deseg- regation. Urban Review, 19(2), 67–88. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the per- sistence of racial inequality in America (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Caref, C., Hainds, S., Hilgendorf, K., Jankov, P., & Russell, K. (2012). The black and white of education in Chicago’s public schools. Chicago Teachers Union. Retrieved from www.ctunet.com/root/ text/CTU-black-and-white-of-chicago- education.pdf Community Education Council for Dis- trict One. (2015). Resolution in support of a controlled choice admission policy. Retrieved from https://cecdistrictone. files.wordpress.com/2015/12/resolution- in-support-of-controlled-choice-cec1. pdf de la Torre, M., & Gwynne, J. (2009). When schools close: Effects on displaced students in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Fertig, B. (2016, May 31). City invites more schools to try diversity initiatives. Retrieved from WNYC at www.wnyc. org/story/city-invites-more-schools-try- diversity-initiatives Fiske, E. B. (2002). Controlled choice in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Divided we fail: Coming together through public school choice (pp. 167–208). New York: Century Foundation. Haimson, L. (2016). Mayoral control hearings and my testimony about why it’s an undemocratic and frankly racist governance system [blog post]. Retrieved from NYC Public School Parents at http://nycpublicschoolparents. blogspot.com/2016/05/mayoral-control- hearings-and-my.html Hannah-Jones, N. (2016, June 9). Choosing a school for my daughter in a segregated city. New York Times Magazine. Institute for Children, Poverty & Home- lessness (2010). The impact of school closures on homeless students in New York City. New York: Author. Retrieved from www.icphusa.org/pdf/reports/icph_ schoolclosurespolicyreport.pdf Khan, Y. (2016, May 4). Chancellor encourages schools to “rebrand” better. Schoolbook.org. Retrieved from www. wnyc.org/story/chancellor-encourages- schools-rebrand-better Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., & Pozzoboni, K. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closure on dis- placed students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 407-429. doi: 10.3102/0162373710376823 Kucsera, J., with Orfield, G. (2014). New York State’s extreme school segregation: Inequality, inaction, and a damaged future. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Los Angeles: UCLA. Layton, L. (2013, January 29). Activists to U.S. Education Department: Stop school closings now. Washington Post. New York City Department of Education. (2016). Demographic snapshot 2011–12 to 2015–16 (Data file). Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/ data/default.htm Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E., with Ee, J., & Kucsera, J. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat, and an uncertain future. Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Los Angeles: UCLA. Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Southern Education Foundation. (2015). A new majority: Low-income students now a majority in the nation’s public schools (Research Bulletin). Atlanta, GA: Author. Sunderman, G. L. & Payne, A. (2009). Does closing schools cause educational harm? A review of the research (Infor- mation Brief). Arlington, VA: Mid- Atlantic Equity Center. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). 2013–2014 civil rights data collection: A first look: Key data highlights on equity and oppor- tunity gaps in our nation’s public schools. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look. pdf Wall, P. (2015a, December 23). School segregation debates grabbed New York headlines in 2015. Now what? Chalkbeat. Retrieved from www. chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2015/12/23/ school-segregation-debates-grabbed- new-york-headlines-in-2015-now-what Wall, P. (2015b, November 19). Exclusive: After year delay, city will allow diversity plans at several schools. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from www.chalkbeat.org/ posts/ny/2015/11/19/city-to-allow-some- schools-to-move-forward-with-diversity- plans-sources-say Pedro A. Noguera ([email protected] ucla.edu; @PedroANoguera) is Dis- tinguished Professor of Education at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Jill C. Pierce ([email protected]) is a doctoral student at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University. They are coeditors, with Roey Ahram, of Race, Equity, and Education: Sixty Years from Brown (Springer, 2016). Noguera1.indd 78 9/26/16 1:50 PM Copyright ofEducational Leadershipisthe property ofAssociation forSupervision & Curriculum Development anditscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesor posted toalistserv without thecopyright holder’sexpresswrittenpermission. However,users may print, download, oremail articles forindividual use.
Article Review #4
3 Article Review Paper #2 Summary: The article is based on the findings of a survey that was administered by the authors and their team of scholars to a few representative sample respondents throughout the United States in May and June of the year 2015. The sample size for this study was 4083 people which included teachers, African-Americans, and Hispanics. The article is trying to examine the general feeling of the public regarding the implementation of the no child left behind act (NCLB), which was proposed by congress in 2015 as a method of assessing the performance and productivity of teachers and schools. Despite the large number of parents who opted out of the testing, the bill was still pushed through congress, seemingly against the will of the people. A revision of the bill proposed that students be tested in mathematics and reading from grade 3 to grade 8 and even in high school. The article further gives its findings regarding the general opinion on the role of the different stakeholders such as the government in setting up education standards, determining what constitutes a failing school and coming up with remedies to a failing school. While the highest number of respondents believe that the state government should have the biggest say in setting up education standards, determining what constitutes a failing school and coming up with remedies to a failing school, some people thing that the federal government and the local government should have a role in this, although the support for the latter is relatively lower than that of the state governments. The suggestion, in this case, would be that the biggest role should indeed be given to the state government because unlike the federal government which is responsible for a broad territory and as such may not be able to effectively narrow down its focus to the requirements and the situation of the each school or the local governments which may be too small and less equipped to carry out an effective evaluation, the state governments are in the best position to acquire best machinery and mechanisms of evaluating the performance of schools within their territory. The state governments are most conversant with the situation within its territory and can thus evaluate schools more fairly than the federal and local governments. The results of the article further indicate that most of the people who participated in the research are not fully aware of the use of the Common Core within their state. The Common Core is a set of standards which are meant to standardize mathematics and reading across the nation. However, the number of people within the teaching fraternity and the general public who oppose the use of Common core is on the rise. Although standardization across the states would be important so that all schools can be measured using a common national scale, the strategy would be less effective since some states have a competitive advantage over others, hence standardization would portray a deceptive score that would have the effect of demoralization. Critique: The methodology used in carrying out this study was effective as it covered most of the major stakeholders from different angles. For example, the article covered the opinion of the parents, the teachers, and the public. In addition to categorizing the sample population based on these three classes, the article further classified them based on the political affiliation as Democrats and Republican which was important as it helped further declassify the opinions of the stakeholders and understand the reason they hold so dearly to their opinions. However, the sample size used does not seem to represent the whole nation, hence there is a possibility that should the sample size be wider, the results would be different.