CSUN: COLLEGE OF EDUCATION: EDUC 610

By Laura I. Rendon, Richard 0. Hope

The 1990s are an electric time, for the era appears right for shaping the debate about America's future as a multicultural society. It is also a time ripe with hope if the American people choose to confront their demographic reality and respond to a clarion call about making a truly significant difference for students who have for so long been the victims of extreme neglect. The American people are facing one of the most dramatic cultural transformations in history. Americans are becoming more nonwhite and more diverse than ever before. Immigration, coupled with births from recent immigrants and the fact that native-born American minorities have high fertility rates, have contributed to this enormous diversity. In their book A7ne7ican Renaissance, Cetron and Davies (1989) state that the most fundamental change of the 1990s is in who the American people are. The spillover of these population shifts is being acutely felt in the nation's schools and colleges. Correspondingly, the most fundamental change witnessed in the nation's educational system is in who the students are becoming.

Students of color are expected to make up 24 percent of the under-eighteen population by 2012, a 5 percent increase from 1990. By 2010, these students will represent more than half the population eighteen years of age and younger in seven states, including California, Florida, Texas, and New York. States such as Mississippi, New jersey, and Illinois are projected to have a youth population more than 40 percent minority (Carter and Wilson, 1994; Hodgkinson, 1991). Thus, the term minority is losing its statistical meaning, as a new student majority rapidly emerges, comprised collectively of African Americans, Latinos, Asians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In twenty-two out of the twenty-five largest urban school districts and in some two and four-year colleges, they are already the majority. While some of these students come from well-to-do families and have attained the American Dream, many are poor and have lost faith in what America has to offer.

This chapter highlights the profiles of peoples who are transforming the United States into a new, multicultural America, reviews the issues that schools and colleges must confront as they reorganize for diversity, and outlines the consequences if our nation's educational system fails a new student majority.

America's Changing Demographic Profile

The American people are now the most diverse ever. Two trends characterize the nation's demographic profile: Americans are getting older and they are becoming more differentiated. As America grays, so does it add color. In 1970, the median age of the American population was less than thirty, but today it is nearing thirty-three, and by the year 2000, it is expected to top thirty-six. However, there is another side to this graying photo of America. New waves of immigrants are flocking to the United States. In the 1980s about twice as many immigrants as in the previous decade migrated into the United States. About 84 percent were from Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Immigrants arrive at the rate of one million a year, and foreign-born residents (legal and illegal) represent 8.5 percent of the U.S. population, nearly twice, the percentage in 1970. Fully 40 percent of recent immigrants settle in California, where 22 percent of the population was born outside the United States (Topolnicki, 1995). Consequently, immigration is becoming one of the most important state and federal policy issues. For example, California's Proposition 187 would restrict education to undocumented students, and educators are concerned that teachers would be forced to become de facto border patrol agents who would turn in students suspected to be illegal aliens.

These new Americans are younger than mainstream white America and have high fertility rates. The same is true for native-born minorities. The birth rate among African Americans is double the national average and for Hispanics it quadruples the national average. Immigration and high birth rates, as well as the movement of Anglos from cities to suburbs, are the main reasons that in 1990 minorities were the majority in 51 of 200 cities with I 00,000 or more residents. Most of the cities where minorities are now the majority are in the South and West. These groups are so diver-se that generic classifications obscure differences in culture, language, country of origin, and traditions. just as the term European would not do justice to Old World immigrants, labels such as Hispanic, Asian, and Af7ican American fail to capture the full diversity within each racial and ethnic group. Indeed, because of this diversity, ethnic and racial minorities often do not act as a group. They remain separated by geographic, location, national origin, immigrant status, and socioeconomic level. Therefore, their political influence is not as clear as what their numbers indicate.

These new people are being met by both those who praise diversity and those who harbor xenophobic views. Nativist, who are partial to native-born people and unaccepting toward immigrants, believe that U.S. immigration procedures are too lax and that immigrants cost more in welfare, health, and educational services than they pay in taxes. Some native-born minorities are concerned that new immigrants could take away the few jobs for which they qualify. Anti-assimilationists argue that diversity is an inherent good, that this country benefits from different communities, and that immigrants constitute a net addition to the country's wealth, given that they come from an environment of poverty and are willing to work hard in a new country. The vast majority of today's immigrants (legal and illegal) are doing well. Those who arrived in the United States before 1980 actually boast higher average household incomes ($40,900) than all native-born Americans (Topolnicki, 1995). The xenophobia of today is reminiscent of what happened in the late eighteenth century, when German immigrants were characterized as unassimilable because of their language and Catholicism. Irish immigrants on the East Coast and Chinese on the West Coast were also greeted with religious and racial prejudice. Still, new people of color, combined with native-born minorities, are altering the nation's ethnic and cultural balance either to the dismay or the enthusiasm of white and nonwhite Americans. The next section highlights the heterogeneous elements of the different groups that are fast becoming new majorities.

African Americans

African Americans, often referred to as blacks, are the largest minority group in the United States, at nearly thirty million people or about 12.1 percent of the population. African Americans are drawn from a diverse range of cultures and countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. Half of all African Americans live in the South, but large proportions now reside in urban areas, especially Detroit, New York, Chicago, and Atlanta. African Americans have suffered a long history of oppression, including racism and poverty. They were unwillingly brought to the New World from Africa only to become oppressed people with no civil rights. Although African Americans now enjoy civil rights won at great cost by black leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, racial unrest still permeates American society. The unlawful beating of African American motorist Rodney King in the streets of Los Angeles and attacks in Bensonhurst and Howard Beach in New York are testimony to the notion that racism has survived the civil rights movement of the 1960s and is still a looming threat to millions of African Americans and other minority groups (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990; Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993).

Alaska Natives American Indian

Alaska Natives constitute about 14 percent of Alaska's population. Together, Alaska Natives and American Indians represent 0.8 percent of the total U.S. population. The heavy in-migration of non-Native groups has reduced the Alaska Native population since 1930, when it accounted for 50 percent of the total. Alaska is home to three distinct Native groups: Eskimos, Aleuts, and American Indians. Alaska Natives are not a monolithic group. There are twenty Alaska Native languages and more than 200 Native villages, with about 60 percent living in the state's rural areas. Alaska Natives have suffered rampant attempts to destroy the Native culture, particularly from Russians and Americans, who have wanted to "civilize" them by moving them away from their basic culture. They have experienced the banning of their languages, games, and dances and have suffered the consequences of having their children removed from families and placed in boarding schools. Nonetheless, Alaska Natives have sought to restore their- villages and control over education (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990; Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993).

American Indians are characterized by diversity, with at least 100 Native languages still spoken today by more than 300 tribes. Still, it is not always easy to determine just who is Indian due to problems in data collection, recording, and processing. Self-reporting in the category of "race" and "ancestry" on the U.S. census form has revealed great discrepancies. Additional complicating factors include whether the tribe is federally recognized, residence, adoption of life-styles, and percentage of Indian blood. In 1990, the largest numbers of Alaska Native/ American Indians were found in Oklahoma, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Washington, and North Carolina. American Indians strongly believe in self-determination and tribal sovereignty and enjoy a unique legal status with the federal government. They suffered attempts by the Europeans who colonized this country to assimilate them, eliminate their "barbarian" nature, and turn them into Christians (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990; Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993). American Indians, like Alaska Natives, balk at the notion that the United States is a land of immigrants, for their history is such that they lived in what is now known as America many years before the arrival of Columbus in 1492.

Asians

Since the removal of discriminatory immigration policies in 1965, Asians have become one of the nation's fastest-growing minority groups. In 1990, Asian/Pacific Islanders numbered some seven million, or 2.9 percent of the U.S. population. Most of the Asian American population (outside the state of Hawaii) is found in the West, where they represent 1'.7 percent of the area's population. The six largest Asian subgroups are Chinese, 23.8 percent of the Asian-American population; Filipino, 20.4 percent; Southeast Asian (those of Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, or Hmong origin), 14.5 percent; Japanese, 12.2 percent; Asian Indian, 11.8 percent; and Korean, 11.6 percent. In the 1980s, nearly 900,000 refugees arrived from Vietnam, Laos, and Kampuchea (Cambodia) as they fled Southeast Asia for safety and opportunity in America. About 800,000 Hmong tribes people driven from Laos by the Pathet Lao after the United States abandoned its military commitment to Southeast Asia have also settled here. California alone has hosted nearly half a million Vietnamese, to the point that Orange County now has an area called Little Saigon. Other Southeast Asians have settled in Long Beach, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, and San Francisco (Cetron and Davies, 1989; Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993).

Asians come from affluent as well as poor socioeconomic backgrounds).Roughly one million are North Koreans who escaped the communists in the 1950s. The Koreans, like the Japanese of previous generations, are the elite of Asia-well educated, entrepreneurial, and wealthy. Their energetic nature has helped them to own 85 percent of the green grocery business in New York City, some 300 grocery stores in Atlanta, most of the liquor and convenience stores in Los Angeles, and a growing number of service businesses in Anchorage. Similarly, the Vietnamese that escaped communist takeover just after the fall of Saigon were the upper tier of South Vietnamese society. Most male adults were college educated and many spoke English fluently, having worked with Americans during the war. They were able to overcome initial problems in America to build a major American success story. The second wave of Vietnamese that followed in the late 1970s-ethnic Chinese expelled by the Communist regime-have also done well (Cetron and Davies, 1989).

More unsettled are the third wave of Vietnamese immigrants, the "boat people" of the 1980s. They are largely illiterate and poor, and many are emotionally troubled due to the oppression they experienced in their homeland and the trauma of escape from their country. Another problem-plagued group that has settled in California is the Khmer of Kampuchea, nearly all of whom are poor, on welfare, and emotionally troubled due to the destruction of their country and loss of their relatives. The Hmong of northern Laos also find life in America a difficult process. They too have suffered at the hands of oppressors. Few can. read and write their own language, but their farming skills have allowed them to carve out their own communities in rural areas of Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington (Cetron and Davies, 1989).

Latinos

Latinos, often referred to as Hispanics, vary greatly in socioeconomic background and cultural traditions. Some, like the first immigrant wave of wealthy Cubans, have found success in America. Other-s, like newly arrived Mexicans, Central and South Americans, and Puerto Ricans, often live below the poverty line. Nonetheless, Latinos are proud of their culture, and many resent the "English Only" movement that they feel would do away with their freedom to express themselves in Spanish, the language that connects the Latino culture. Yet most Latinos recognize the importance of learning English as a means to participate fully in American society.

Immigrants from Mexico continue to arrive in the United States each year, mainly crossing through the porous U.S.-Mexico border that stretches some 2,000 miles from California to Texas. But not all Hispanics are recent immigrants. The Mexican origin population, sometimes referred to as Chicanos, Mexicans, or Mexican Americans, consists partly of individuals who have roots in the United States extending back more than ten generations, even before the establishment of Jamestown. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and California were once a part of Mexico but had to be given up when U.S. forces overtook Mexican troops in the U.S.-Mexican War. In a historical account of the U.S. Southwest, Gloria Anzaldia (1987, p. 7) points out that "the border fence that divides the Mexican people was born on February 2, 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It left 100,000 Mexican citizens on this side, annexed by conquest along with the land. The land established by the treaty as belonging to Mexicans was soon swindled away from its owners. The treaty was never honored and restitution, to this day, has never been made."

Other Mexican-origin communities are those whose residents applied for legalization (amnesty) under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 to become permanent U.S. citizens. Today, people of Mexican origin number over thirteen million and constitute 61.2 percent of the persons of Hispanic origin living in the United States. Most live in the Southwest and West, especially in California and Texas (Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993).

However, other Latino subgroups are growing even faster than those of Mexican origin. These include Central Americans, especially those from El Salvador, who now represent 6 percent of the Latino population in the United States. South Americans and "other" Latinos such as those from the Caribbean have also settled in America. About 300,000 immigrants from the Dominican Republic have settled in New York City. Immigrants from Spain and Portugal have also come to the United States (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990; Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993; Cetron and Davies, 1989).

Another group of Latinos is Puerto Ricans, who are engaged in a circular migration between the island and the mainland. This is because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens with strong ties to the island. In constant migration, Puerto Ricans cross cultural boundaries, languages, and school systems. The 2.3 million Puerto Ricans on the mainland account for about 12 percent of Latinos in the United States. High birth rates and continued immigration will ensure that Puerto Ricans represent an increasing share of the American population in the years ahead, not only in New York and New jersey, where they are most heavily concentrated, but in other mid-Atlantic states (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990; Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993).

Among Latinos the ones considered most successful are Cuban Americans, who number over one million and constitute 4.8 percent of the U.S. Latino population. Most have settled in Florida, especially Miami. There have been three waves of Cuban immigrants. The first consisted of well-to-do Cuban families who fled the Castro revolution in the early 1960s. The second arrived in the Mariel boat lift in 1980. While the first wave consisted mainly of the upper crust of Cuban society, the second wave was more diverse. Many were poor and illiterate. Others were well educated, but their economic and social success in Cuba had been quite limited. While the first wave was able to attain success in America, a large proportion of the second remains impoverished (Cetron and Davies, 1989). A third wave arrived in 1994, as Cubans again tried to escape economic hardship and political oppression in makeshift boats.

As a new century dawns, the task of dealing with the explosion of multicultural ism is one of the most critical issues facing the United States. A cultural revolution is slowly reshaping the country, and trends are readily apparent. California is expected to become the first "minority majority" state in the continental United States, and Texas and New Mexico are poised to follow. The University of California at Berkeley's freshman class is now over 50 percent minority. Overall, more than 30 percent of students in public schools-about twelve million and growing-are now minority. In Los Angeles alone, about ninety different languages are spoken. Interracial marriages have tripled. Non-Western religious cultures are also penetrating American society, and Islam is gaining increased popularity.

This country does not appear prepared to cope with the ultimate reality: a new majority and a new minority are rapidly emerging. By the last quarter of the twenty-first century, people who are today considered minorities will be the majority population. And the nation is clearly not ready for mediating the effects of unprecedented diversity in language, culture, religion, and life-style. Tensions between whites and nonwhites appear to be escalating. Hate crimes have increased, resulting not only in civil unrest but in the killings of nonwhites by individuals who preach white supremacy. Equally disturbing is that as resources, jobs, and opportunities for advancement shrink, minority groups begin to confront each other for what little there is. In the Los Angeles riots of 1992, Korean businesses, as well as black and Latino neighborhoods, were hard hit, partly due to intra ethnic tensions and to economic competition among groups and individuals living in resource-poor areas (Pastor, 1993). The challenge for a new American society is as clear as it is complex: how to build communities that respect and value difference, how to foster interracial harmony, and how to connect different groups in an effort to grant them equal access to economic and educational opportunities.

Nowhere in America's infrastructures are these issues becoming more glaring than in the educational system. The school of today is nothing like before. Take Hollywood High, for instance, known for its distinguished alumni, which include some of the nation's foremost entertainers. At this high school some fifty-seven languages are now spoken, and 92 percent of the students count English as their second language. Students go through a daily weapons search, and the school has hired two full-time police officers. Many students are single parents and find they must work part time, leaving them precious little time to attend to their studies. How do children learn and how do faculty teach in a school where there is no common language and no common culture? How do students interact with each other in unsafe schools? What are the consequences to students in schools where everyone appears to be at risk? The next section discusses the issues the nation's K-12 school system and higher education institutions must confront as they attempt to address the needs and strengths of an emerging student majority.

Crisis in the K-12 School System

Poor and minority children are the most underserved in America. They come from the poorest families, have the worst health care, are more likely to be attacked, killed, or shot at as they walk to school, attend the most underfunded schools, and are taught by the least prepared teachers. The New York Times called children who live in bleak worlds "children of the shadows." In a series of articles that attracted national attention, the Times referred to these children as "impoverished youth who live in tumble-down neighborhoods of the American inner city; the children of often desperate and broken families, where meals are sometimes cereal three times a day; the young people who daily face the lures of drugs, sex, fast money and guns; the unpoliced youths who operate in a maddening universe where things always seem to go wrong" (Wilkerson, 1993, p. 1).

While not all minority children live in such dark worlds, more and more are doing so. The proportion of children living in poverty is increasing, school performance is declining, and juvenile crime has exploded and turned more violent. According to a report issued by the Commission on Chapter 1 (1992) that called for fundamental changes in the federal Chapter I program targeted at educationally disadvantaged children, these are the very children that deserve the best the nation's educational system can offer. But as the commission said, "Instead, to those who need the best ... we give the least. The least well trained teachers. The lowest-level curriculum. The oldest books. The least instructional time. Our lowest expectations. Less, indeed, of everything we believe makes a difference" (p. 4).

Overall, children at risk have made some considerable achievement gains over the past twenty-five years. According to the Commission on Chapter 1 (1992), almost all poor and minority children today master rudimentary skills. Between 1972 and 1991, the high school dropout rate for whites decreased from 12.3 percent to 8.9 percent, and the dropout rate for African Americans also declined from 21.3 to 13.6 percent during the same time span. However, the dropout rate for Hispanics increased from 34.3 percent to 35.3 percent (Ramfrez, 1993). Achievement gaps that have long separated poor and minority children from other youngsters in reading, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, have declined by nearly half, although there are ominous signs that the trend is now reversing. SAT scores have also improved. The largest gain in SAT average score from 1976 to 1993 was for African Americans, a gain of 21 points in the verbal score and 34 points in the math score. Still, gaps between whites and nonwhites remain, with whites scoring higher on the verbal SAT score than all other groups and Asians scoring higher on the math score.

America's schools have largely failed poor and minority youngsters. About fifty years since Mendez v. Westminister School Distinct (I 945), forty-seven years after Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School Dist7ict (1948), and about forty-one years since Brown v. Board of education (1954)-the major cases that declared segregated schools unconstitutional-minority children continue to attend segregated and underfunded schools. According to a report issued by the Quality Education for Minorities Project (1990), minority children attend separate and decidedly unequal schools. These schools operate with outmoded curricula and structures based on the assumption that only a few students will be successful. Further, the problems students face in and out of the classroom, such as racism, poverty, language differences, and cultural barriers, are not addressed in the typical school. Students attend schools where their teachers do not expect them to amount to much. They attend crowded classrooms with fewer resources than predominantly white suburban schools have. Often, their teachers are inexperienced, engage students in mundane tasks such as circling letters on dittos, and fail to challenge children. The predominant mode of instruction is drill and practice. Keeping order in class takes precedence over engaging students in active learning and higher-order thinking skills. It is not surprising that so many of these students leave school before they graduate and that those who persevere often wonder what their education is worth, since they still find themselves unprepared for college or the work world.

Key Educational Issues

Educational reform has become one of the top federal and state policy issues of the day. Congress and the Supreme Court have played a major role in shaping educational policy over the past twenty-five years. Below is a sampling of some of the most critical educational issues related to the education of poor and minority students today.

School Restructuring and S)7stemic Change. The problems of inner-city schools are so perverse that many believe there are only two solutions: radically restructure schools or let schools compete for students in the marketplace of education. Those who believe in school restructuring argue that special "add-on" programs have done little or nothing to help poor and minority youngsters. The Commission on Chapter 1 (1992, p. 7) explains: "No matter how wonderful the staff in special programs or how terrific their materials and equipment, they cannot compensate in 25 minutes per day for the effects of watered-down instruction the rest of the school day and school year. And watered-down instruction is precisely what most poor children get." Instead of special programs that contribute next to nothing to the mainstream academic program, restructuring advocates argue that nothing short of total reform is needed-fundamental changes in traditional school organization, governance, policies, programs, and practices. Restructured schools are those that make fundamental changes in the rules, roles, and relationships in schools. They make student achievement the main criterion against which teachers, principals, and administrators are judged and rewarded. They decentralize decision making and increase the involvement of teachers and principals in policy discussions. They focus on site based management where decisions about how to achieve objectives established by policy makers are made by teachers, principals, parents, child development professionals, and other school and community leaders. Restructured schools are guided by professional standards based on knowledge and skills developed through research and experience (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990).

National efforts such as the Ford Foundation's National Center for Urban Partnerships, the National Science Foundation's Urban Systemic Initiative, the U.S. Department of Education's Educational Partnerships Project, as well as the Pew Charitable Trust's Community Compacts Project focus on systemic change. The projects involve entire cities, including schools, community colleges, four-year institutions, business and industry, and community-based organizations,- in an all-out effort to reduce the barriers to academic achievement and progress for at-risk students. Focusing on systemic change from the earliest grades to the baccalaureate degree level, these projects aim at restructuring the entire system by Involving key stakeholders, allowing for shared decision making, encouraging teacher collaboration, fostering site-based management, focusing on student support and development, involving parents, and building in accountability through assessment and evaluation, among other measures. Systemic change is focused on making every school a school of choice. Yet creating systemic change takes time, is often met with resistance, is subject to political maneuvering, and can be costly.

School Choice. Advocates for what has become known as school choice" believe that schools will change only when they know they must compete with each other. The state of Minnesota enacted one of the earliest choice plans in 1985. The plan allowed parents to send their children to any school in the state, so long as the school had room for them. When students moved from one school to another, the state tuition money that paid for their education went with them. The theory behind choice is that schools perceived to offer the best education will flourish, while those perceived to be of lesser quality will lose students and go bankrupt. Consequently, it is to every school's advantage to undertake reform strategies. But critics believe that this allows already good schools to get even better, while underfunded schools could get even worse. The scenario for poor and minority kids might well be that they would be attending even worse schools than before choice plans were enacted.

Standards. Ever since President George Bush convened an Education Summit with the governors of fifty states in 1989, setting national goals and standards has been central to the agenda of educational reform. Those who believe in instituting national content and world-class performance standards, such as those found in Japan and Great Britain, want U.S. students to be competitive. Proponents believe that national standards are needed in math, science, history, the arts, civics, geography, and English to identify what students need to know to live and work in the twenty-first century. President Bush's America 2000 Plan was based on the notion that by the year 2000 all American students would demonstrate competency in challenging subjects. In 1991 Congress established the National Council on Education Standards and Testing, a bipartisan panel that recommended the creation of voluntary national standards and a voluntary national system of student assessment based on world-class standards. Opponents argue that getting universal agreement on what constitutes a basic education is almost impossible. They also charge that standards do little or nothing about the issue of equalizing educational opportunities, such as improving teacher preparation and curricula to ensure that poor and minority students can meet agreed-on standards. Still others argue that setting national standards amounts to little if there is no local discussion about what children should learn, and that setting national standards may lead to a national curriculum and to national testing.

School Finance. Funding inequities have long divided good" and "bad" schools. Reform advocates argue that true educational opportunities for all children can only come through equalized school funding. Disproportionate numbers of poor and minority students attend schools that have few resources, the most crowded classrooms, and the lowest per pupil expenditures. These inequalities perpetuate the economic gap between minority and nonminority families. In 1968 Demetfio Rodriguez and parents of children who attended schools in the Edgewood district in San Antonio, Texas-a district that was poor and 96 percent nonwhite-filed an important school finance case. The Mexican American Legal and Education Defense Fund (MALDEF) represented Rodriguez and argued funding disparities between wealthy and poor school districts. Nqiile the Texas federal district court held that Texas was in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (I973). In the words of Jonathan Kozol, author of Savage Inequalities (I991, p. 229), "Twenty-three years after Dimitri Rodriguez went to court, the children of the poorest people in the state of Texas are still waiting for an equal chance at education." So are the rest of the children attending underfunded inner-city schools throughout America.

Computer-Aided Learning. Teaching children with computers holds the promise for greater gains in student achievement through individualized learning. Yet children who attend poorly funded schools that lack computers and whose families cannot afford computers at home or whose homes are not electronically wired for computers will likely be unable to learn skills needed to gain employment in a technological society.

School-to-Work Transition. Schools of today have allowed students in non-college preparatory programs to flounder by taking a general education course core that does little or nothing to prepare them for the world of work. Many students find high school boring, underachiever and graduate with no preparation for the work world. Consequently, experimental programs such as Boston's Project Pro Tech, funded partly by the U.S. Labor Department, are being created. The Boston project links three high schools with the city's health care industry. The school curriculum for students in this program is developed using rea]4ife applications. Students are involved in youth apprenticeship programs that help them gain employable skills, a work income, and an academic education.

Drug and Sex Education. For many inner-city children, especially "latchkey" children and those who come from broken homes, their role models are dropouts and drug dealers. These kids find it easy to gain acceptance by having children or doing drugs. With the AIDS epidemic looming in schools and with an unprecedented number of children having children, drug education and sex education are becoming integral parts of the school curriculum. But this is not happening without opposition from conservative groups, who argue that these forms of education, as well as condom distribution, actually encourage sexual promiscuity and drug abuse. In 1993, the chancellor of the New York City schools was dismissed in part because of his support for condom distribution and tolerance of homosexuals. These concerns give rise to the following questions: To what extent should schools become social service agencies? To what extent should schools replace the role of parents in instilling values@

School Safety. Minority children are largely attending schools embedded in violent neighborhoods and are becoming victims of attack in school. One in three Latinos, one in five African Americans, and one in eight whites reported that gangs operated in their schools in 1989 (Ramirez, 1993). Inner-city schools face the challenge of creating safe learning environments. Yet these are the very schools that lack the resources to create and maintain campus safety.

Year-Round Schools and Extended School Days. The basic premise of year-round schools and extended school days is that American students have too much time of Japan's school year consists of 240 eight-hour days, While American schools average 180 days of about six and a half hours. Many educators feel the longer hours explain why Japanese schoolchildren score two or three years ahead on standardized achievement tests. In America, many minority educators believe that students should be exposed to academically reinforcing activities such as Saturday academies and after-school and summer programs. More important, the quality of education available to poor and minority youngsters needs great improvement.

Tracking. Considered one of the most pernicious barriers to minority student progress, tracking occurs early on in schooling, when children are classified as advanced, average, or behind. This judgment, often made without formal assessment, can sea] a child's fate for life. "Slow" students almost never catch up, since they are made to engage in mundane activities while advanced students engage in higher order thinking skills. Minority children, as well as those for whom English is a second language, are often misdiagnosed as slow learners or as having. learning disabilities. Yet tracking persists because many teachers are unequipped to develop strategies that help all children achieve and harbor the belief that minority children have low levels of learning ability.

Teacher Preparation. Instead of inner-city schools getting the best-prepared teachers, most get the opposite. Having few resources, poor school districts are unable to attract outstanding teachers, who tend to be lured by wealthier schools paying higher salaries. Consequently, minority children often have the least-qualified and least-experienced teachers. Moreover, teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities have largely been lax in preparing teachers to work with multicultural students in urban settings.

Lack of Minority Teachers. At a time when almost one in three students in America's public schools belongs to a minority group, only 8 percent of teachers are African American, 3 percent are Hispanic, and 1.4 percent are Asian (Ramirez, 1993). The minority student population in schools will exceed 30 percent and approach 50 percent in most urban areas, but minority teachers are expected to decline from the current 10 percent of the teacher workforce to only 5 percent. Fewer than 8 percent of the students in teacher preparation programs are minority, and this pool is likely to shrink if candidates fail to pass teacher competency tests required for licensing in most states (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990). What will be the effects on minority children if they are taught by a largely white teacher workforce?

Student Assessment. With the growing trend toward developing performance standards, the issue of assessing student learning is becoming paramount. Yet it is well known that although some minority students do well on standardized tests, many do not. Explanations for this situation include the following: some of these tests incorporate questions that are culturally biased, minority students are likely to attend inferior schools that give them a poor-quality education, and they are less likely to have access to courses and computer software that could help them prepare for standardized tests.

Multicultural Education. With America being a multicultural nation, many educators believe that the curriculum should include multicultural education. Proponents argue that students should be exposed to and helped to understand diverse cultures and ways of knowing in order to help them function in a multicultural society. Opponents believe that multicultural ism focuses too much on difference, and that what students need is a common perspective about American life. Distorted views about multicultural education have led to divisiveness between those who argue for particularistic approaches, where separate courses emphasize each of the primary racial and ethnic groups in America, and those who advocate a pluralistic or infusion approach that calls for all courses to include content that is more representative of the pluralistic nature of this country.

Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language. With such a wide range of languages spoken in some schools today, there has been a dramatic growth in limited-English-proficiency (LEP) students. Between 1979 and 1989, public school enrollment of children who spoke a language other than English at home increased by 41 percent. Bilingual and ESL instruction are considered essential to help students make the successful transition into an English-driven curriculum. Bilingual education, which builds on the students' first language and moves them toward the development of English proficiency, is seen as the vehicle to facilitate this transition. Yet there is a shortage of qualified teachers, counselors, and other school personnel prepared to work with LEP students. Bilingual education also continues to be under attack from some educators, who believe that a common language is needed for national unity and that non-English instruction impedes assimilation. In any case, schools will need to be prepared to provide ESL instruction to the millions of adults who emigrate to this country.

Parental Involvement. Almost all educators believe parental involvement -is essential to student achievement. The problem is that many minority parents do not feel empowered to participate in school functions, especially those who speak little or no English or who have not graduated from high school. Yet there is evidence that minority parents do care about their children getting the best education, and schools need to do a better job of helping parents get involved in school management and academic activities.

Revitalization of Minority Communities. Education is a process that occurs within the context of the total community environment. Yet according to the report issued by the Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network in 1993, a significant percentage of the nation's low-income minority population is concentrated in low-income public housing and other impoverished communities. Many of the residents of these communities have been denied a high-quality education. Consequently, these communities are characterized by high rates of joblessness, deteriorating housing conditions, violence and other crime, substance abuse, and a lack of access to adequate health care and social services. Improving schools will resolve only part of the problem. What is needed is the revitalization of minority communities through a comprehensive, coordinated approach that connects the various educational and social services of the community. The Quality Education for Minorities Network initiated pilot sites for campus-based community service centers in six cities that link the resources of participating colleges and universities to the needs of neighboring low-income public housing.

In summary, poor and minority children constitute the nation's most imperiled resource. They deserve the best but are likely to receive the worst. It is no wonder that so many students have lost faith in the American system of education, drop out before high school graduation, and believe that a college education is beyond their reach. Consequently, few minorities are earning college degrees, even though gains have been made during the past ten years. According to Hodgkinson (1991), a large segment of the baby "boomers" that occurred mostly in Florida, Texas, and California faces the prospect of childhood poverty, along with limited educational opportunities. Without support, these children risk school failure and may not guarantee more enrollments for higher education.

The next section examines the issues institutions of higher education must confront as they work with a new student majority.

A New Student Majority in Higher Education

The future of higher education is already here. All that the children of immigrant and native-born Americans have to do is get older, for they constitute the next generation of potential college students. Higher education is not well prepared for this reality. As the pool of potential white college students shrinks, the pool of students of color expands, especially the number of college-age Hispanics. The sharp decrease in the number of college-age youths that began in the mid 1980s continued through 1993. This was due primarily to a continuing decline of whites age eighteen to twenty-four. Interestingly, African Americans also followed this trend, With a college-age population that declined by 9 percent over the same period. Conversely, the number of Hispanics in this age group increased by 37 percent between 1983 and 1993. Nonetheless, college enrollments for African American, Asian, American Indian, and Latino students increased by 57.6 percent from 1983 to 1993. The highest increases were seen for Hispanics, American Indians, and Asian Americans and the smallest for African Americans (Carter and Wilson, 1995).

The share of bachelor's degrees awarded to minority students is another bright spot in higher education. Between 1991 and 1992, the share of bachelor's degrees earned by minorities increased by 11.4 percent. The share of master's degrees earned during that same period increased by 12.4 percent. At the first professional degree level, degrees among students of color rose by 9.5 percent, and increased at the associate degree level by 8.3 percent. In all four degree categories, the increase for students of color was above the progress of white students (Carter and Wilson, 1995).

Yet all is not well in higher education. Educators are concerned that only small numbers of minority high school graduates are choosing to go to college, especially those in inner cities.

Many have lost faith in higher education. Despite enrollment growths during the 1980s, African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians continued to be under represented at many of the nation's two- and four-year colleges and universities. While students of color represented 23 percent of all undergraduate students in 1992, their representation among degree recipients remained far below their share of undergraduate enrollments (Carter and Wilson, 1995). Despite the concentration of minorities in community colleges, few complete the transfer process to four-year institutions where they can pursue bachelor's and graduate degrees. College entrance exams are still being used as the sole criterion or the most important criterion to determine college admission by many college and university programs, thereby excluding many talented minorities who have the potential to succeed in college. The under representation of minority students in fields requiring a math and science background persists. And evolving financial aid policy threatens access, since most minority students simply find it difficult to sustain their families and still have enough financial resources to attend college.

In addition, students of color are likely to be the victims of racist attitudes and behaviors on many predominantly white college campuses. Tensions on college campuses today mirror those in the larger society. Growing student diversity and intense competition for student aid and admissions have fueled many of these tensions. Intergroup hostility has occurred when minorities have called for the establishment of separate dormitories and cultural centers, and when administrators have been thought to overreact to the demands of minority students on campus. Some students have used acute measures to press college administrators to respond to their demands. To cite but two out of many examples, in 1993 Chicano students effectively used a fasting strategy and not-so-peaceful demonstrations to pressure the University of California at Los Angeles to create the Cesar Chavez Center for Interdisciplinary Instruction in Chicana and Chicano Studies. In 1992, African American students staged two days of sit-in demonstrations at Georgia State University to protest a climate of racial tension and to lobby for an African American Studies department, which they ultimately got.

Key Educational Issues in Higher Education

As higher education prepares to educate a new student majority, it will find that it must confront issues such as those sketched in the following paragraphs.

Curriculum Transformation. The influx of faculty and students of color is having an impact on the curriculum in higher education. Minorities and women are demanding a more inclusive curriculum that integrates issues of gender, race and ethnicity, class, sexuality, and culture. But moving away from the traditional canon has created great controversy, as some argue that ethnic and women's studies are uprooting the classic Eurocentric curriculum that predominates in the academy. Moreover, as gays and lesbians seek to augment the curriculum with gay studies, many minorities feel that ethnic studies will suffer since limited resources are available to support different study emphases.

Higher Education Finance. Today, almost every state in the union has some form of funding crisis. As a result, cutbacks in state funding have impacted faculty salaries, student fees, and enrollments, as well as programs and services for students. The impact on access to college for students of color can be felt in admissions (as colleges decide they can only enroll just so many students), financial aid, and student services. Lack of funding also affects minority faculty recruitment at a time when more faculty of color are needed to work with college students.

An important higher education finance case in Texas highlighted inequities in educational opportunities for minorities. In LULACV. Richards (1992), a group of Mexican American plaintiffs, represented by MALDEF, which had argued the San Antonio Independent School Distinct v. Rodriguez (I 973) school finance case, charged that the Texas higher education system was unconstitutional and unenforceable. MALDEF pointed out that few resources-in terms of both funding and academic programs, especially graduate programs-were being afforded to students who resided along the Texas-Mexico border, which is about two-thirds Mexican American and the poorest area in Texas. Engineer), 1992, State District judge Benjamin Euresti Jr., ruled that the Texas higher education system discriminated against Hispanic citizens. The court ruled that the Texas higher education system was unconstitutional and unenforceable because it did not provide Hispanic citizens equal rights and equal opportunity under the law. As a result, the state of Texas moved toward correcting inequities in funding formulas and ensuring equal treatment for six four-year colleges and universities in south Texas. Nonetheless, the Texas Supreme Court later ruled that the disparities in the state's higher education institutions between border and non-border schools were not the result of intentional discrimination against Mexican Americas. MALDEF continued litigation in phase two of the lawsuit, which alleged that the state discriminated against Mexican Americans and African Americans throughout the state in the areas of admissions, recruitment and retention, scholarships, and the use of standardized testing (Rodriguez, 1993).

Student aid. Access to college for minorities is linked to financial aid. Under the Bush administration, minority scholarships were attacked as discriminatory because they were thought to make less money available to white students. While President Clinton's administration appeared to have saved minority scholarships, in 1994 race-based scholarships were once again struck down. A federal court ruled that the University of Maryland could not award race-based scholarships, invalidating the university's Benjamin Banneker Scholarship Program for outstanding African American Students.

Faculty Diversification. Few minority faculty are available to work with students in higher education. In the fall of 1987, black faculty constituted 3.2 percent of the total faculty in higher education, Latinos represented 2.4 percent, Asians, 3.9 percent, and American Indians, 0.8 percent (Quality Education for Minorities Network, 1993). However, affirmative action efforts have come under attack from those who believe that they engender reverse racism and promote the hiring of unqualified persons simply to fill a quota. Nonetheless, minority faculty object to what they often feel are racist institutional environments that devalue their research interests, expect them to be "superstars," relegate them to the bottom tier of the professorate, and expect them to fulfill their scholarly demands while working extensively with students and their communities, something white male faculty members are rarely expected to do.

Transfer Rates from Two- to Four-Year Colleges. While minority students, especially Latinos and American Indians, are disproportionately enrolled in two-year colleges, the minority rate of transfer is so low that many question the viability of two-year colleges as conduits toward the baccalaureate. There is also concern that admission shift from college preparatory to vocational education may steer minorities away from careers that ensure long-term prosperity and upward mobility.

Admissions Standards. College admissions policies have been at the center of controversy since the Supreme Court considered the merits of Affirmative Action in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (I 978). In the Bakke decision, a five-to-four majority agreed that Bakke, a white medical student applicant to the University of California at Davis, had been wrongly excluded due to the university's affirmative action policy. However, the Court affirmed that race and gender could be taken into account when considering an applicant's qualifications in order to bring diversity and racial parity to American higher education. Critics have charged that colleges and universities have gone too far in overlooking deficiencies when making admissions decisions involving minorities and that preferential treatment implies quotas. Consequently, these institutions struggle with providing access and educational opportunities to under represented groups, while trying to avoid reverse discrimination.

Education Collaborative. Both research and practice efforts over the past twenty years have concluded that one sector, working alone, is insufficient to address the multitude of issues that plague poor and minority students. Postsecondary educators are beginning to realize that education is a continuous pathway, where every tier has some connection to the other. Consequently, partnerships involving corporations, foundations, churches, law enforcement and social service agencies, and schools and higher education institutions are being formed to link business and industry with educational institutions as well as with the community, in an effort to create an integrated system of education that works for all students.

Diversification of Instructional Strategies. Educating a new student majority requires rethinking the way instruction is delivered. College classes tend to be competitive as opposed to collaborative in nature, and faculty tend to use lecture as opposed to active learning techniques. However, the most used practices may have a detrimental effect on students with divergent ways of learning. While more research is needed to assess how students of color learn best, active learning strategies and group activities such as collaborative learning and learning communities are having a positive impact on students of color (Tinto, 1994).

Campus Climate. Many minority students at predominantly white colleges encounter a hostile campus climate. The number of racial incidents has increased, and many minorities find themselves the victims of hateful acts such as caricatures, jokes, and stereotyping by both students and faculty. American Indians have responded to culturally insensitive college mascots, logos, and chants at athletic events. According to the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, which has been monitoring acts of hostility against minorities on college campuses, up to 25 percent of minority students on campus now experience slurs, harassment, or assaults each year. That calculation does not include acts of group defamation such as graffiti or the burning of crosses. Nor does it count hostile acts against gays and lesbians or gender violence (Winbush, 1992). Some universities have responded by creating codes of speech and conduct. However, student speech and conduct codes are coming under fire from groups who argue that they infringe on First Amendment rights. While pressure has been placed on institutions to set up appropriate policies, practices, and organizational structures that are sensitive and supportive toward increased participation and achievement of people of color, resentment and resistance may harden as more and more minorities enroll in predominantly white colleges.

Graduate Opportunities. Despite modest gains in the 1980s, a shortage of minorities earning master's and doctoral degrees remains. Minority educators are calling on graduate schools to affirm their commitment to diversity by designing a plan of action to improve the representation of minorities in graduate and professional schools. In 1986-87, minority students represented about 11.5 percent of the graduate enrollment, yet earned only 10.4 percent of the master's degrees and 8.8 percent of the doctorates. In fact, nonresidents earned more doctorates (19.4 percent) than all minority students combined (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990).

Desegregation. Although the Supreme Court declared racial segregation at the college level unconstitutional at the same time it decided Brown v. Board of education in 1954, policies such as admissions requirements and hiring practices could still foster segregation. In the June 26, 1992, U.S. v. Fordice decision involving higher education systems in the South, the Supreme Court ruled that states should eliminate policies that foster segregation. The case is crucial given that some eighteen years ago a group of black plaintiffs sued the state of Mississippi for operating one system of universities for whites and a less desirable one for blacks. The Supreme Court ordered the district court to review all policies that "substantially restrict a person's choice of which institution to enter" and that "contribute to the racial identifiability" of the state's colleges and universities. The district court was also ordered to remove unjustifiable policies. The policies under review included admissions standards for historically white and historically black institutions, duplication of non-essential or non-core" programs between historically white and historically black institutions, and even whether "retention of all eight institutions itself affects student choice and perpetuates the segregated higher education system," and if so, whether one or more should be closed or merged. The Fordz'ce decision is bound to have a mayor impact on the survival of historically black institutions, as well as on admissions, curricular, faculty hiring, and financial resource policies in institutions of higher education (Division of Governmental Relations, 1993).

In summary, higher education is not immune to the issues surrounding ethnic and racial minorities. Nor does it operate in a vacuum. Increasingly, what happens in schools Ail] touch every facet of higher education. Society charges two- and four-year Colleges with a key responsibility: educating and training the next generation of leaders so that they can sustain the nation's world eminence, as well as its economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness. The consequences of failing to meet this imperative are enormous, both for students and for the nation as a whole. The concluding section underscores why schools and colleges must not fail an emerging student majority.

Conclusion

In the past, issues involving minority students were considered unique to only a small group and were ignored in favor of the concerns of the white students making up the majority of the student population. However, it is now clear that this nation can no longer discuss educational reform without considering the issues that surround ethnic and racial minorities. A group that by the year 2000 will account for 60 percent of total population growth and that currently is or will be the majority population in many urban cities and some states cannot be ignored or treated as unimportant. To continue to neglect the issues pertaining to this emerging student majority is to ignore the demographic reality that confronts this country. Ethnic and racial minorities are America's future. America cannot succeed without them. The education of racial and ethnic minorities constitutes an investment in building capital that will be necessary to sustain the nation's economic strength. Take health and pension requirements, for instance. As the baby boom generation starts reaching retirement age in the year 2010, resources derived from a younger workforce will be needed to sustain costs of health care and social security benefits (Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990).

A quality workforce demands a highly trained citizenry. Minorities, white women, and immigrants, will constitute over 90 percent of the net growth of the nation's workforce in the near future. In fact, it is expected that white males will constitute less than 10 percent of the net growth of the workforce between now and the year 2000. Consequently, developing the talents of this new, emerging workforce necessitates a high-quality educational system.

Work requirements are also changing as higher levels of skill are needed to remain competitive in the world economy. A high school diploma is no longer the ticket to the future. The real ticket is having the highest level of education possible as well as the specific skills required by a changing society. According to the Hudson Institute's 1987 publication Workforce 2000, between now and the year 2000, for the first time in history, a majority of all new jobs will require some form of postsecondary education Johnston and Arnold, 1987). Consequently, minorities cannot afford to end their education in high school. They must continue to further their education in two- and four-year colleges. The pay-off for advanced education is clear. In 1990, persons with a bachelor's degree earned an average of $2,116 per month, twice as much as high school graduates ($1,077) and four times as much as high school graduates ($492). Clearly, the education of minorities is synonymous with the success of America. But America cannot succeed if the door to educational opportunities is shut for all but a few students. Nor can it succeed if it wastes the talents of new Americans. This nation has made significant strides in granting civil rights, allowing for equal protection, desegregating schools, and making financial aid available to needy students. But all these strides are now in jeopardy. The chances of minorities getting an equal chance to succeed become nil as civil unrest escalates and minorities continue to attend poorly funded segregated schools. Other threats to parity are budget cutbacks resulting in tuition increases that restrict college enrollment, as well as uncertainties about the future of financial aid and affirmative action.

To fail this imperiled generation is to allow America to continue to become a divided society along the lines of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. If Americans fail to understand that all of us face a common destiny dictated by whether one or more groups fails or succeeds, this nation will become fragmented and weak. Yet if Americans learn to harness as well as develop the strengths of all citizens and incorporate them into our economy, this nation will prosper. The American vision for the future must allow ethnic and racial minorities to have equal access to economic and educational opportunities. This will require putting an end to the educational neglect of children at risk and keeping the door of opportunity open in higher education so that these students have the tools necessary to be fully functioning citizens who contribute to the success of our society. It will require the coordination of federal, state, and local resources to families and children. And it will require the end of educating poor and minority students in "bits and pieces," resulting in piecemeal delivery of services. Instead, a highly coordinated, system wide effort that involves the K-12 school system, two- and four-year colleges, business and industry, community-based organizations, religious organizations, and law enforcement and social service agencies, among others, will be needed to truly make a dent in a disjointed educational system that has for so long been fraught with neglect.

In short, the education of an emerging student minority is inextricably tied to the future of this nation. We can view the challenge before this nation as an economic or a moral one. But whether we believe that bargain-basement schools will produce a dime store economy or that the education of ethnic and racial minorities is a moral responsibility, the consequences of failing to meet this challenge are readily apparent. This country simply cannot afford the consequences of neglect, nor can it ignore the fact that within a relatively short period, people of color will constitute the nation's greatest resource. In the end the choice is clear: America can be resource rich or resource poor. The victims of neglect call yet again for America's response.

JOEL SPRING

Equality of educational opportunity means that everyone has an equal chance to receive an education. When defined as an equal chance to attend publicly supported schools, equal educational opportunity is primarily a legal issue. In this context, the provision of equal educational opportunity can be defined solely on the grounds of justice: If government provides a service like education, all classes of citizens should have equal access to that service.

Still, legal equality of opportunity to attend public schools does not guarantee an equal education. Public schools can be structured to deny equal educational opportunity. This is illustrated by events in Selma, Alabama, in the early 1990s. During the 1950s and 1960s, Selma was a center of violent civil rights protests demanding equal voting rights and integrated education. As a result, by the time of the school protests of 1990, legislation guaranteed African-American children equal educational opportunity to attend publicly supported schools. However, this right of attendance was undermined by a system of tracking students into different curricula. The dispute in 1990 centered on the racial distribution in advanced placement and college preparatory courses offered in Selma's public high school.

Selma, like many other communities in the South, separates races within the public schools by placing them in different curriculum tracks, such as college preparatory and advanced placement. The racial bias underlying the placement of students in such tracks is evident in Selma's high school. In Selma 90 % of all white students were placed in college preparatory and advanced-placement tracks, while only 3 % of all African-American students were placed in those tracks. According to Phyllis McClure, an education specialist with the legal Defense and Education Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), this form of racial segregation through tracking is common throughout southern states.

When Dr. Norward Roussell, Selma's first African-American school superintendent, tried to correct this racial imbalance by increasing the %age of African-American students in college preparatory and advanced-placement tracks to 10 %, he was notified by the white-dominated school board that he was being dismissed. Dr. Roussell stated that the school system was violating students' rights by tracking them primarily based on teachers' recommendations. "Of course, as you might imagine, most of the students in the bottom levels were black," he said in an interview in the February 21, 1990, issue of Education Week, "although many had standardized-test scores as high as or higher than those in the upper level." It required a school boycott by African-American students before he was reinstated. White parents reacted with threats to remove their children from the public schools and send them to private institutions.

Therefore, equality of educational opportunity requires more than just an equal chance to attend a publicly supported school. It also requires equal treatment within schools. Inequality of treatment in school can be a result of other factors as well. For many years handicapped students were denied equal access to an education because of the lack of provisions to fit their special needs. Entry into buildings and movement between floors were difficult for many handicapped students because they could not negotiate stairs, and neither ramps for wheelchairs nor elevators were provided. Equal educational opportunity for handicapped people has meant making physical changes in buildings.

Besides providing equal treatment in placement in curricular tracks and physical access to buildings, equality of educational opportunity requires positive recognition of the gender, race, and ethnic background of the student. Equality of educational opportunity has little meaning if students gain equal access to an education and then are taught they are inferior.

Inequality of treatment can occur in very subtle ways. This is particularly evident in the history of discrimination against women in education. For instance, while doing research on the history of education during World War 11, Felecia Briscoe encountered a reproduction of a poster of which the National Education Association had distributed 50,000 copies in 1944 as part of its "teacher recruiting and morale-building campaign." Titled "The Teacher, " the poster depicts a female teacher and an elementary-school-age boy and girl standing around a world globe. The little girl is wearing a neat dress and her hair is perfectly groomed. She is staring passively at the globe with a blank expression on her face, and her empty arms dangle beside her. The teacher is seated between the two children. Her head is turned away from the girl and she gazes with approval at the boy. The boy clutches a book in one hand and points to a place on the globe with the other. Unlike the girl, his hair is rumpled and his face is animated. The poster clearly conveys an impression that males are active learners and intellectually superior to females, whereas girls are passive and intellectually dull.

Equality of educational opportunity can be denied also to children from homes where English is not the spoken language, when no special provision for this language problem is made by the schools. Courts have ruled that children who do not fully comprehend the language of the school are being denied equal access to instruction. Equality of educational opportunity in this situation means that the schools must provide special help for children with non-English-speaking back-grounds.

In summary, the idea of equal educational opportunity covers a broad spectrum of educational issues including an equal chance to attend public supported schools, educational practices within schools, the content of the curriculum and textbooks, and recognition of the cultural and language background of the student. All of these issues are highlighted by the long history of racism in public schooling. Traditionally, racism played a major role in the denial of an equal chance to attend public school for African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asians. Today, problems of racism still affect efforts to provide equal educational opportunity. However, issues of race are entangled with issues of social class.

RACE AND SOCIAL CLASS

Does race or social class determine equal educational opportunity? Take the case of African-American Professor Cornell West. While a professor of theology at Princeton University, West, after lecturing on Plato's Republic, drove into New York City for a photo session for his new book. Driving, as he described it, an expensive car and planning to have dinner at an expensive restaurant, West felt the burden of the race line when stepping onto the streets of Manhattan. After parking his car, West tried to hail a taxicab to take him to the photo session. In a simmering rage, West watched taxi after taxi stop for white people while ignoring him. After an hour, a cab finally stopped for him. A similar experience occurred to David Dinkins, the former mayor of New York City. The first black mayor of the city watched as taxis responded to whites while ignoring him. Even the former leader of the city could not escape its racist temperament.

No matter how high a person's status or income, racism is still a problem. However, social class remains important. Opportunities are quite different for an African-American growing up in an upper-class household as compared with an African-American or white child growing up in poverty. Social class lines are as sharply drawn in the black community as they are in the white community. Therefore, it is important to consider social class as it intersects with race. White poverty is as detrimental to life chances as black poverty. Wealth is as disproportionately distributed in the African-American and Hispanic communities as in the white community. The upper class in the white community commands about the same %age (49.1) of total white income as the upper class of the African-American and Hispanic communities, 48.7 % and 49.5 %, respectively. Indeed, the lower class of each racial grouping shares similar small %ages of the total income of their race white, 3.8 %; African-American, 3.2 %; Hispanic, 3.6 %.

Although social class is highlighted by the income distribution within each racial group, race is still a factor in the overall distribution of income in the United States. Racial differences, according to household median income, white household incomes and per capita incomes are significantly above those of African-Americans $ 38,972 as compared to Hispanics ($26,626).

Race is also reflected in poverty rates. However, it is again important to remember that social class remains a factor within each racial group. The number of whites living in poverty is much larger than the combined numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics living in Poverty (24.4 million whites compared with a combined total of 17-4 million cans and Hispanics). On the other hand for African-Americans, the actual %ages of African-American (26.5%) and Hispanics (27%) is more than double that of whites social class .

Therefore, both race and social class must be considered in the provision of equal opportunity. An African-American child living in an upper-class family will probably have greater educational opportunities than a white child living in poverty. On the other hand, an African-American child might feel the disadvantage of race regarding educational opportunities in comparison to a white child from the same social class. In addition, the African-American child has a greater probability of being born into poverty than a white child.

THE ECONOMICS OF RACISM

What is the economic value of being white instead of African American? Andrew Hacker, along with his white students, determined that being white was worth a million dollars a year. In Two Nations: Black and White: Separate, Hostile, Unequal, Hacker describes presenting his students with a fictional account of a white person being visited

So the economic value of being white, could range from 20 to 23 % when comparing educational attainment. on the average, black men earned 21.8 % less than white men when they had the same level of education. For instance, an African-American without a high school education earned on the average 20.3 % less than a white man without a high school education. An African-American male with more than five years of college earned 22.9%less than a white man with a similar education.

DEFINING RACISM

Racism means prejudice plus power. The preceding differences in income based on educational attainment highlight this definition of racism. Racism refers to acts of oppression of one racial group toward another. One form of oppression is economic exploitation.

This definition of racism distinguishes between simple feelings of hostility and prejudice toward another racial group and the ability to turn those feelings into some form of oppression. For instance, black people might have prejudicial feelings toward white people, but they have little opportunity to express those prejudicial feelings in form of economic or political oppression of people. On the other hand, prejudicial feelings that white people might have towards blacks can turn into racism when they b for discrimination in education, housing, and the job market. Within this framework, racism be comes the act of social, political, and economic oppression of another group.

When discussions Of racism occur in my multicultural education classes, white students complain of a sense of hostility from black students and, consequently, accuse black students of racism. Black students respond that their feelings represent prejudice and not racism because they lack power to discriminate against whites. the

troubling aspect of this response is the implication that if these black students had the power, they would be racist. One black student pointed out that there are situations where blacks can commit racist acts against whites. The black student used the example of the killings of white passengers by a black man on a commuter railroad several years ago. The evidence seemed to indicate that the killer was motivated by extreme hatred of whites that the newspapers labeled "black rage." This was a racist act, the black student argued, because the gun represented power.

Racism is often thought of as "whites" oppressing "people of color." of course, there are many problems with this definition. if one parent is black and another white, are their children considered black or white? Can one white-skinned child of this marriage be considered white while one dark-skinned child is considered black? Jake Lamar recalls how the confusion over skin color sparked the development of his racial consciousness at the age of 3. Jake was sitting at the kitchen table when his Uncle Frank commented "about how obnoxious white people were." Jake responded, "But Monuny's white." His uncle replied that his mother was not white but was "just light-skinned." Jake then said that he thought was father, brother, and himself were black while his sister and mother were white. His mother then explained that they had many white ancestors that caused the variation in skin color, but they were still "all Negroes." Thinking back on this incident, Jake Lamar reflected, "Black and white then meant something beyond pigmentation . . . so my first encounter with racial awareness was at once enlightening and confusing, and shot through with ambiguity."

But what do these racial classifications mean? Many residents of the United States have a mixed racial ancestry. For instance, how do you classify a person with ancestors who were European, African, and Native American? How do you classify an immigrant from Mexico whose parents are Native American? Most immigrants from Central and South American are descents from Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans. One woman (rom Central America) in my class had an Asian father and a Mayan Indian mother. Is she Hispanic, Asian or Native American? A resolution is to create a separate category called multiracial. Many U.S. citizens who now identify themselves as whites Native American ancestors. should they continue to be classified as white or should they be considered multiracial?

With the problem of racial classification in mind, you should consider the differences in drop out rates. The high drop rate of 18.2%among Native Americans reflects a historical pattern where native Americans identify school as the institution of the conqueror. Are the high drop out rates, in comparison with whiles (4.3%), of Hispanics (10.9%) and Black (7.6%) a reflection of institutional racism? The high drop out rate of 10.9%for students from families living below the poverty line suggests that poverty is a factor. Is poverty a more important factor than race? Interestingly, the type of family structure has little relationship to dropping out.

Keeping in mind classification and the importance of social class, certain generalities can be made about the racial attitudes of whites at the end of the twentieth century. in Prejudice and Racism, social Psychologist James Jones summarizes the racial attitudes of some whites.

* Whites feel more negatively toward blacks than Hispanics, Asians, and legal and illegal immigrants.

* Whites perceive blacks as lazy, violent, and less intelligent than Hispanics, Asians, and legal and illegal immigrants.

* Whites believe blacks are receiving more attention from government than they deserve.

* Whites believe blacks are too demanding in their struggle for equal rights.

* High levels of antiblack racism are correlated with white attitudes that police and the death penalty make streets safe, and with opposition to assistance to * Anti-Black and anti-Hispanic racism correlated with whites' opposition to open immigration and multilingualism.

THE CHANGING COLOR OF THE UNITED STATES

The changing complexion of the U.S. population highlights the importance of overcoming racism and prejudice in providing equal educational opportunity. White-antiblack racism has traditionally been the focus of concern. However, with Native American and Mexican-American activism, and immigration, other forms of prejudice and racism play a role in providing equal educational opportunity. Some African-Americans have hostile attitudes toward immigrants as they compete for jobs. Some Asian immigrant arrive with racist feelings about African-Americans. Native Americans are demanding restoration of traditional rights and lands. All of these factors complicate efforts at providing equal educational opportunity.

In 1998, the changing racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population and resulting educational issues were understood by the Advisory Board for the President's Initiative on Race in One America in the 215' Century: Forging a New Future. The Advisory Board's report presented the following projections and facts:

* By the year 2050, about 50 % of the U.S. population will be composed of Asians, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians

* By the year 2005, Hispanics, who may be the largest of any race, are projected to be the largest minority group in the U.S.

* As of 1997, 61 %of the Asian population and 38 %of the Hispanic population were foreign-born. In contrast, only 8 %of whites, 6 %of blacks, and 6 %of American Indians were foreign born.

Educational issues regarding this changing population are directly related to residential patterns and educational attainment of immigrants. Of fundamental importance for the future funding of public schools and the provision of equal educational opportunity is the fact that most African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics are living in central cities. According to the Advisory Board for the President's Initiative on Race:

Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are more likely to live in central cities of metropolitan areas than are non-Hispanic whites or American Indians.

A large %age of non-Hispanic whites and Asians live in suburbs. The fraction living in suburbs has increased since 1970.

In addition, immigrant populations bring with them a variety of educational backgrounds. The Advisory Board emphasized the following:

* On the average, Asian immigrants are highly educated and have high incomes.

* Hispanic immigrants, along with immigrants from some Asian countries, have relatively low average levels of educational attainment and income.

Overall, the picture presented by the Advisory Board is a growing gap between the educational advantages of the suburbs and the educational problems of the central cities with changes in the population. These problems are related to the intersection of social class and race.

RACE, SOCIAL CLASS, AND EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

The Advisory Board for the President's Initiative on Race recognized that the problem of equal educational opportunity involves the intersection of poverty and race. Wealthy African-Americans, whites, Asians, and Hispanics can choose to live in school districts with adequate and exceptional public schools. In the words of the Advisory Board, "Our concern is that educational opportunities and public services are being restricted to those who live disproportionately in areas of concentrated poverty." The Advisory Board identified the following conditions in areas of concentrated poverty:

Schools with low expectations and standards

Substandard and crumbling school facilities

Inadequate public transportation

Poorly financed social services

In addition, the Advisory Board found that students from low-income families were less likely to have access to such educational opportunities and resources as:

Preschool programs

High-quality teachers

Challenging curriculums

High standards

Up-to-date technology

Modern facilities

In the context of the changing U.S. population and existing educational problems, the Advisory Board recommended the following to achieve equal educational opportunity:

ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE PRESIDENT'S INITIATIVE ON RACE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

I . Enhance early childhood learning. Data indicate that racial disparities persist in terms of early childhood learning. For example, 1996 data show that 89 % of white children ages 3 to 5 were read to three or more times per week compared with 74 % of black children and 62 % of Hispanic children ... efforts could include providing training and services for parents ... and expanding support for such programs as Head Start, Early Head Start, ,ind Even Start.

2. Strengthen teacher preparation and equity. High-quality teachers are too scarce a resource, especially in high-poverty, multilingual-minority communities . . . [action] could include creating incentives to both attract top students to teaching and encourage certified teachers to teach in under-served communities.

3. Promote school construction. It is estimated that building and renovating our public schools to adequately serve all students will cost more than $ 1 00 billion.

4. Promote movement from K-12 to higher education. Efforts must be taken to ensure equal opportunity in higher education and to strengthen the pipeline from K-12 through higher education. Such efforts should include support for partnerships between colleges and K-12 schools that increase expectations by exposing students to future educational opportunities . . .efforts could include increasing the availability of advanced-placement courses in high poverty, High-minority school districts and providing financial support, such as loans or grants, for college test preparation courses.

5. Promote the benefits of diversity in K-12 and higher education. Diversity can promote many benefits that accrue to all students and society, including: improve teaching and learning by providing a range of perspectives that enrich the learning environment; strengthen students' critical-thinking skills by challenging their existing perspectives improve students' preparation for employment . . . and foster the advancement of knowledge by spurring study in new areas of concern.

6. Provide education and skills training to overcome increasing income inequality that negatively affects lower-skilled and less-educated immigrants. The high rates of Hispanic high school dropouts suggest . . . there is a clear need for continued English-language training to ensure that limited-English-proficient students can perform and compete in the educational system.

7. Implement the comprehensive American Indian and Alaska Native education policy. To meet the particular needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students, we urge . . . improving and expanding educational opportunities.

In summary, the recommendations for equality of educational opportunity include early childhood education, high-quality teachers in schools serving low-income families, school construction, equal access to higher education, diversity in the classroom, and adequate English instruction for children from non-English-speaking homes.

TEACHING ABOUT RACISM

The Advisory Board for the President's Initiative on Race was primarily concerned about the intersection of poverty and racial differences. It did not deal directly with the role that schools can play in reducing racism through classroom instruction. A variety of approaches to teaching about racism are available. One excellent book is Beverly Tatum's Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?- A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity. As Tatum points out, discussions of race often make white students feel guilty and their guilt can quickly turn into hostility and resentment. Educator and African-American activist Beverly Tatum worries about the loss of white allies in the struggle against racism and the hostility she feels from -white college students when teaching about racism. Reflecting on her teaching experiences, she writes, "White students . . . often struggle with strong feelings of guilt when they become aware of the pervasiveness of racism. . . . These feelings are uncomfortable and can lead white students to resist learning about race and racism." Part of the problem, she argues, is that seeing oneself as the oppressor creates a negative self-image, which results in a withdrawal from a discussion of the problem. What needs to be done, she maintains, is to counter the guilt by giving white students a positive self-image of whites fighting against racism. In other words, a self-image of whites being allies with blacks in the struggle against racism.

A popular anti-racist curricula for preschool children is the National Association for the Education of Young Children's Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Young Children. This curriculum and related methods of instruction are designed to reduce prejudice among young children regarding race, language, gender, and physical ability differences. The premise of the method is that at an early age children become aware of the connection between power and skin color, language, and physical disabilities. Cited as examples are a 2 1/2-year-old Asian child who refuses to hold the hand of a black classmate because "It's dirty" and a 4-year-old boy who takes over the driving of a pretended bus because "Girls can't be bus drivers."

According to the Anti-Bias Curriculum, research findings show that young children classify differences between people and they are influenced by bias toward others. By the age of 2, children are aware of gender differences and begin to apply color names to skin colors. Between ages 3 and 5, children try to figure out who they are by examining the differences in gender and skin color. By 4 or 5 years old, children engage in socially determined gender roles and they give racial reasons for the selection of friends. Based on these research findings, the advocates of the curriculum believe that prejudice can be reduced if there is conscious intervention to curb the development of biased concepts and activities.

Another anti-racist education program is the Teaching Tolerance Project that began. after a group of teenage skinheads attacked and beat to death an Ethiopian man on a street in Portland, Oregon, in 1988. After this incident, members of the Southern Poverty Law Center decided it was time to do something about teaching tolerance. Dedicated to pursuing legal issues involving racial incidents and denial of civil rights, the Law Center sued, for the man's family, the two men who were responsible for teaching violent racism to the Portland skinheads. These two teachers, Tom Metzger, the head of the White Aryan Resistance, and his son, became symbols of racist teachings in the United States. In a broad sense, the Teaching Tolerance Project is designed to provide information about teaching methods and materials that will counter the type of racist teachings represented by Metzger and his son.

Similar to the Anti-Bias Curriculum, the Teaching Tolerance Project primarily defines racism as a function of psychological attitudes, in contrast to an emphasis on racism as a function of economic exploitation. On the inside cover of its magazine, Teaching Tolerance, tolerance is defined as "the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." Within the context of this definition, the project members "primarily celebrate and recognize the beliefs and practices of racial and ethnic groups such as African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans."

The primary purpose of the Teaching Tolerance Project is to provide resources and materials to schools to promote "interracial and intercultural understanding between whites and nonwhites' Although this is the primary focus of the project, there have been decisions to include material dealing with cultural tolerance, homelessness, and poverty. The Teaching Tolerance Project is only one of many educational attempts to end racism in the United States. The end of racism is essential for the full provision of equality of opportunity and equality of educational opportunity in U.S. society.

THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

There are legal justifications for the demand that schools provide equal educational opportunity. The historic case is the 1954 Supreme Court school desegregation case, Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka, which gave legal meaning to the idea that segregated education means unequal education. Until 1954, segregated schools in the U.S. operated under a ruling given by the Supreme court in 1895, Plessy V. Ferguson, that segregation did not create a badge of inferiority if segregated facilities were equal and the law was reasonable. The decision in both cases centered around the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment was ratified in is68, shortly after the close of the Civil war. one of its purposes was to extend the basic guarantees of the B ill of Rights into the areas of state and local government. The most important, and controversy, section of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or minorities of citizens . . . nor . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 1895 decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, involved Horner Plessy, who was one-eighth African-American and seven-eighths white. He was arrested for refusing to ride in the colored coach of a train, as required by Louisiana state law. The Supreme Court's decision in this case that segregated facilities could exist if they were equal, became known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.

The 1954 desegregation decision, Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine by arguing, from the findings of social science, that segregated education was inherently unequal. This meant that even if school facilities, teachers, equipment, and all other physical conditions were equal between two racially segregated schools, the two schools would still be unequal because of the fact of racial segregation.

In 1964 Congress took a significant step toward speeding up school desegregation by Passing the important Civil Rights Act. About school desegregation, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was most important because it provided a means for the federal government to force school desegregation. In its final form, Title VI required the mandatory withholding of federal funds from institutions that practiced racial discrimination. Title VI states that no person, because of race, color, or national origin, could be excluded from or denied the benefits of any program receiving federal financial assistance. It required all federal agencies to establish guidelines to implement this policy. Refusal by institutions or projects to follow these guidelines was to result in the "termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity."

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was important for two reasons. First, it established a major precedent for federal control of American public schools, by making explicit that the control of money would be one method used by the federal governm to shape local school policies. (This aspect of the law will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.) Second, it tuned the federal Office of Education into a policing agency with the responsibility of determining whether or not school systems were segregated and, if they were, of doing something about the segregated conditions.

One result of Title VI was to speed up the process of school desegregation in the South, particularly after the passage of federal legislation in 1965 that increased the amount of money available to local schools from the federal government. In the late 1960s southern school districts rapidly began to submit school desegregation plans to the Office of Education.

In the North, prosecution of inequality in educational opportunity as it related to school segregation required a different approach from that used in the South. In the South, school segregation existed by legislative acts that required separation of the races. There were no specific laws requiring separation of the races in the North. But even without specific laws, racial segregation existed. Therefore, it was necessary for individuals bringing complaints against northern school districts to prove that the existing patterns of racial segregation were the result of purposeful action by the school district. it had to be proved that school officials intended racial segregation to be a result of their educational policies.

The conditions required to prove segregation were explicitly outlined in 1974, in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case Oliver v. Michigan State Board of Education. The court stated, "A presumption of segregative purpose arises when plaintiffs establish that the natural, probable and foreseeable result of public officials' action or inaction was an increase or perpetuation of public school segregation." This did not mean that individual motives or prejudices were to be investigated, but that the overall pattern of school actions had to be shown to increase racial segregation; that is, in the language of the court: "the question whether a purpose fit the pattern of segregation has manifested itself over time, despite the fact that individual official actions, considered alone, may not have been taken for segregative purposes."

INTEGRATION: MAGNET SCHOOLS AND CHOICE

As school desegregation proceeded across the country it caused a fundamental change in the organization of school curricula, with the introduction of magnet, or alternative, schools. Magnet, or alternative, schools are designed to provide an attractive program that will have wide appeal throughout a school district. Theoretically, magnet schools will attract enough students from all racial backgrounds to achieve integrated schools. For instance, a school district might establish a school for creative and performing arts that would attract students of all races from all areas of the district. If one criterion in selecting students is the maintenance of racial balance, then that school becomes a means of achieving integration.

The great attraction of magnet schools, and a major reason they are widely supported, is that they provide a means of voluntary desegregation. Also, they are supported because it is believed they will reduce the flight of middle-class and white families from school districts undergoing desegregation. It is hoped that by providing unique and attractive programs, school districts will stabilize their populations as voluntary desegregation takes place.

The concept of magnet schools also received support from the federal government, which aided in their rapid adoption by school districts. The 1976 amendments to the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) provided financial support specifically for magnet school programs. In addition, President Ronald Reagan's administration in 1984 used magnet-school plans as its method of achieving out-of court settlements of desegregation cases.

Some school districts developed elaborate plans for magnet schools. In Houston, Texas, magnet schools were established ranging from the Petro-Chemical Careers Institute to the High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal justice. In most school districts, magnet schools are introduced by first offering a program in creative and performing arts. For example, both Philadelphia and Cincinnati established a School of Creative and Performing Arts as their early magnet school offering. In Philadelphia, school-desegregation plans resulted in schools offering programs that range from the study of foreign affairs to community-based education. Often, special programs already in existence, particularly for academic excellence and vocational training, were classified as magnet schools.

By the 1990s, the magnet-school movement was incorporated into the concept of "choice" in education. Conservative and Republican political leaders in the 1980s argued that public schools would improve if they were forced to compete for students. A free marketplace idea of quality through competition was introduced into education. If schools were unable to attract students in a school district, they would either have to improve or close their doors.

THE FAILURE OF DESEGREGATION

Although the civil rights struggle held out the hope for greater equality of educational opportunity for many groups that were traditionally oppressed in American society, its actual results regarding desegregation have been rather dismal. On the positive side, there no longer exist state laws requiring school segregation. On the negative side, segregated schools continue to exist around the country. In 1992, the %age of African-Americans and Hispanics attending segregated schools rose, and Illinois, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, California, and Texas now lead the nation in segregation.

Although actual segregation of students by race is increasing in some areas, the courts are beginning to rule that some school systems are now "legally" desegregated. In 1994, federal judges declared school systems in Savannah, Georgia, and Dallas, Texas, to be legally desegregated. These decisions ended court supervision of the school systems. To accomplish desegregation, the Savannah school system spent $57 million since 1988, which, in part, was spent on creating twenty-two magnet schools. The Dallas school system spent $20 million on a "super-magnet" school to house six existing magnet high schools. While "legal" segregation has ended in some school systems, many schools are experiencing second-generation segregation.

SECOND-GENERATION SEGREGATION

Second Generation Segregation refers to forms of racial segregation that are a result of school practices such as tracking, ability grouping, and the misplacement of students in special education classes. Unlike segregation that existed by state laws in the South before the 1954 Brown decision, second-generation forms of segregation can occur in schools with balanced racial populations. In schools with balanced racial populations, students can be segregated by, for instance, placing all white students in one academic track and all African-American or Hispanic students in another track.

Occasionally, second-generation segregation is not accidental, but the result of conscious school policies. The situation in Selma, Alabama, in 1990 is a perfect example of consciously planned second-generation segregation. The boycott of Selma schools was prompted by the school board's attempt to fire the African-American superintendent who tried to increase the %age of African-American students in the upper-ability tracks of the high school from 3 to 10 %. The obvious purpose of the tracking system was to segregate white from African-American students. This segregation paralleled the economic segregation existing in the community.

The continuing economic segregation in Selma is highlighted in an interview with Professor William Bernard of the University of Alabama, conducted by Ronald Smothers for the New York Times. Bernard describes what he considers to be the "dual view of great change and no change." In this case, "the great change" is the appearance of African-Americans on the city councils and school boards of the South and the "no change" is the continuation of a segregated social order and white domination of economic power. Professor Bernard provides the following description of the economic order of the South:

Like Sinclair Lewis's "Main Street," there is a group of real estate, banking and other professional people who are the power in town, and much of the way people live is more affected by the decision of the banker than of the City Council. You don't have black bankers, but neither do you have white bankers from the wrong side of the tracks.

In reporter Smothers's interviews, African-Americans refer to the "white elite" and whites refer to the "blue bloods" who controlled the town's economy and political system. Aspiring African-American businesspeople spoke of their inability to get loans to start new businesses because of the economic elite working behind the scenes. Obviously, new African-American businesses would compete with existing white businesses. This white power elite controls Selma's city council, which includes four African-Americans among nine members. In Selma, the school board is appointed by the city council and includes five African-Americans among eleven members. Thus, the city council and school board reflect Professor Bernard's statement about the "dual view of great change and no change." The great change is the presence of African-Americans on the city council and school board, and the no change is the continuing economic power of a white elite.

Also, tracking in the Sehna high school reflects the "dual view of great change and no change." The great change is the integration of the school building and the 3 % of African-Americans placed in the high-ability tracks with 90%of the white students. The no change is the racial segregation that continues with the tracking system. The segregation resulting from the tracking system reflects the economic differences in the community. Tracking is a method of closing the door to equal economic opportunity for African-Americans in Selma.

Nationally, most studies examine the process of great change and no change as integration of schools results in segregation within schools. One collection of studies can be found in Ray Rist's Desegregated Schools: Appraisals of an American Experiment. The studies describe the subtle forms of segregation that began to occur as white and African-American students were placed in integrated schools for the first time. For instance, in one recently integrated school, African-American students were suspended for committing the same offenses for which white students received only a reprimand. A teacher in the school complained that, unlike African-American students, when white students were sent to the principal's office, they were immediately sent back to class. In this school, equal opportunity to attend the school did not result in equal treatment within the school.

Unequal treatment of different races while in the same school is one problem in integrated schools; the establishment of racial boundaries among students creates another. One study in the Rist book describes how racial boundaries were established in a high school in Memphis, Tennessee, after the students of an all-African-American school were integrated with the students of an all-white school. Here, white students maintained control over most student activities. Activities in which African-American students began to participate after integration were athletics and cheerleading. When this occurred, the status of these activities was denigrated by white students. On the other hand, whites could maintain control of the student government, ROTC, school clubs, and the staff of the yearbook.

This division of control among student activities reflected the rigid social boundaries that existed in the high school between the two groups. Individuals who crossed these social boundaries had to adapt to the social customs of those on the other side. For instance, African-American students changed their style of dress and social conduct to be accepted by white students. African-American students who crossed racial lines by making such changes found themselves accused by other African-American students of "acting white" and were subsequently rejected by "unchanged" African-American students. The same was true of white students who crossed racial boundaries.

The racial boundaries that continue to exist in high schools after integration reflects the racial barriers that continue in the larger society. The social life of a school often reflects the social world outside the school. Integration of a school system can help ensure equality of educational opportunity, but it cannot break down society's racial barriers. Although schools attempt to deal with this problem, its solution requires a general transformation of racial relationships in the larger society.

SEGREGATION AND POLITICAL POWER

Two important books by Kemieth Meier, Joseph Stewar t, Jr., and Robert England's, Race, Class, and Education: The Politics of Second-Generation Discrimination, and Kenneth Meier and Joseph Stewart, jr.'s, The Politics of Hispanic Education focus on the relationship between political involvement and second-generation segregation. The two books are concerned with political organizations that promote segregative practices in schools and deny certain groups equality of educational opportunity. In addition, they link segregative practices with student achievement. They consider student achievement to be dependent on equal access to educational opportunities.

The main conclusion of these authors' studies is that segregative practices in schools are reduced by the presence on boards of education and in educational bureaucracies of representatives from affected groups such as Hispanics and African-Americans. Therefore, their suggested reforms focus on ways to increase representation

from dominated groups.

In their research, they found that schools still practice segregation through academic grouping, such as placement in special education classes, ability grouping, curriculum tracking, and segregated bilingual education. In addition, the researchers found that discipline is applied in different ways to different ethnic and racial groups. For instance, Hispanic and African-American students might be suspended or expelled from school at different rates than white students. Finally, they concluded that these segregative practices affect high school graduation rates.

About Hispanic-Americans, they conclude that the larger the number of Hispanic representatives in an educational system, the less chance of second-generation segregation. In their study, representation includes boards of education, educational bureaucracies, and teachers. In other words, there will be less second-generation segregation if there are more Hispanics on boards of education, and working as school administrators and teachers.

In addition, Meier and Stewart found an interrelationship between representation on boards of education and representation in the bureaucracy and teaching ranks. The higher representation of Hispanics on boards of education, the higher representation of Hispanics in the school administration. In other words, Hispanic representation on boards of education creates a greater-than-normal possibility that the board will choose Hispanic administrators. In turn, they found, the higher the representation of Hispanics in the bureaucracy, the higher the number of Hispanic teachers.

These findings suggest a chain reaction. Hispanics are elected to the board of education and they select more Hispanic administrators, who in turn select more Hispanic teachers, which results in a decline in second-generation segregation and greater equality of educational opportunity. Specially, the authors found that greater Hispanic representation is associated with proportionately fewer Hispanic students in special education classes and larger numbers of Hispanic students in gifted programs. Also, higher rates of Hispanic representation are related to less disparity in discipline. And finally, a higher representation of Hispanics is related to a higher proportion of Hispanics graduating from high school.

Policy recommendations follow logically from these conclusions. of course, Meier and Stewart recommend greater representation of minority populations on school boards. They recommend greater federal scrutiny of second-generation forms of discrimination and that school districts hire more Hispanic administrators and teachers. They recommend the elimination of most academic grouping.

Finally, the most important message in their research is that political power is the key to having a school system serve a group's educational interests. And for Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans, this political power is essential to ending forms of inequality of educational opportunity. just as African-Americans in the south had to organize to stop segregation, other groups must exercise political muscle to stop second-generation forms of segregation.

NATIVE AMERICANS

Although African-Americans are at the forefront of the struggle for equal educational opportunity, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans joined the civil rights movement with complaints that government schools were destroying their cultures and languages, and that they were subject to segregation. In particular, Native Americans wanted to gain control of the education of their children and restore their cultural heritage and languages to the curriculum. The demand for self-determination by Native Americans received consideration in government decisions after the election of John F. Kennedy in ig6o. The Kennedy administration advocated Indian participation in decisions regarding federal policies. Kennedy's secretary of interior, Stewart Udall, appointed a Task Force on Indian Affairs that, in its 1961 report, recommended than Native Americans be given full citizenship and self-sufficiency.

A result of the drive for self-determination was the creation of the Rough Rock Demonstration School in 1966. Established on a Navajo reservation in Arizona, the school was a joint effort of' the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. One major goal of the demonstration school was for Navajo parents to control the education of their children and to participate in all aspects of their schooling.

Besides tribal control, one important feature of the Rough Rock Demonstration School was the attempt to preserve the Navajo language and culture. In contrast to the attempts to destroy Native cultures and languages that took place in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the goal of learning both Navajo and English was presented for preparing children to live in both cultures.

The struggle for self-determination was aided by the development of a pan-Indian movement in the United States. The pan-Indian movement was based on the assumption that Native American tribes shared a common set of values and interests. Pan-Indian organizations, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the Indians of All Tribes, led demonstrations demanding self-determination. In 1969, members of the Indians of All Tribes seized Alcatraz Indians in San Francisco Bay calling attention to the plight of Native Americans and demanding that the island, which Indians had originally sold to the federal government for $24 worth of beads, be made an Indian cultural and education center. In 1972, AIM organized a march on Washington, D.C. called the Trail of Broken Treaties. Members of the march seized the Bureau of Indian Affairs and hung a large sign at its entrance declaring it the American Indian Embassy.

It was in this climate of civil rights activism and political support for Indian self-determination that the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor, and Public Welfare issued in 1969 the report Indian Education: A National Tragedy-A National Challenge. The report opened with a statement condemning previous educational policies of the federal government: "A careful review of the historical literature reveals that the dominant policy of the Federal Government toward the American Indian has been one of forced assimilation . . . [because of] a desire to divest the Indian of his land."

After a lengthy review of the failure of past educational policies, the report's first recommendation was for "maximum participation and control by Indians in establishing Indian education programs." In its second recommendation, the report called for maximum Indian participation in the development of educational programs in federal schools and local public schools. These educational programs were to include early childhood education, vocational education, work-study, and adult literacy education.

The congressional debates resulting from the report eventually culminated in the passage of the Indian Education Act in 1972. The declared policy of the legislation was to provide financial assistance to local schools to develop programs to meet the special" educational needs of Native American students In addition, the legislation created a federal "Office of Indian Education."

In 1974, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a set of procedures for protecting student rights and due process. In contrast to the brutal and dictatorial treatment of Indian students in the boarding schools of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, each Indian student was extended the right "to make his or her own decisions where applicable. " And, in striking contrast to earlier deculturalization policies, Indian students were granted "the right to freedom of religion and culture."

The most important piece of legislation supporting self-determination was the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which gave tribes the power to contract with the federal government to run their own education and health programs. The legislation opened with the declaration that it was "an Act to provide maximum Indian participation in the Government and education of Indian people; to provide for the full participation of Indian tribes in programs and services conducted by the federal government. . . ."

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act strengthened Indian participation in the control of education programs. The legislation provided that a local school district receiving funds for the education of Indian students that did not have a school board composed of mostly Indians had to establish a separate local committee composed of parents of Indian students in the school. This committee was given the authority over any Indian education programs contracted with the federal government.

The principles embodied in the Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 were expanded upon in 1988 with the passage of the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. Besides the right to operate schools under a federal contract as provided in the 1975 legislation, the Tribally Controlled Schools Act provided for outright grants to tribes to support the operation of their own schools.

On August 6, 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order for American Indian and Alaska Native Education directing a comprehensive and coordinated federal effort to improve academic performance and reduce dropout rates among Native Americans. The Executive Order emphasized that this effort would be consistent with "tribal traditions and cultures." President Clinton identified six major goals:

1i .Improving reading and mathematics

2.Increasing high school completion and post-secondary attendance rates

3.Reducing poverty and substance abuse

4.Creating strong, safe, and drug-free school environments

5.Improving science education

6.Expanding educational technology

In addition, the Executive Order requested a writing of a comprehensive federal Indian education policy by the year 2000. Included in this policy would be a consideration of the role of native languages and cultures in the development of educational strategies.

MEXICAN-.AMERICANS

Similar to African-Americans, Mexican-Americans experienced many years of segregation in schools throughout the Southwest and attempted to redress their grievances through the courts. In Ontario, California, in 1945, Mexican-American parents demanded that the school board grant all requests for transfer out of segregated Mexican

schools. When the board refused this request, Gonzalo Mendez and William Guzman sued for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The school board responded to this suit by claiming that segregation was not based on race or national origins but on the necessity of providing special instruction. In other words, the school district justified segregation on the basis that Mexican-American children required special instruction because they came from homes where Spanish was the spoken language.

In 1946 a U.S. District Court ruled in Mendez et aL v. Westininster School District of Orange County that the only possible argument for segregation was the special educational needs of Mexican-American children. These needs involved the issue of learning English. Completely reversing the educational justification for segregation, the judge argued that "evidence clearly shows that Spanish-speaking children are retarded in learning English by lack of exposure to its use by segregation." Therefore, the court ruled segregation was illegal because it was not required by state law and because there was no valid educational justification for segregation.

Heartened by the Mendez decision, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican-American equivalent of the NAACP, forged ahead in its legal attack on segregation in Texas. With support from LULAC, a group of parents in 1948 sued the Bastrop Independent School District, charging that local school authorities had no legal right to segregate children of Mexican descent and that segregation was solely because the children were of Mexican descent. In Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School District, the court ruled that segregating Mexican-American children was illegal and discrimination. The ruling required that the local school district end all segregation. The court did give local school districts the right to separate some children in the first grade, only if scientific tests showed that they needed special instruction in English and the separation took place on the same campus.

Overall, LULAC was pleased with the decision. The one point they were dissatisfied with was the provision for the separation of children in the first grade. This allowed local schools to practice what was referred to in the latter part of the twentieth century as second-generation segregation. As discussed, second-generation segregation refers to the practice of using educational justifications for segregating children within a single school building. In fact, many local Texas school districts did use the proviso for that purpose.

Although the Mendez and Delgado decisions did hold out the promise of ending segregation of Mexican-Americans, local school districts used many tactics to avoid integration, including manipulation of school district lines, choice plans, and different forms of second-generation segregation. For instance, the California State Department of Education reported in 1966 that 57 % of the children with Spanish surnames were still attending schools that were predominantly Mexican American. In 1973, a civil rights activist, John Caughey, estimated that two-thirds of the Mexican-American children in Los Angeles attended segregated schools. In All Deliberate Speed.- Segregation and Exclusion in California Schools, 1855-1975, Charles Wollenberg estimates that in California by 1973 more Mexican and Mexican american children attended segregated schools than in 1947.

In 1970, Mexican-Americans were officially recognized by the federal courts as an identifiable dominated group in the public schools in a Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) case, Cisernos v. Corpus Christi Independent School District. A central issue in the case was whether or not the 1954 school desegregation decision could be applied to Mexican Americans. The original Brown decision dealt specifically with African-Americans who were segregated by state and local laws. In his final decision, judge Owen Cox ruled that blacks and Mexican-Americans were segregated in the Corpus Christi school system and that Mexican americans were an identifiable dominated group because of their language, culture, religion, and Spanish surnames.

Despite years of struggle, many Mexican americans still feel their demands for equality of educational opportunity have not been met. In the fall of 1994, the Latino Education Coalition in Denver, Colorado, threatened to call a student strike if the school district did not hire more bilingual education teachers, involve Latino parents in policy decisions, and increase the number of Latino students going on to college. The threat was reminiscent of 1969, when three thousand Latino students went on strike against the Denver school district because of high dropout rates, low academic achievement, and the district's failure to be sensitive to cultural differences. It would appear that only steady political pressure can ensure equality of educational opportunity.

ASIAN-AMERICANS

Also suffering a history of discrimination in U.S. schools, Asian-Americans are often viewed by others as the model minority group. And, until the publication of Ronald Takaki's Strangers front a Different Shore.- A History of Asian-Americans, Asian-Americans were usually invisible in standard U.S. history texts.

Ironically, the stereotype of a model minority student has caused many educators to overlook the educational problems encountered by many Asian-American students in U.S. schools. Part of the problem is the tendency for non-Asians to lump all Asian-Americans together. In fact, Asian-Americans represent a broad spectrum of different cultures and nations including, as Valerie Ooka Pang indicates in her article "Asian-American Children: A Diverse Population," "Cambodian, Chinese, East Indian, Filipino, Guamian, Hawaiian, Hmong, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Samoan, and Vietnamese . . . [and] smaller Asian-American groups within the category of all other Asians." According to U.S. Census classification there are sixteen of these smaller Asian-American groups.

The diversity of Asian-Americans also reflects a wide range of adjustment to conditions in the United States. Most non-Asians think of Asian-Americans as successful entrepreneurs and professionals who were model students while ill school and quickly moved up the economic ladder after graduation. In fact, a report issued in 1994 by the Asian Pacific American Public Institute and the Asian-American Center suggests that many Asian-Americans face a difficult economic life in the United States. For instance, according to the report, while 8 % of households nationally received public assistance in 1991, 77 % of Cambodian and Laotian households in California received public assistance. The report states that Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians have the highest rate of welfare dependency of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. For all Asian-Americans the per capita income in 1990 was $10,500, which was less than the $12,000 per capita income for non-Hispanic whites. Or, another way of viewing the economic differences in the Asian-American community, according to the report, is to consider that for every Asian-American family earning more than $75,000, there is an Asian-American family earning less than $10,000 a year. Although a third of Asian-Americans have college degrees, 23 % of those Asian-Americans over the age of 25 have less than a high school diploma. A quarter of all families in Chinatown in New York City are living below the poverty line.

While economic figures highlight the plight of many Asian-Americans, history points out the educational discrimination encountered by Asian-American students. In All Deliberate Speed, Charles Wollenberg tells the story of the denial of equal educational opportunity to Asian-Americans in California schools. With cries of "yellow peril" coming from the European-American population, the state superintendent of public instruction in California, William Welcher, pointed out in 1884 that the state constitution called Chinese "dangerous to the well-being of the state" and, therefore, argued that San Francisco did not have "to undergo the expense of educating such people." Denied a public education for his daughter, Joseph Tape, an Americanized Chinese, challenged the decision in court. judge Maguire of the municipal court ruled that since the daughter, Mamie, was an American citizen she could not be denied equal educational opportunity according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, judge Maguire argued that it was unjust to tax Chinese for the support of a school system that excluded Chinese children. State superintendent Welcher reacted angrily to the decision, declaring it a "terrible disaster" and asked, "Shall we abandon the education of our children to provide that of the Chinese who are thrusting themselves upon us?"

In reaction to the court decision, the California State Assembly passed legislation allowing school districts to establish segregated schools for "Mongolians." This legislation empowered the San Francisco Board of Education to establish a segregated school for Asians. The courts affirmed this action in 1902, when Wong Him challenged the requirement of attending a segregated institution. Eventually, pressure from the Chinese-American community brought an end to segregation. In 1921, Chinese-American educator Mary Bo-Tze Lee challenged the segregation policy by showing that Chinese students scored as well as white students on IQ tests. As the Chinese population dispersed through the city, traditionally white schools were forced to open their doors to Chinese students. A study in 1947 found that formal school segregation had ended but that the original segregated Commodore Stockton school was still 100 % Chinese.

Asian-American students are currently discriminated against because of the stereotype of "model minority" student. Asian-American students with educational problems are often neglected because teachers assume they will do well in school. On the other hand, many non-Asian educators resent the achievement of some Asian-Americans. In 1987, Time magazine called Asian-Americans the "new whiz kids." Time reported that Asian-Americans comprised 25 % of the entering class at the University of California at Berkeley, 21 % at the California Institute of Technology, 20 % at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and 14 % at Harvard. Time magazine also reported in 1987 that because of quota systems many qualified Asian-Americans were being refused admission to major universities.

The largest number of complaints centered on the admission policies of the University of California at Berkeley. Time quotes the co-chair-person of the Asian-American Task Force on University Admissions, Alameda County Superior Court judge Ken Kawaichi, as stating that university administrators envision a campus that "is mostly white, mostly upper-class with limited numbers of African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians. One day they looked around and said, 'My goodness, look at this campus. What are all these Asian people doing here?' Then they started tinkering with the system."

The political actions taken by Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Native Americans to gain equal educational opportunity highlight the recent research findings that second-generation segregation can be reduced by the exercise of effective political power. As an earlier section suggests, there is evidence of a relationship among decreasing second-generation segregation, the election of Hispanics and African-Americans to school boards, and the hiring of Hispanics and African-Americans as teachers and school administrators. These findings are applicable to situations of segregation encountered by Native Americans and Asian-Americans.

THE RECENT STRUGGLE FOR EQUAL EDUCATION FOR WOMEN

Equal educational opportunity for women was high on the agenda of the National Organization for Women (NOW) when it organized in 1966. The founding document of the organization declared, "There is no civil rights movement to speak for women as there has been for Negroes and other victims of discrimination. 'The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak." In the NOW's founding document, education is called "the key to effective participation in today's economy . . . [and public schools should educate woman] to her full potential of human ability." During its first years of activism, NOW focused on the following:

* Eliminating discriminatory quotas against women in college and professional school admissions

Urging parents, counselors, and teachers to encourage women to pursue higher education and professional education

Eliminating discriminatory practices against women in the awarding of fellowships and loans

Investigating the problem of female school dropouts

NOW's activities and that of other women's organizations turned to legal action with the passage of Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act. Title IX provided for sexual equality in employment in educational institutions and for sexual equality in educational programs. The legislation applied to all educational institutions, including preschool, elementary and secondary schools, vocational and professional schools, and public and private undergraduate and graduate institutions. A 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Grove City College v. Bell, restricted Title IX in its application to specific educational programs within institutions. In the 1987 Civil Rights Restoration Act, Congress overturned the Court's decision and amended Title IX to include all activities of an educational institution receiving federal aid.

Armed with Title LK, NOW and other women's organizations placed pressure on local school Systems and colleges to ensure equal treatment of women in vocational education, athletic programs, textbooks and the curriculum, testing, and college admissions. Following is a brief chronological list of achievements in providing equality of educational opportunity for women:

* 1972 Legal action against school systems with segregated courses in home economics and industrial arts

* 1974 With backing from NOW, more than 1,000 women's studies departments are created on college campuses

* 1975 Federal regulations to end sex discrimination in athletics

* 1976 Laws regarding female work in athletics; gender-biased hiring in school administration

* 1976 Educational Equity Act authorizes Office of Education to prepare "non-sexist

curricula and nondiscriminatory vocational and career counseling, sports education, and other programs designed to achieve equity for all students regardless of sex"

* 1983 Last all-male school in IVY League, Columbia University, becomes coeducational

* 1986 FairTest organized to counter sex bias in High-stakes tests

* 1996 Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel become coeducational

By 1996, NOW and other women's organizations could claim the following accomplishments:

The number of female medical school graduates increased from 8.4 % in 1969 to 34.5 % in 1990.

Age of doctoral/professional degrees awarded women - 14.4 % in 1971 to 36.8 % in 1991.

Most discrimination in vocational programs ended.

Female participation in high school athletics increased from 7 % in 1972 to 37 % in 1992 and in college athletics from 15.6 % in 1972 to 34.8 % in 1993.

SEXISM AND EDUCATION

In Failing at Fairness.- How America's Schools Cheat Girls, Myra and David Sadker summarize current research on educational discrimination against girls. One surprising result of their research and analysis of other data was that girls are equal to or ahead of boys in most measures of academic achievement and psychological health during the early years of schooling, but by the end of high school and college, girls have fallen behind boys on these measurements. On entrance examinations to college, girls score lower than boys, particularly in science and mathematics. Boys receive more state and national scholarships. Women score lower than men on all entrance examinations to professional schools.

An explanation for the decline in test scores is that girls suffer a greater decline than boys in self-esteem from elementary school to high school. (Of course, an important general question about the following statistics is why both boys and girls decline in feelings of self-esteem.) As a measure of self-esteem, the Sadkers rely on responses to the statement, "I'm happy the way I am." The Sadkers report that in elementary school 60 % of girls and 67 % of boys responded positively to the statement. By high school these positive responses declined to 29 % for girls and 46 % for boys. In other words, the decline in self-esteem for girls was thirty-one %age points as compared with twenty-one %age points for boys. Why is there less self-esteem and a greater decline in self-esteem among girls as compared with boys?

To get an answer to the question, the Sadkers asked students how their lives would be different if they suddenly were transformed into members of the opposite sex. Overall, girls responded with feelings that it wouldn't be so bad and that it would open up opportunities to participate in sports ind politics. In addition, girls felt they would have more freedom and respect. Regarding self-esteem, girls expressed little regret about the consequences of the sex change. In contrast, boys expressed horror at the idea, and many said they would commit suicide. They saw themselves becoming second-class citizens, being denied access to athletics and outdoor activities, and being racked with physical problems. Concerning self-esteem, and in contrast to girls, boys expressed nothing but regret about the consequences of the sex change.

Contributing to the lack of self-esteem among girls, the Sadkers argue, are modes of classroom interaction, the representation of women in textbooks and other educational materials, and the discriminatory content of standardized tests. In one of their workshops with classroom teachers, the Sadkers illustrate classroom sex bias by asking four of the participants-two men and two women to act like students in a middle-school social studies classroom. The lesson is about the American Revolution and it begins with an examination of homework. Acting as the teacher, David Sadker perfunctorily tells one woman that two of her answers are wrong and comments to the group on the neatness of the other woman's homework. He tells one man that two of his answers are wrong and, unlike his response to the woman with wrong answers, he urges the man to try harder and suggests ways of improving his answers. David then states to the other man that he faded to do his homework assignment. In contrast to the woman with the neat paper, this man illustrates what the Sadkers call the "bad boy role."

David Sadker then continues the lesson by discussing battles and leaders. All of the Revolutionary leaders are, of course, male. During the lesson he calls on the males twenty times each while only calling on one woman twice and completely ignoring the other woman. The one woman called on misses her question because she is given only half a second to respond. When questioning the men, David Sadker spends time giving hints and probing. At the end of this demonstration lesson, the Sadkers report, one woman commented that she felt like she was back in school. She often had the right answer but was never called on by the teacher.

What this workshop demonstration illustrates, based on the Sadkers' findings on classroom interaction, is that boys receive more and better instruction. Boys are more often called on by the teacher and boys interact more with the teacher than girls. In a typical classroom situation, if both boys and girls have their hands raised to answer a question, the teacher is most likely to call on a boy. A teacher will spend more time responding to a boy's question than to a girl's question. In other words, girls do not receive equal educational opportunity in the classroom.

In addition, women are not so well represented as men in textbooks. The Sadkers found in 1989 elementary school language arts textbooks that there were from two to three times as many pictures of men as women. In one elementary history text, they found four times as many pictures of men as women. In one 1992 world history textbook, of 631 pages they found only 7 pages related to women. Two of those pages were devoted to a fifth-grade female student who made a peace trip to the Soviet Union.

It is most likely that the treatment received by girls in the classroom and in textbooks contributes to their low self-esteem and to their decline, as compared with boys, high performance on standardized tests from elementary school to high school. it seems logical that if less instructional time is spent with girls than boys, that boys would more rapidly advance academically. In addition, without equal representation in textbooks, girls might value themselves less and have less incentive to achieve. Instructional time and representation in textbooks contribute to the glass ceiling of the classroom.

The lowering of self-esteem and content bias may contribute to the significant gender gap in scores on standardized college entrance examinations and entrance examinations to professional schools. For instance, on the widely used Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) males score fifty points higher on the math section and tip to twelve points higher on the verbal section. It is important to understand that discrimination in standardized testing involves the denial of economic rewards. These economic rewards are scholarships and career opportunities.

The content bias and economic value of standardized tests were recognized in a 1989 ruling by a federal judge in New York. The judge ruled that the awarding of New York State scholarships using the SAT discriminated against female students. The case was brought to court. by the Girls Clubs of America and the National Organization for Women. The court argued that the scholarships were to be awarded based on academic achievement in high school and that the SAT was not constructed to test achievement but to determine college performance. The court's decision states, "The evidence is clear that females score significantly below males on the SAT while they do equally or slightly better in high schools."

In this court case, academic achievement was defined according to grades received in high school courses. Interestingly, the Sadkers argue that this apparent paradox between girls' high grades and low standardized-test scores is a result of grade inflation. This grade inflation results from female passivity and their willingness to follow classroom rules. Often, teachers formally and informally incorporate evaluations of student behavior in their academic grading practices. For girls, good behavior can result in good grades.

But the issue of grade inflation still doesn't solve the puzzle of lower performance by girls on tests like the SAT. The Sadkers suggest that one possible reason for the differences in scores between males and females is that the content of standardized tests is biased. Boys are more familiar with organized sports, financial issues, science, wars, and dates. Consequently, test items referring to these areas tend to favor boys. As an example, the Sadkers describe a gifted high school girl who lost her concentration on the Preliminary SAT when she encountered an analogy question comparing a "football and a gridiron." The analogy baffled her because she had little knowledge of football.

One possible solution to teacher bias in classroom interaction, the Sadkers suggest, is to have an observer code classroom interaction so that the teacher becomes aware of any possible bias. If teachers are unconsciously favoring boys, then this observation provides the opportunity for them to change their behavior. One teacher told the Sadkers that she distributed two chips to all students. When students want to comment or ask a question, they have to give up one chip. Before the class is over, all students must use their two chips. This guarantees equal participation of all students and ensures that classroom interaction is not dominated by only a few students. In addition, the Sadkers recommend that teachers consciously search for books portraying strong female characters in a variety of occupational and social roles. They point to the work of the National Women's History Project, which since the 1970s has published materials emphasizing women's roles in history. In addition, the Sadkers recommend the use of workshops to heighten teachers' awareness of their own possible sexist behavior and to understand how to find nonsexist educational material for the classroom.

Another possible solution is single-sex education. This would eliminate the problem of female students having to compete with male students for teachers' attention. In classrooms of only girls, teachers would not tend to push girls aside and focus their instructional efforts on boys. In an all-girls school or classroom, female students might receive the equal educational opportunity denied to them in a coed classroom.

Writing in favor of girls' schools, Susan Estrich, professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California, notes that 60 % of the National Merit Scholarship finalists are boys. Echoing the Sadkers' findings, she reports from a 1992 study of the American Association of University Women, "that even though girls get better grades (except in math), they get less from schools." While she does not dismiss efforts to equalize opportunities for girls in coed schools, she argues that currently single-sex education is working. For instance, in all-girls schools 80 % of girls take four years of math and science, whereas in coed schools the average is two years of math and science. In Fortune 1000 companies, one-third of the female board members are graduates of women's colleges even though graduates of women's colleges represent only 4 % of all female college graduates. In addition, graduates of women's colleges earn 43 % of the math and 50 % of engineering doctorates earned by all women, and they outnumber all other females in Who's Who.

Estrich does see the possibility of offering single-sex classes within a coed institution. She cites the example of the Illinois Math and Science Academy, which experimented with a girls-only calculus-based physics class. Instead of sitting meekly at their desks while boys command all the attention, girls are actively asking and answering questions. In an all-girls algebra class in Ventura, California, the teacher reports spending time building self-confidence along with teaching math. For Estiich, at least at this point in time, all-girls schools are a means for ending sexism in education.

Of course, for an all-girls school or classroom to overcome the problems of sexism completely it would require the maintenance of the same educational expectations as there are for boys and the use of textbooks and other educational materials that provide strong female role models. As I discussed previously in this chapter, one of the problems with segregated female education in the nineteenth century was the belief that women did not have the physical and mental stamina to undergo the same academic demands as men. Consequently, to avoid sexism, there should be no watering down of the curriculum in female schools and classrooms. In addition, sex segregated education would have to avoid the pitfalls of tracking women into a sex-segregated labor market. One of the problems in the development of the high school in the early twentieth century was that it tended to track women into certain occupations. For an all-girls school or classroom to avoid this form of discrimination, there would have to be an emphasis on opening up all career opportunities for women.

There are many critics of proposals for all-female schools. One University of Michigan researcher, Valerie Lee, found that many all-girls classrooms still contained high levels of sexist behavior on the part of the teacher. In one case, a history teacher assigned a research paper and told students that she would provide "major hand holding" to help the students. Lee argued that the offer of major hand-holding would not occur in a boy's school. In addition, she found "male bashing" taking place in some all-female schools.

In addition, Lee found boys in all-male schools engaging in serious sexist comments about women. in other words, all-female schools do not do anything about the sexist attitudes of men. In fact, all male schools might reinforce male sexist behavior. For instance, in a 1994 court case involving a suit by Shannon Faulkner to gain entrance to the all male military college, The Citadel, one of the witnesses, a 1991 graduate of the school, reported that the word woman was used on campus in a derogatory manner "every day, every minute, every hour [it was] a part of the life there."

Therefore, there is the possibility that single sex education might result in greater academic achievement for girls while doing nothing about sexist attitudes among men. The academic gains made by women might mean little in a world dominated by sexist males. Also, the courts may not approve of single-sex public schools, because of a decision regarding all-boys African-schools in Detroit. The court argued American that the all-boys schools were a violation of the 1954 Brown decision that declared as unconstitutional "separate but equal" schools that were racially segregated. In the Detroit case, separate but equal all-boys schools were declared unconstitutional.

In 1998, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) released a follow-Lip report to its earlier charges that public schools were "shortchanging" girls. The new study found that the number of girls enrolled in algebra, trigonometry, pre-calculus, and calculus was growing at a faster rate than boys. Probably the most impressive statistic was that the differences between boys and girls was the smallest in the world on international tests in math and science.

However, the report found that technology, particularly computer technology, is emerging as the new "boys' club." The report found that girls have less exposure to computers inside and outside of school ,ind that girls feel less confident about using computers. The gap between boys and girls in computer knowledge and use it increases from grades 8 to I 1. Only 17 % of students taking the College Board's Advanced Placement test in computer science were women.

In reference to the technological gap between males and females, Janice Weinman, the executive director of the Washington-based AAUW said, "This is becoming the new club [computer technology] from which girls are feeling disenfranchised. Consequently, girls are not going to be appropriately prepared for the technology era of the new 21st century."

However, there ire areas where girls outperform boys. More girls than boys are enrolled it, advanced English, foreign language, and arts courses. In addition, girls outscore boys by wide margins on reading and writing tests in middle and elementary grades. Education Week reporter Debra Viadero provides the following summary of other findings in the AAUW study:

* In school-to-work programs, which combine challenging academics with vocational training, girls still tend to cluster in traditional female occupations.

Although girls are taking more advanced placement courses and getting better grades than boys, their scores on those exams still tend to be lower.

On large-scale exams, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the top scorers in math and science still tend to be boys.

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

By the 1960s, the civil rights movement encompassed students with special needs, including students with physical handicaps; special mental, emotional, and behavioral needs; and hearing and visual impairments. Within the context of equality of educational opportunity, students with special needs could only participate equally in schools with other students if they received some form of special help. Since the nineteenth century many of the needs of these students have been neglected by local and state school authorities because of the expense of special facilities and teachers.

The political movement for federal legislation to aid students with special needs followed a path similar to the rest of the civil rights movement. First, finding themselves unable to change educational institutions by pressuring local and state governments, organized groups interested in improving educational opportunities for students with special needs turned to the courts. This was the path taken in the late 1960s by the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC). PARC was one of many associations organized in the 1950s to aid citizens with special needs. These organizations were concerned with state laws that excluded children with special needs from educational institutions because they were considered uneducable and unattainable. State organizations like PARC and the National Association for Retarded Children campaigned to eliminate these laws and to demonstrate the educability of all children. But, as the civil rights movement discovered throughout the century, local and state officials were resistant to change and relief had to be sought from the judicial system.

In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a case that was as important for the rights of children with special needs as the Brown decision was for African-Americans, PARC objected to conditions in the Pennliurst State School and Hospital. In framing the case, lawyers for PARC focused on the legal fight to an education for children with special needs. PARC, working with the major federal lobbyist for children with special needs, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), overwhelmed the court with evidence on the equability of children with special needs. The state withdrew its case, and the court enjoined the state from excluding children with special needs from a public education and required that every child be allowed access to an education. Publicity about the PARC case prompted other lobbying groups to file thirty-six cases against different state governments. The CEC prepared model legislation and lobbied for its passage at the state and federal levels.

In 1975, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) that guaranteed equal educational opportunity for all children with special needs. One of the issues confronting Congress during the debates over the legislation was that of increased federal control over local school systems. One way that Congress decided to resolve this issue was to require that an individual education plan (IEP) be written for each student with special needs. This avoided direct federal control by requiring that each student's IEP be developed at the local level. IEPs are now a standard part of education programs for children with special needs. Public Law 94-142 requires that an IEP be developed for each child jointly by the local educational agency and the child's parents or guardians. This gives the child or the parents the right to negotiate with the local school system about the type of services to be delivered.

INCLUSION

Another concern regarding the education of children with special needs is their isolation from other students and lack of access to the educational opportunities of a regular classroom. Federal legislation called for placing students in the "least restrictive environment." The result was the practice of main streaming. The basic idea of main streaming is that students with special needs will spend part of their day in a special education classroom and part of the day in regular classrooms. Obviously, this arrangement requires the classroom teacher to have some knowledge of the requirements of students with special needs. Working together, special education teachers and regular classroom teachers plan the mainstreanling of students with special needs to regular classrooms.

Many parents of students with special needs and many special education professionals felt that main streaming did not go far enough in providing a "least restrictive environment." They demanded full inclusion. Full inclusion is different from main streaming because students with special needs spend all their time in a regular classroom. The basic argument for full inclusion is that even with main streaming, students with special needs spend a majority of their time segregated from regular students. Similar to any form of segregation, the isolation of children with special needs often deprives them of contact with other students and denies them access to equipment found in regular classrooms, such as scientific equipment, audiovisual aids, classroom libraries, and computers. Full inclusion, it is believed, will improve the educational achievement and social development of children with special needs.

In 1990, advocates of full inclusion received federal support with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This historic legislation bans all forms of discrimination against the disabled. The Americans with Disabilities Act played an important role in the 1992 court decision, Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, which involved an 8 year-old, Rafael Oberti, classified as educable mentally retarded. U.S. District Court judge John F. Gerry argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that people with disabilities be given equal access to services provided by any agency receiving federal money, including public schools. judge Gerry decided that Rafael Oberti could manage in a regular classroom with special aides and a special curriculum. In his decision, judge Gerry wrote, "Inclusion is a right, not a privilege for a select few."

In 1992, the National Association of State Boards of Education gave its support to the idea of full inclusion with the issuance of its report, Winners All: A Call for Inclusive Schools. The report calls for a fundamental shift in the provision of services for students with special needs. As the report envisions the full-inclusion process, rather than teaching in a separate classroom, special-education teachers would provide their services in regular classrooms by team teaching with the regular teacher or providing other support.

The idea of inclusion is resisted by some parents who believe that separate special education classrooms provide important benefits for their children. For instance, twenty parents of children with special needs attending the Vaughn Occupational High School in Chicago carried signs at the board of education meeting on September 7, 1994, reading "The board's inclusion is exclusion." The parents were protesting the board's decision to send their children to neighborhood schools for inclusion in regular classrooms. Traditionally, Vaughn provided vocational training for students with special needs. The students would hold low-level jobs at McDonald's, an airline food service company, and a class-installation business.

The board's action regarding the Vaughn students was the result of a 1992 complaint by the Illinois state board that Vaughn students were not spending time with non-disabled peers. The state board threatened to remove all federal and state funds from the school district if the students were not included in regular classrooms. Martha Luna complained about the decision because it denied her 15-year-old son, Tony, vocational training to meet his needs. Ms. Luna stated, "I know Tony won't go to college so I don't expect that, just for him to learn everyday living and work skills."

TEACHERS RESIST THE CALL FOR INCLUSION

Why do some surveys find that over 70 % of practicing teachers object to including students with special needs in their classrooms? The West Virginia Federation of Teachers released a survey of 1,121 teachers showing that 87 % did not believe that inclusion helped general education students and 78 % did not believe that inclusion helped students with special needs. A survey of teachers in Howard County, Maryland, reports that 64 % of middle-school teachers believe "that inclusion detracts from their ability to fully serve the needs of the general student population." Also, only 21 % believed inclusion benefitted children with special needs. The complaints about inclusion are occurring as the proportion of disabled students receiving their education in regular classrooms increases. For instance, in 1991 32.8 % of disabled students were receiving their educations in regular classrooms. By 1995, the figure rose to 44.5 %.

The preceding figures indicate the complications in implementing inclusion programs. The following is a list of objections by teachers to inclusion programs:

Disabled students are moved into regular classrooms without any support services.

Experienced teachers have never received training in teaching students with special needs or in teaching in an inclusive classroom.

School districts implement inclusion policies do not provide adequate training for general education teachers.

Education schools do not provide prospective teachers with a basic knowledge of learning disabilities or situations they are likely to confront in inclusive classrooms.

General education teachers are often excluded from the individualized education plan (IEP) team.

Parents of non-disabled students worry education will be compromised in inclusive classrooms.

The preceding list of issues contains its own solutions, which include (1) more education and training for experienced and future teachers, (2) adequate support services for teachers in inclusive classrooms, (3) teacher participation on the individual planning team, and (4) education of parents about inclusive classrooms. Model full inclusion schools and teacher education programs do exist that address the preceding issues. Teachers and administrators at the Zachery Taylor Elementary School, a suburban Washington, D.C., community, operate a model inclusion school that they believe is improving the academic and social performance of disabled students and has made other students more caring and tolerant. Syracuse University, in response to the problem of inadequately prepared teachers, instructs general education and special education teachers together. At the end of four years, both groups receive dual certification. In answer to worried parents of students in general education, John McDonnell, chair of the special education department at the University of Utah, states, "There really has been no effect on the educational progress of kids without disabilities by including kids with disabilities at the classroom level."

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, IEP, main streaming, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and full inclusion highlight the extent to which the civil rights movement reached out to include concerns for equal educational opportunity for all children, including children with special needs. It is a matter of justice that if all citizens are taxed to support schools, then all citizens should have an equal opportunity to attend school and benefit from an education.

CONCLUSION

Unequal educational opportunities continue to plague American schools. Even though the civil rights movement was able to overturn laws requiring school segregation, racial segregation between schools and second-generation segregation in schools continue to be problems. Differences between school districts in expenditures per student tend to increase the effects of segregation.

Many Hispanic, African-American, and Native American students attend schools where Per. student expenditures are considerably below those of elite suburban and private schools. These reduced expenditures contribute to unequal educational opportunity that, in turn, affects a student's ability to compete in the labor market.

It is possible, that unequal school expenditures, segregation, and second-generation segregation will result in the vast majority of Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans being confined to boring and tedious jobs in routine production services and in-person set-vices. Of course, large numbers of low-income whites will also fill the ranks of these occupations. If education remains the key to advancement to high paying and interesting work, and if present inequalities and forms of segregation continue, then it is possible that the children of routine production and in-person services workers will be trapped in the occupations of their parents. If the promise of America is that hard work will lead to social mobility, then these conditions might foretell the end of the American Dream.

 Source: "Equality of Educational Opportunity" from American Education, 9th Edition, by Joel Spring copyright 2000. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Young Pai

An understanding of the school-culture relationship is important in developing a theoretical perspective from which to evaluate and interpret the respective roles of school and society in a situation where educational reforms are needed. In this chapter we will discuss the relationship between schooling and culture by examining five major views about the role of schooling as it relates to social class. This discussion is necessary because the social class dynamics in the lives of teachers, administrators, and students influence the educational outcomes of schooling. Further, such outcomes may contribute to social-class-related conflicts and resulting social inequities. Historically, we are inclined to see schools as the great equalizer. However, they are bound to be affected by social class and accompanying cultural dynamics in any society because schools always function in particular social order. For this reason, a study of the theories about the role of schooling may help us understand how the work of schools and their personnel tends to perpetuate social classes or promote socioeconomic mobility. We may also gain insight regarding what fundamental educational reform may be needed to make schools more effective and democratic.

As we have seen in preceding chapters, an intimate relationship exists between schools and the sociocultural conditions of the larger society in which they function. Hence, our inability or unwillingness to examine the relationship between school and society usually leads to the erroneous belief that the school is solely to blame for the socioeconomic lags and moral ills of American society. This exaggerated notion about the educational system's capacity as an agent of social change may in turn result in blaming the teachers and schools for practically every adversity in our society. Disappointments in and frustrations about our schools are the usual consequences of taking an oversimplified approach to educational reform. Yet, past attempts at major educational reforms in the United States have been focused primarily on organizational and curricular changes. For example, the United States attempted to overtake the USSR in the aerospace race through educational reforms in the late 1950s. But these measures were largely concerned with placing greater emphasis on such academic subject matters as the sciences, mathematics, and foreign languages rather than on the so-called life adjustment process.

No more than a decade later American education was charged as inhumane because it was allegedly preoccupied with only the intellectual growth of the learners. Again, schools and teachers were accused of killing children's love for learning with oppressive and punitive practices. The remedy for this sorry state of American education was to have come from humanistic, or confluent, education, which claimed to nurture the learner's heart as well as the mind. In practice, this approach emphasized developing skills to deal with one's feelings and interpersonal relations. Similar to those of the post-Sputnik era, most of the reform measures proposed since the mid-1980s also have sought to improve American education by having students devote more time to studying the liberal arts. In the 1990s, educational reform programs included restructured schools (e.g., charter schools and site-based management), authentic learning, and performance-based assessment. The long-term effects of these measure are yet to be seen.

There is little evidence to suggest that the educational reforms tried out since the late 1950s have had a lasting impact on the quality of American education or on the socioeconomic or moral conditions of this society. Indeed, whatever impact the reform programs had were short-lived and superficial. The reformers simply failed to understand that the school is only one of a multitude of institutions in our society and that no amount of tinkering with any single institution could bring about fundamental social, economic, or moral changes. On the contrary, without major social changes, educational reforms are bound to have minimal impact in our lives because the school as a specialized social institution reflects the culture of the larger society. As an illustration, our production-consumption oriented world view inclines us to see education as a type of industrial production. Hence, we speak of packaging and marketing educational programs and holding our schools accountable to the consumers of educational products.

CULTURAL TRANSMISSION AND THE ROLE OF SCHOOLING

Every society makes deliberate attempts to transmit its culture to the young. In this way, they may become full-fledged and contributing members of the society. Culture includes those beliefs, values, and attitudes that a society considers fundamental to its survival and perpetuation. Hence, education is necessarily a deliberate and guilt laden (moral) enterprise (Durkheim, 1961). As pointed out in chapter 2, the educative process can be carried on with or without schools. Schools are specialized social institutions specifically designed to transmit the culture of the larger society to the young. This implies that the cultural norms of a society are the primary sources from which schools derive their goals and that each society has its own particular, view of the role of schooling.

In a society such as the United States, where the schools are governed and supported by local communities, the unique values and needs of those communities have direct bearing on the development of specific school goals. For instance, the educational goals of a school district in a politically and religiously conservative agricultural community must not only be consonant with the broad cultural norms of the larger society but must also conform to local demands. More specifically, the district may include agriculture-related subject matter in the curriculum to meet the community's special needs. In accordance with the community's religious and moral perspectives, the district may require school prayer and the teaching of creationism while restricting other activities viewed as liberal. However, the district's responsiveness to the special needs and expectations of' the local community may conflict with the role of the school as envisioned by the larger society. Such conflict becomes much more severe if the larger society expects its schools to work toward perpetuating the established culture and also serve as an agent of social change. Dare the School Build a New Social Order? by George S. Counts (1932) and the writings of John Dewey, John Childs, Harold Rugg, and William Heard Kilpatrick represent early arguments for making the American school and its teachers agents of social reform.

Disputes regarding the proper role of schooling often are attributable to the fact that cultural transmission as the school's primary goal is usually stated in very broad terms. Hence, there is no consensus about the relative importance of different cultural norms or the order in which such norms are to be transmitted to the young. But even if different interest groups and individuals agree about a school district's general educational goals, many disparate views regarding how such general goals are to be translated into concrete school policies, operational procedures, curricula, and a myriad of other school activities are likely. Such court cases as Pico v. Board of Education (I 980) over book banning, Wallace v. Jaffree (I 985) concerning silent prayer in schools, and Lubbock Civil Liberties Union v. Lubbock Independent School District (1983) on religious gatherings on school premises are only a few examples of attempts to resolve conflicts between disparate conceptions of the role of schooling through legal means. Further, these cases also demonstrate how conflicting beliefs about school activities stem from the divergent ways in which our educators, communities, and other special interest groups interpret the broadly conceived role of the American school.

THE ROLE OF SCHOOLING

If there are disagreements about how schools should translate transmission of culture into specific instructional objectives, policies, and programs, there disparate views regarding the nature of the role of schooling.

are even more disparate views regarding the nature of the role of schooling. The following sections will examine five perspectives; (1) structural/functionalist, (2) conflict, (3) critical, (4) interpretivist, and (5) postmodern.

The Structural/Functionalist Perspective

According to the structural/functionalist theory (henceforth called the functionalist theory), society is a living organism with many interrelated parts of the life of a society as an organism depends on how well each part performs its distinctive role in relation to the workings of other parts. As one type of institution responsible for the socialization of the young, the school's object "is to arouse and to develop in the child a number of physical, intellectual and moral states which are demanded of him by both the political society as a whole and the special milieu for which he is specifically destined" (Durkheim, 1985a, p. 22). To borrow Talcott Parsons's (1985) words, socialization is "the development in individuals of the commitments and capacities which are essential prerequisites of their future role-performance" (p. 180). The commitments consist of the implementation of the broad values of society and the performance of a specific type of role within the structure of society. Thus, a society cannot survive unless its members possess and perpetuate a set of common physical skills, intellectual knowledge, and ethical values (Durkheim, 1985a, p. 21). The acquisition of these skills, knowledge, and values by the young is too important to be left to chance. Although there are many agents of socialization, according to Durkheim (1985b), schools are primarily responsible for systematically organizing the welter of divergent beliefs, knowledge, and skills to "set off what is essential and vital; and play down the trivial and the secondary" (p. 29).

For Durkheim and Parsons, members of a society need to have a set of common beliefs, knowledge, and values for social unity and cohesion. But they are equally persuaded that the school should provide different and more highly specialized knowledge and skills to certain people, for every society requires that its members have different roles (Durkheim, 1985a, p. 21; Parsons, 1985, pp. 180-182). For example, not everyone in our society can or should become engineers or historians, because our society has diverse needs and problems that require different competencies at varying levels. Further, although both the family and the school socialize the young through transmission of culture, the school has a set of very distinctive roles. According to Parsons (1985), schooling enables the child to emotionally separate from the family and learn to internalize a set of cultural values and norms that are broader than those learned from the family alone (p. 191). Through schooling, children learn to function in the larger society as adults. They also learn that people can be grouped according to such criteria as age, sex, interest, and level of competencies and be rewarded differently according to actual achievements. In a very real sense, the school is a microcosm of the larger society. As such, the school reproduces and perpetuates the established social, cultural, economic, and political structures and norms. As we will see later, other theories of the role of schooling criticize the functionalist perspective. For this reason, it is useful to examine the functionalist view more closely.

Robert Dreeben (1968), a leading contemporary functionalist, argues that the social experiences available to children in schools are uniquely suited for preparing their transition from life in the family to occupation and life in the larger society. More specifically, children are more likely to learn the fundamental social norms of independence, achievement, universalism, and specificity in school than from their family life (pp. 65-76). "The nature of experiences available in [the family] could not provide conditions appropriate for acquiring those capacities that enable people to participate competently in the public realm" (p. 65). But in school, pupils learn to belong to and interact with different groups wherein their social positions are based on personal accomplishments as judged according to objective criteria.

Independence

In school, children learn to accept the need to do certain tasks on their own and the legitimate right of others to expect such independent behavior at various times. Independence means more than "doing things alone"; it includes such notions as self-reliance, accepting responsibility for one's actions, "acting self-sufficiently, and handling tasks with which under different circumstances, one can rightfully expect the help of others" (Dreeben, 1968, p. 66). Classroom characteristics such as the number of other children and teacher expectations of pupil behavior demand that the young become independent. Dreeben points out that whereas parents expect their children to act independently only in certain situations, teachers are much more consistent in requiring their students to behave independently in doing academic work. Various occupations and institutions in the larger society require their members to self-initiate activities to accomplish their assigned tasks and to accept personal responsibility for their own actions. Clearly, schools are much more systematic than families in providing conditions for the development of independent attitudes in the young.

Achievement

Another important societal norm taught in school is achievement. In our society, independently attract achievements of individuals are prized highly. However, Dreeben (1968) warns, independence and achievement should be distinguished from each other, because "achievement criteria can apply to activities performed collectively" (p. 71). In developing achievement motivation, there is little doubt that the family's child-rearing practices are influential. But schools provide even more significant conditions for cultivating the achievemt-oriented attitude in children. After all, children's positions in school are determined by their personal accomplishments.

Most of what goes on in school is organized in such a way that achievements in curricular and extracurricular activities play a key role will determine the young people's status both in and out of the school environment. In most instances, achievement alternatives are given so that those who do not perform well in one field call do well in another. One student may excel in academic activities but perform poorly in sports; an outstanding athlete may (lo less than mediocre work in academic programs. These young people must learn to deal with both achievement and failure. For example, an individual may be an honor student to one group but just an egghead to another. Similarly, a star quarterback may be seen as nothing more than a jock to those who are not football fans. And what of the youngster whose talents do not fit neatly into any of the school-sanctioned achievement areas? In many ways, schools do provide a greater variety of opportunities for young people to experience achievement than does the family. But schools may also be less effective in helping pupils to protect then- self-esteem in coping with failure.

Universalism and Specificity

Universalism refers to a way in which a person is placed in a particular

group according to a set of standards or common characteristics he or she shares with other members of that group. For example, a student may be considered a member of an honor society because he or she shares such common traits as having an outstanding academic record and recognized leadership qualities. On the other hand, specificity stands for treating an individual in a group as a unique case because he or she possesses certain traits that differ from those shared by other group members. However, a person is treated "particularistically" if given exceptional treatment even though lie or she does not possess special traits as compared with the rest of the group (Dreeben, 1968, p. 75).

To illustrate, universalism requires that all students in one class be treated equally - for example, not allowing anyone to make up an examination. But the norm of specificity makes it possible to permit one student to make up a missed examination because of illness on the day of the test. However, if another student is allowed to make up the test because he or she says flattering things about the instructor's teaching, then that student is treated particularistically. In other words, particularistic treatment of the student is unfair to the rest of the class. Universalism involves categorizing individuals according to common characteristics and equal treatment of everyone in the group. Specificity permits certain exceptions to be made, but only on legitimate grounds. By accepting categorization, children can learn to deal with other individuals in terms of their positions rather than according to their personal identity. In the larger- society, powers and privileges accompany certain social positions. Young people need to understand that individuals exhibit certain behavior when acting in an official capacity and that this behavior stems from the position they occupy rather than their personal rights or privileges. Through the norms of universalism children learn to deal with the criteria of equal treatment, or what is fair and what is unfair.

 School and Society

From the functionalist perspective, "the family, as a social setting with its characteristic social arrangements, lacks the resources and the competence to effect the psychological transition" from life in the family to life in the larger and industrial society (Dreeben, 1968, p. 85). The school is especially well suited for transmitting the four norms of the society because its organizational structure and the behavioral patterns of the school personnel enable the young to have the kinds of experiences not available in other institutions. More specifically, because classrooms are organized according to age or ability, students are able to compare their own successes and failures in learning the norms of independence, achievement, universalism, and specificity with those of their peers. Schooling is effective in socializing the young because its structural organization, the school personal's behavioral patterns, and its values reflect those of the mainstream society.

As Parsons (1985) points out, the school serves not only as an agent of socialization but also as a principal instrument of allocating roles in the society. Hence, those who can come close to the society's shared norms in their work and behavior are likely to be rewarded with higher socioeconomic status than those unable or unwilling to do so (p. 191). He goes on to suggest that there is a general and tacit consensus in our society that individuals should be rewarded differentially for different levels of achievement as long as there has been fair and equal access to opportunity. As might be expected, the school incorporates the ways in which the society rewards its successful members into its operational policies and procedures by placing value both on initial equality aid on differential achievement" (p. 191).

In industrial societies, the positions requiring complex knowledge and skills lead to greater rewards than those roles that demand simpler and, more routine competencies. Because the primary functions of the school are to transmit knowledge, develop special skills, and cultivate attitudes that are consonant with societal norms, the amount of reward (monetary reward and/or status) a person receives depends on the individual's ability in these areas and on his or her level of schooling. Given the nature of the school-society relationship, there are bound to be significant differences among individuals of different socioeconomic classes. For example, more doctors and lawyers occupy the upper classes than the lower classes. The functionalist does not see class differences as due to an inherent superiority of any particular group; rather, they are rooted in the merits of the individual. An individual's success at the highly complex skills of law and medicine is rewarded amply by society, and, thus, he or she earns a high socioeconomic status. This means that the issues concerning equal access to educational, economic, and political opportunities for all people become key concerns in an allegedly meritocractic society such as the United States.

Functionalists would approach educational reform in at least two major ways. The first approach would be to understand the conditions under which young people can acquire the competencies and attitudes necessary to do better in school so that appropriate conditions could be provided for the poor to succeed in school. This strategy is consistent with the functionalist view that higher academic accomplishments in school lead to higher-paying positions. The compensatory education programs that began in the early 1970s are good examples of such an approach. The second way to accomplish educational reform would be to improve our schools by making instruction more effective. Two assumptions underlie this approach. One is the belief that improved teaching leads to academic success, which in turn will result in socioeconomic success. The other is the premise that the school's primary function is to expand students' knowledge and improve their cognitive skills. In the United States, outcomes of the compensatory education programs begun in the 1970s and other school reform measures during the past four decades suggest that these efforts did help certain individuals to move out of lower socioeconomic classes. But no sufficient evidence indicates that educational and economic equality has been assured for all or that significant changes have occurred in the class structure. Furthermore, the validity of the view that success in school is causally related to socioeconomic success remains to be demonstrated.

The Hidden Curriculum

The school as an agent of socialization and role allocation has an "official" curriculum with a set of explicitly stated goals and objectives. These goals and objectives relate to what knowledge and skills ought to be imparted and attitudes developed. The school priorities the learners' motivation for academic success and then- desire to practice the norms and values of the larger society for the established systems of rewards. In additional to the formal curriculum, the school also has an informal set of practices with which the learners are socialized. The expression hidden curriculum refers to the school's indirect means of helping young people learn the norms and values of their society. For example, our schools reinforce punctuality, assertiveness, Self-involvement, and competitiveness by rewarding such acts as turning in assignments on time, expressing one's own opinions, participating in a classroom project, and asking for extra homework for a higher grade. The hidden curriculum has also been referred to as the lived curriculum, emphasizing that these informal sets of practices define the day to-day experiences of students and often assuming a greater importance than the formal, subject matter curriculum.

The hidden curriculum occupies a key position in the functionalist view of schooling, for it is through this informal curriculum that young people learn to adapt themselves to the existing societal values and norms. The ability of the young to work and behave accordingly plays a pivotal role in determining their future social status and economic rewards. But this also means that similar rewards will not be given to individuals whose values and behavioral patterns deviate from the norms sanctioned by the larger society. For this reason, success in school is often correlated with

socioeconomic success, and school failure is frequently viewed as causally responsible for poverty.

The use of the hidden curriculum is not exclusively connected with the functionalist perspective. Regardless of our theoretical perspectives, what children learn is affected by the overall school climate, the administrative styles of the school staff, the nature of the teacher-pupil relationship, and the reaching approaches being used to reinforce or discourage. However, the functionalists are accused of holding an erroneous belief that schools impart the same set of attitudes, values, and norms to all children through the use of the hidden curriculum. Critics point out that instructors apply the hidden curriculum differently according to students' social class status. For example, upper-class children are more likely to be taught such qualities as self-control, leadership, and creativity; lower-class children tend to be instructed to respect authority, comply with instructions, and conform to the dominant norms.

The Technological View of Schooling

There are those who argue that the functionalist view of schooling also embodies what has been called an instrumentalist or technological perspective, which views schooling as a form of technology that can be treated as essentially similar to the process of industrial production. Industrial production begins with a predetermined set of product specification, which then are assembled according to a specified sequence so that the desired product can be manufactured with consistent quality. This process requires a system of quality-control mechanisms that evaluates each unit of the production sequence. The degree of cost efficiency with which each unit can perform its assigned functions then becomes a basis for accountability. An industry is held accountable in terms of (1) how closely the products match the initial set of product specifications and (2) whether the value of the products or outcomes is equivalent to or greater than the resources invested in the production.

When schooling is seen as a form of technology, a learning objective is divided into specific instructional components. These components are then organized according to a predetermined sequence. As students master each component they move up to the next level until they reach the desired learning objectives. This process necessarily involves translating learning objectives in observable and measurable behaviors or competencies. In general, teachers are held accountable on the basis of how well their students have mastered the learning objectives. Hence, frequent and consistent testing is necessary to monitor each learner's progress toward a specific goal. Although the ways in which this process of industrial production is applied to education and schooling vary, the basic principles remain the same. An emphasis on competency-based instruction, quality control, minimum competency testing, accountability, and cost efficiency reflects the influence of the technological perspective in education.

A fundamental shortcoming of the technological view of schooling is that not all worthwhile educational goals can be exhaustively defined in behavioral or performance terms. By putting so much emphasis on what is quantifiable and measurable, we are likely to neglect such important educational goals as creativity, imagination, and appreciation. The technological approach to schooling is not just a matter of doing the same thing more efficiently, because it necessarily demands predetermined goals and tighter and precise control of learning conditions, the learner, and the quantifiable outcomes. If we are serious about making the American school a place where our children can re-create rather than inherit democracy, then it behooves all of us to scrutinize how technology is used and where the concept of technology is to be applied.

Questions About the Functionalist Theory

As we have seen, the functionalists view the role of school, as the process of transmitting the established sociocultural, economic, and political norms so that the young can become productive and contributing members of the society. Hence, the school enables the society to perpetuate itself by reproducing its existing patterns. But should the primary role of schooling be limited to such a reproductive function alone? If we adopt the functionalist perspective, would the school not become a major force in perpetuating the status quo, which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer? How can the school assure equal and fair access to educational and economic Opportunities to all Citizens if it is seen as a primary agent of reproducing the established social order? What can the school do to eliminate or minimize the socioeconomic inequities among different classes of people? Call the school perform special functions to isolate those who belong to lower socioeconomic classes? How should we determine the proper role of schooling? These are some of the questions that need to be asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the functionalist theory. In many ways, the conflict, critical, intei-pretivist, and postmodern theories, which we are about to discuss, are responses to these and other fundamental questions about the proper role of schooling.

CONFLICT THEORIES

Marxist Conflict Theory

According to the advocates of Marxist conflict theory, schools in a capitalistic society do not reproduce the established social system to fulfill the expanding educational needs of increasingly complex positions in modern society. Nor does the school aid individuals to select high-status positions with greater rewards through better education. Quite the contrary, the school functions to serve the interest of the dominant, the powerful, and the wealthy by perpetuating socioeconomic inequities. According to Marxists, who represent a major segment of the conflict theorist group, the private owners of the means of production maintain their domination of the working class by controlling the process of allocating roles, social status, and rewards. Struggles among the classes are bound to ensue as working class people become aware of their low status and seek to gain a greater share of the available wealth. For Marxists, the socioeconomic inequities in a capitalistic society cannot be eliminated unless private ownership of the means of production is invested away from the dominant group by the working class.

Seen from this perspective, schools in a capitalistic society play a central role in enabling the dominant class to maintain the class structure by controlling the kinds of knowledge, skills, and attitudes available to people of different classes. Hence, children of the powerful are educated to self-direct and control others, and working-class youth are taught to conform to the norms of the workplace as prescribed by the dominant group. Educational inequalities are then responsible for maintaining social inequities and the class structure. As two contemporary Marxists, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1977), explain:

The social relations of the educational process ordinarily mirror the social relations of the work roles into which most students are likely to move. Differences in rules, expected modes of behavior, and opportunities for choice are most glaring when we compare levels of schooling. Note the wide range of choice over curriculum, life style, and allocation of the afforded to college students, compared with the obedience and respect for authority expected in high school. (p. 142)

Further, the class differences in school are perpetuated through capacity of the upper class to control the basic principles of school finance, pupil evaluation and educational objectives" (142).

Bowles and Gintis go on to argue that differences in intellectual abilities and achievements have very little to do with what status a person is to occupy. They insist that empirical evidence simply does not show that differences in individual IQ scores are significant factors in allocating individuals to different roles in the class structure (pp. 215-225). Because values, personality traits, and class-linked roles are the primary determinants of one's social class, the principle of rewarding academic excellence and the use of cognitive abilities in educational promotion are employed as a way to legitimize the role of schooling as means of making the society more egalitarian. As Apple and Weis (1983) point out, schools "Foster the belief that the major institutions of our society are equally responsive to race, class, and sex," but available data show that "in almost every social arena from health care to anti-inflation policy, the top twenty percent of the population benefit much more than the bottom eighty percent" (pp. 5-6). Schools as agencies of legitimation reflect the social relationship of production as well as "the differences inequities in the social class composition of the student bodies" (Bowles, 1977, pp. 142, 149). But schools not only legitimize the socioeconomic system of the capitalistic society, they legitimize their own existence as well (Apple & Weis, 1983, p. 6). This being the case, educational equality cannot be achieved by simply changing the school system. Only by exposing "the unequal nature of our school system and destroying the illusion of unimpeded mobility through education" can we hope to serve the cause of educational equality (Bowles, 1977, p. 149).

Neo-Marxist Conflict Theory

While proponents of neo-Marxist conflict theory agree that schools in a capitalistic society reproduce and perpetuate social hierarchical classes, they argue that the socioeconomic class structure is not the result of each individual's sole or even primary desire to maximize their rewards. That is, the privileged upper class controls the lower class through the means of noneconomic domination because the student is taught the status culture (e.g., styles of language, manners, values, and so on belonging to a social class or profession) rather than the social relations of production-that is, the roles of owners, managers, and workers of industry.

Drawing from Max Weber's view , Randall Collins (1985) holds that the basic units of society are status groups, associations whose members share common status cultures (i.e, styles of language, conversational topics, manners, opinions and values, and preferences of all sorts as well as a sense of status equality based on participation in a common culture) (p. 71). Collins explains that each status group distinguishes itself from others in terms of such "moral evaluation" as honor, taste, breeding, cultivation, property, and so on. Individuals derive their sense of identity from participation in such cultural groups. From this perspective, the primary role of schooling is to teach status cultures rather than to transmit technical skills and knowledge. In the words of Collins (1985), "schools primarily teach vocabulary and inflection, style of dress, aesthetic tastes, values and manners. The emphasis on sociability and athletics found in many schools is not extraneous but may be at the core of the status culture propagated by the schools" (p. 73). Being schooled is an indication of membership in a particular status group rather than a mark for technical knowledge, skills, or achievements. "Educational requirements may thus reflect the interests of whichever- groups have power to set them" (p. 70). Hence, schooling is used to identify and help "Insiders" to stay in their status culture and discourage "outsiders" front entering a more prestigious status group. This means that the status group system that controls schooling also controls workplaces, and constant struggles for wealth, power, and prestige are carried out through status groups or classes.

There is no disputing the fact that there has been a profound increase in the educational requirements for employment throughout the last century. But there is no consensus regarding the explanation of this fact. For example, the functionalists interpret the increased educational requirements as a consequence of ever-increasing demands for complex knowledge and technological skills for new and better-paying positions. They see a direct connection between more schooling and greater socioeconomic rewards. However, neo-Marxists regard the same increase in educational requirements for employment as the result of three conditions (Collins, 1985, pp. 79-80). The first is that people have viewed education as a means of entering into an elite status culture. Second, political decentralization or separation of church and state has made establishing schools and colleges much easier than in previous years. Third, technical changes have also been responsible for the expansion of education because the rapid industrialization of society has reduced the need for unskilled workers and increased the demand for highly skilled technicians and professionals. Notwithstanding these three conditions, Collins observes:

Once higher levels of education become recognized as an objective mark of elite status, and a moderate level of education as a mark of respectable middle-level status, increases in the supply of educated persons, and previously superior levels become only average. (p. 80)

This meant that high-prestige organizations had to raise their educational requirements to maintain the high status of the upper-level executives and the relative respectability of the middle-level managers.

According to Collins (1979), high-prestige professions discourage vertical occupational mobility by credentialing-requiring credentials such as diplomas, licenses, and certificates for entrance into these positions. Thus, educational requirements and credentialing serve as a major dividing line between high-status occupations, such as managerial positions, and such lower-status 'obs as those in manual labor (pp. 46-47). Moreover, because educational requirements and credentialing are the major sources of socioeconomic inequality, "elimination of educational requirements [including credentializing] for 'obs would be a necessary step in any overall restructuring of the occupational world to produce greater income equality" (p. 202). The abolition of credential is possible if training sequences and rotation of position-related duties are integrated into professional activities. For example, University students could be asked to do secretarial work as part of their education while secretaries could be allowed to receive academic training as part of their work (p. 202). In this way, secretaries can eventually become members of a better-paying occupations Eliminating credentialing would no doubt change the structure of power in our society, but Collins does not expect this radical change to occur in the near future. On the contrary, he anticipates credentialing to expand with a continuing threat of class struggle. Unless we find a means more rational than the use of the educational system-n for controlling our institutions, he warns, our society may "undergo convulsions from forces beyond [our] control, as in the Reformation" (p. 204).

Limitations of Conflict Theory

According to conflict theorists, socioeconomic inequities result from educational inequities in capitalistic society. They maintain that the domination of the lower working class by the wealthy upper class is maintained by having the schools reproduce the hierarchical class structure inherent in capitalist society. Not all conflict theorists agree about how capitalist society perpetuates its class structure. For example, Marxists argue that the class structure is maintained because schools teach social relationships of production. On the other hand, neo-Marxists contend that domination of the lower working class by the wealthy upper class is accomplished through schools teaching status culture to their students.

In spite of the differences already mentioned, both Marxists and neo-Marxists are convinced that the root cause of inequities in capitalist society is the school's reproduction of the hierarchical class structure. They are also persuaded that educational as well as socioeconomic inequities will persist as long, as capitalism continues to exist. Yet when we examine the range of factors related to both educational and social inequities in our society, the Marxist and the neo-Marxist views, even at best, only partially explain the causes of inequities. Social classes of the young alone do not explain how well or poorly children perform in school and work. In addition to social class backgrounds, a myriad of biological, environmental, and psychological factors-and even luck-enter into people's intellectual, social, economic, and political achievements. Moreover, there is no assurance that educational and social inequities would cease to exist if capitalism were abolished, for such inequities persist in societies that no longer allow private ownership of industry.

Whether the responsibility of educating the citizens of a society is left in the hands of schools, community, or workplace, transmitting societal norms and values is inescapable and indispensable. After all, no society can hope to survive without a means of transmitting and perpetuating its fundamental norms. Accordingly, educational institutions, whether formal or informal, are bound to reflect the social structure and norms of the larger society. Moreover, the hidden curriculum serves as an effective indirect means of transmitting the norms and values of capitalist, Marxist, neo-Marxist, socialist, and many other forms of society. For example, assuming that the neo-Marxist explanation of schooling is sound, schools in Marxist or socialist society also will teach status culture. Given such a relationship between education and society, how is genuine educational reform possible? The suggestion by some conflict theorists that we do away with school may be an interesting notion, but it is hardly a plan that can be implemented. Even if we were successful in disestablishing the school, this change would not bring about educational equality, for the children of the poor are simply not as effective as their wealthy counterparts in utilizing educational resources and opportunities.

Critical Theory

Critical theory encompasses a series of theoretical ideas about the course of twentieth-century history that appeared in Germany in the 1920S and 1930s (Held, 1980). Some of the well-known members of this school of thought are Max Horkheimer (1895-1971), Theodore Adorno (I903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), and Jurgen Habermas (b. 1929). Though varied in certain specific aspects, their thoughts, generally categorized as the Frankfurt school, represent an attempt to reevaluate capitalism and the Marxist explanation of class domination and to reformulate the meaning of human emancipation. Because both capitalists and Marxists view schools as agents of socialization, what the critical theorists have to say about how class structure is reproduced and class domination is maintained has significant implications for the role of schooling. In recent years, the thoughts of the Frankfurt School have stimulated Stanley Aronowitz, Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, and other educational theorists to work toward developing a critical theory of education (Giroux, 1983).

Because critical theorists sided with Max Weber's position (functionalism) rather than the Marxist perspective, a brief discussion of the Weberian notion of rationalization may be helpful in understanding the general thrusts of critical theory. According to Weber (1947), people in preindustrial societies were educated to lead their lives by learning to perform tasks related to their particular positions. But as societies became more industrialized, schools increasingly were required to train individuals for new, specialized roles. Accordingly, modern technological societies moved toward rationalized-that is, institutional organization based on specialized knowledge and skills. The individuals for these roles were selected on the basis of credentials and examinations. Thus, modern society became an organization of specialists and modern government a bureaucracy occupied by experts. This meant that schools had to produce "specialists" rather than "cultivated people." Weber further pointed out that modern schools teach values and norms of the high-prestige positions (i.e., status cultures). Members of the specialist bureaucracy control not only people's lives; they also control schools to maintain their domination over the working class as well as the gender, race, ethnicity, and even age-related gro,,ips. In this way, '"Weber's notion of rationalization leads not to rationality but to technological authoritarianism. Hence, class domination goes beyond economic domination of the working class by the capitalist class. Now, let us examine the ideas of the critical theorists in relation to these Weberian concepts.

Unlike Marxists, the critical theorists of the 1920s and 1930s did not believe that domination of the working class by the capitalist class is achieved by perpetuating the economic class structure alone. Nor did they think that there is only one form of human domination (i.e., economic class domination). For example, in spite of their differences, Horkheimer and Adorno both argued that people's individuality, uniqueness, and creativity would become obliterated by what Adorno called the mass culture. Adorno pointed out that the mass culture involves, TV shows, and even commercials, for example-contains the norms and values of the dominating groups and, as such, distorts reality to perpetuate the ruling group's interests. Consequently, individuals become unable to think critically about themselves or their society.

In a similar vein, Marcuse contended that as modern society becomes a society of technological experts, people with unique individuality are replaced with "one dimensional [people]" who think neither reflectively nor creatively. Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse agreed that the increasing intrusion of the state into people's lives leads to technocratic authoritarianism, which controls citizens' attitudes, behaviors, and thinking. Even critical thinking is defined within the confines of the dominating group's interest. Habermas (1971) maintained that the interests of the dominating class are legitimized and the most vital and indispensable aspects of human life become threatened when the problems of living are defined as issues with which only specialists can deal. Hence, if human beings are to be emancipated from domination by the authoritarianism of experts, we need to reaffirm the need for self-reflection, critical inquiry, and self-understanding. Further, we must "penetrate beyond the level of particular historical class interests to disclose the fundamental interests of mankind as such" (p. 113).

Although Paulo Freire (1985, 1993), a contemporary Brazilian social and educational reformer, is not considered a critical theorist in the strictest sense, he echoes the critical theorist perspective when he argues that there is no single form of class domination. just as society includes divergent types of social relations, it also harbors many different forms of domination and oppression.

The dominated are human beings who have been forbidden to be what they are. They have been exploited, violated, and violently denied the right to exist and the right to express themselves. This is true whether these dominated people represent a unique people, a social group (like homosexuals), a social class, or a particular gender (like women). (Freire, 1985, p. 192)

For Freire, education is more than a process in which the student simply accepts bodies of information provided by the teacher. Education, of which schooling is one part, is a struggle to overcome dominations of all sorts so that each person can grasp the meaning of his or her personal existence and future life. It is the process of self-emancipation. The kind of knowledge that will enable out- young people to emancipate themselves from domination and oppression is not verifiable scientific knowledge. Rather, it is radical knowledge through which the young and the oppressed can learn about the conditions responsible for their dominated and subordinated positions (Freire, 1993, p. 32). Only this kind of radical, or critical, knowledge can help students analyze how the dominant society legitimates Justifies) its norms and values. At the same time, young people can also see the possibility of alternative cultural practices, ways of thinking, and social orders. Such knowledge "would function to help students and others understand what this society has made of them (in a dialectical sense) and what it is they no longer want to be, as well as what it is they need to appropriate critically in order to become knowledgeable about the world in which they live" (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1981, p. 132). Helping students, teachers, and others to acquire critical knowledge as a tool of analysis means helping them to develop critical literacy, which will enable them to raise questions about the nature of knowledge and its Justification, modes of discourse, and school organization that "reduce learning and social practices to narrow technical dimensions" (pp. 132-133).

Giroux (1983) insists that the development of critical literacy is hampered because the values and norms of the dominant social classes are incorporated into school curricula. Hence, the dominant group's cultural practices, modes of thinking and knowing, lifestyles, language patterns, learning and communication styles, and even political principles are transmitted both overtly and insidiously. A fundamental flaw in the traditional approach to schooling is that it stresses knowledge, social practices, and modes of thinking that have been historically handed down to us. What is necessary in schooling is an emphasis on critical literacy skills that will enable students "to recognize what this society has made of them and how it must, in part, be analyzed and reconstituted so that it can generate the conditions for critical reflection and action rather than passivity and indignation" (p. 231).

Schools need to challenge the established practices, institutions, and ways of thinking and conceive new and alternative possibilities. "Teachers and other educators [need] to reject educational theories that reduce schooling either to the domain of learning theory or to forms of technocratic rationality that ignore the central concerns of social change, power relations, and conflicts both within and outside of schools" (Giroux, 1983, p. 62). Only in this way can schools highlight the human potential and struggle and expose the discrepancies between society as it exists and as we envision it (p. 36).

Dilemmas of Critical Theory

As the proponents of critical theory have pointed out, our society contains different forms of domination. More often than not, the many and many varied conditions responsible for human oppression and exploitation are rooted in the social structure and the cultural norms and conditions of the society. Hence, schools as social institutions reflect the conditions that lead to domination. A dilemma of the conflict theorists is that if teachers and other educators are products of schools controlled by the dominating group, how can they help students develop critical literacy to emancipate themselves? One proposal is to do away with schools and place the control of education in the hands of parents and local communities. However, there is no assurance that families and communities will not work toward perpetuating their own class culture, nor is there a guarantee that the powers of the upper class will not nullify the efforts of lower-class families and communities.

Yet another dilemma faces advocates of critical theory. On one hand, Giroux (1984) wants to "develop a real defense of schools as institutions which perform a public service." He also insists that educators work with community groups to develop pockets of cultural resistance and to help students become reflective about their life, status, and society. This means that our universities should produce teachers who can encourage students to analyze the assumptions underlying the existing social order and cultural practices and envision alternative forms of society. In spite of Giroux's idea about how our schools should develop critical literacy among the young, he also argues that we cannot rely on existing schools for radical educational reform to promote emancipatory change. The power of schools to control what can and cannot be debated, the disrespect they have toward the oppressed, and their willingness to act against their opponents simply make them unreliable agents for social change (Giroux, 1984). Now, if, as the critical theorists contend, schools reproduce the dominant ideology, who would educate teachers to become emancipating agents? Insofar as schools cannot escape from the influence of the values and norms of the larger society, the critical theorists' demand that schools help students to question and reject the existing system is tantamount to asking teachers and students to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.

The Interpretivist Perspective

As we have seen, the functionalists, the conflict theorists, and the advocates of critical theory arrived at their views by analyzing the relationship between education and the structural elements of the social class system. However, advocates of interpretivist theory maintain that an understanding of the relationship between school and society requires an analysis of interactions among students, teachers, administrators, and various peer groups. They urge us to understand the schooling-society relationship by interpreting the meanings of interactive patterns among these groups, curricula, and school achievements. At the same time, we are admonished not to impose our own preconceived philosophical or theoretical framework on our observation of school and society. In their approach to research, the interpretivists attempt to integrate the structural study of society with analytic studies of interactions among students and school personnel, the nature and contents of school curricula, as well as the consequences of direct and hidden approaches to teaching. Consequently, the interprets utilize the findings regarding the linguistic basis of cognition (symbolic interactionism), the role of shared meanings in social situations (ethno-methodology), and the experiential or common-sense views of reality (phenomenology).

According to the interpretivists, social structure consists of a system of class inequality that the family perpetuates by transmitting linguistic codes or patterns of communication to the young (Karabel & Halsey, 1977, p. 63). Thus, although the school is a principal instrument of ‘socialization, it is not the basic agency in which socialization begins. Children learn to play the "game" of living by interpreting the meanings of various rules of behavior, sanctions, lifestyles, and other appropriate norms through speech patterns determined by the family's social position. The child's future class status in society is in turn affected by the communication patterns acquired from the family. Not unexpectedly, the school directly and indirectly expects all children to acquire the dominant linguistic and cultural competencies-those originally produced by families belonging to the dominant class. The lower-class children are required to function according to linguistic and cultural patterns that are alien to them.

The educational system demands of everyone alike that they have what it does not give. This consists mainly of linguistic and cultural competencies and that relationship of familiarity with culture which can only be produced by family upbringing when it transmits the dominant culture. (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 494)

Because the school reproduces the dominant culture, it creates serious discrepancies between what the lower-class children know and the school norm (Bernstein, 1977, p. 483; Bourdieu, 1977, pp. 493-494). It is not surprising that children from lower socioeconomic classes do poorly in school, for they cannot readily develop those dominant linguistic and cultural abilities needed for academic or socioeconomic success.

According to Basil Bernstein (1977), a leading interpretivist, socialization is the process by which the child, a biological being, is made into a specific cultural being. It is a complex process that gives distinctive form and content to the child's cognitive, affective, and moral tendencies (p. 476). Through socialization the child becomes aware of the various orderings of the society and the roles he or she may be expected to play. Bernstein holds that, of many factors, the family's social class has the most formative influence on the child's education and future work. Further, it is the class system that controls the distribution of knowledge in the society so that knowledge and the modes of thinking available to the upper class become inaccessible to lower-class individuals. This control of knowledge "has sealed off communities from each other and has ranked these communities on a scale of invidious worth" (p. 477). For this reason, the communication and behavioral patterns of the lower class are often considered inferior to those of the higher social classes.

Through social control of knowledge, the class system has affected not only the distribution of material wealth but also communication patterns of different social classes. According to Bernstein, communication patterns of working-class children are much more situation specific, or particularistic, and restricted than those of middle- and upper-middle-class children, who are given more elaborated, or universalistic, communication patterns in which meanings are not imbedded in specific local situations. Bernstein (1977) explains that "where [the speech] codes are elaborated, the socialized has more access to the grounds of his own socialization.... [However,] where the codes are restricted, the socialized has less access to the grounds of his socialization" (p. 478). In other words, individuals with universalistic, elaborated communication patterns are able to respond more flexibly to new and different social situations than those who have particularistic and restricted speech patterns.

The particularistic and restricted nature of the lower-class communication patterns becomes a barrier for working-class children in dealing with situations that go beyond their social class experiences. Further, these children are less able to handle abstract thoughts and generalizations. Socioeconomic inequities in society are maintained because families reproduce the communication patterns and speech codes that are specifically connected with their social status. In addition, higher-status positions require those communication patterns that are reproduced by families belonging to the dominant class. These conditions leading to societal inequities are exacerbated by the fact that schools consider only the universalistic, elaborated

communication patterns as acceptable norms. Moreover, they view any pattern that deviates from the dominant norms as "devalued, and humiliated within schools or seem, at best to be irrelevant to the educational endeavor" (p. 484).

Bernstein asserts that the school is primarily interested in transmitting universalistic speech codes. Hence serious discrepancies are bound to arise between what the school attempts to accomplish and the communication patterns of the lower-class children. Accordingly, if we are to reduce the amount of social inequities in society, the school must purge all built-in class biases from its curriculum and pedagogy and its conception of educability. Moreover, the school should not try to get lower-class families to provide their children with linguistic and cultural knowledge and skills that these families do not possess. Rather, the school should focus on how it can help these children bridge the gap between their own skills and those that the larger society demands within the context of schooling.

Limitations of the Interpretivist Theory

Interpreting the meanings of various interactive relationships among students, school personnel, the curriculum, and pedagogy is essential in understanding the role of schooling, for schooling occurs among people irradiated by curriculum and instruction. The use of this approach in studying the school-society relationship requires that we become participant-observers, just as ethnographers study an alien culture by living in it, One of the difficulties with this ethno-methodological approach is that when the investigator becomes involved in the process or event being studied, the degree of involvement may easily affect the outcome of the study. In addition, because the investigator's focus is on interactions among people and various aspects of the school, not enough attention is paid to the influences of the larger social, political, and economic contexts in which individuals function. For, these reasons, the interpretivists are often criticized for not having conducted enough rigorous empirical studies to support their claims with hard evidence. This criticism raises further questions about the nature of the critical interpretivists use to determine the soundness of their claims.

Another limitation of interpretivism is that although this theory offers an insightful description of the class system and its impact on social inequities, it does not provide a viable plan to resolve class conflicts. Nor does it offer realistic plans to eliminate or even substantially reduce social inequities in society.

Postmodern Perspectives

Undergirding the functionalist, conflict, critical, and interpretivist perspectives are modernist assumptions. Key among these is the idea that social phenomena are characterized by fixed structures and systematic underlying relationships. So, for example, we cannot understand a teacher's activity without examining how that fits together with broader aspects of schooling and society such as the expectations of the curriculum, the social class of the students, and the bureaucracy. From the modernist perspective these relationships are regular and predictable. It is possible to these systemic relationships and thereby understand the social world. Modernism in its functionalist form places great emphasis on the rationalization of the social world. That is, through the establishment of clear, objective procedures and through efficient, unbiased management, social institutions can fairly serve all people in its functionalist and critical forms, the modernist perspective places great faith In the human ability to

control humankind's future and to shape a better world.

Postmodernism/poststructuralism calls these assumptions into question. Poststructuralism, in its contemporary forms, is rooted in the writings of Michel Foucault (1972) and Jacques Derrida (1972). Foucault is interested in the ways in which social and political Institutions produce and reproduce ideas about truth and knowledge. Derrida challenges the idea that meaning is fixed. Meaning is only fixed through a consensus of readers and will change, or shift, over time. From the postmodernist perspective, what has passed for reason and objective knowledge has in fact been the knowledge, norms, and expectations of those in power. What has been seen as objective truth is defined by postmodernists as a master narrative in which those who hold power determine what passes for knowledge. Henry Giroux (1993) describes the postmodern perspective succinctly:

Postmodernism rejects a notion of reason that is disinterested, transcendent and universal. Rather than separating reason from the terrain of history, race and desire, postmodernist argues that reason and science can only be understood as part of a broader historical, political and social struggle on the relationships between language and powers (p. 53)

Western culture has defined a privileged canon, a body of literature and ideas that is seen as true and good. This canon has ignored the voices and ideas of those with little or no power. The writing and thinking of the oppressed and the poor, for example were not been seen generally as having equal power with the voices of the dominant Culture. Postmodernist argue for the need for multiple narratives. Rather than one way of knowing and understanding, there are many. Subordinated and excluded groups are given voice and opportunity to discover their worlds and histories.

Postmodernist further argue that it is necessary to examine or deconstruct meanings that we tend to take for granted. That is, language is not simply a medium for transmitting ideas and meaning; it is, in fact a reflection of existing power structures. Rather than being value-neutral and fixed, meanings are constructed and reconstructured as society and social structures change.

Some people speak with authority, while others listen as consumers, because power infiltrates the language we inherit; the meanings of our words, utterances, and discourses; and the institutions and practices that shape their use (Cherryholmes, 1988, p. 50).

For postmodernist, the purpose of education is not to perpetuate the social, political, and economic interests of the few. Rather, it should transform society and empower the marginalized and the oppressed to develop their own personal and social identity based on an understanding of the "whys" of their own status and cultural difference. Not surprisingly, post-modernists seek to deal with problems and issues in society in an integrated way rather than following the lines of discrete and established academic disciplines. Regarding the use of textbooks and knowledge, they point out that these books generally introduce key words with their definitions and examples. Rarely do they indicate that there is likely to be more than one definition. The word identity, for example, is likely to have several different meanings and particularly different meanings in different cultures. Further, textbooks make authoritative claims about what is and is not knowledge, with little indication that the claim is controversial or contested. Textbooks determine what knowledge is important or not important by what they include and what they leave out.

Critiques of Postmodernism/Poststructuralism

Postmodernism raises many important questions about what counts as knowledge and whose voice gets heard in the construction of knowledge. It has been criticized for the very questions it raises. Does the postmortem invitation to open tip the curriculum to multiple voices and perspectives threaten the cohesion of out- society? Even those who agree that there is a need to analyze the power assumptions embedded in the curriculum question the postmortem critique, which sees the struggle for democracy as based on a politics of difference and power rather than on deliberation and reason (Giroux, 1993, p.48).

Postmodernism is not a single unified theory. Rather, it is more like a mood or frame of mind (Noddings, 1995, p. 72; Ozmon & Cravei- 1999, p. 361). Its subscribers reject the possibility of a universal truth and a single fixed way of knowing. While postmodernist emphasize the importance of allowing cultural diversity, transforming society to establish pluralistic democracy, and helping the oppressed to form their own identity, the difficult and esoteric nature of then- language makes us wonder about how well the marginalized as well as the general public understand their message. Further, their views about expected educational outcomes are more abstract and global than concrete and specific. As Ozmon and Craver point out, postmodernist seem to be more conscious of what they oppose than what they promote; this is revealed in the lack of attention to the some-times overwhelmingly negative tone of their delivery" (Ozmon & Craver, 1999,I). 371).

A Review and Critical Estimate of the Five Perspectives

Before we discuss a critical estimate of the five perspectives, it may be useful to briefly review these ideas because, in spite of their differences, they contain several overlapping views.

A Review

As we have already seen, advocates of the structural/functionalist theory believe that as a social system the school is an integral part of society. A central role of the school is to pass on the cultural norms of the society to the young so that they can function effectively. Through schooling and other means of education the society is able to maintain social order and perpetuate itself. Critics argue that schools transform culture for the purpose of "helping Students meet the institutional requirements of their credential (McNeil, 1986, p. 13). McNeil explains that schools transform culture into pieces of school knowledge and units of courses and sequences that conform to the school's bureaucratic processes. She goes on to say that after being processed through worksheets, list-filled lectures and short answer tests, the Cultural content ... Comes to Serve only the interests of institutional efficiencies. its forms may have some utility but its substance has been depleted. (p. 13)

Unlike the functionalists, those who assume a critical perspective take a critical stance toward the status quo of schooling. Conflict theorists argue that the school is an instrument of domination used by those in power to preserve and extend the existing social order. This practice results in an inequitable distribution of wealth, power, and educational opportunities. A new social structure emerges from struggles between the poor and the rich to achieve a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power. According to critical theorists, there is a genuine need to reconsider the meanings of domination and emancipation because people can be dominated through learning the kind of knowledge, culture, and history that legitimize domination and reinforce the roles of the subjugated. We need to "break the grip of all closed systems of thought and to counter an unreflected affirmation of society" (Thompson & field, 1982, p. 2). Our reflection about domination must "penetrate beyond the level of particular historical class interests to disclose the fundamental interests of mankind as such" (Habermas, 1971, p. 113). Educationally, schools must help their students learn modes of inquiry, knowledge, and skills to enable them to think critically about how their society may have shaped their positions and prevented them from realizing goals that go beyond the prescribed status. Through such schooling the young should be able to "affirm and reject the' own histories in order to begin the process of struggling for the conditions that will give them opportunities to lead a self-managed existence" (Giroux, 1983, p. 3 8).

The functionalist and critical perspectives seek to understand the role of schooling based on analyses of the relationship between schools as structural aspects of society and society. But is it possible to adequately understand human society without having sound knowledge regarding human behavior? Interpretivists note that to gain such knowledge, we need to examine the norms with in which people interpret their experiences and other events in life by assigning significance and values to them. If we grant that culture consists of a system of norms for ascribing meanings and importance to the events in individuals' lives, then those who live in the same culture will tend to give generally similar interpretations to various occurrences. Variations in interpretations are still possible because of the differences in personal experiences and socioeconomic class. In educational terms, the interpretivists are interested in analyzing interactions among students and various school personnel. To these theorists, student behavior cannot be understood unless we know about their goals and the norms that guide school activities. Children learn the rules and standards that determine their roles and status In school. Hence, schools should evaluate the effects of class bias in reaching, curriculum, and other school-related activities.

The postmodern perspective argues against efforts to strive toward objectivity. What has been defined as school knowledge, as universal and true, has in fact been defined by those in power. From a postmodern perspective, it is necessary to deconstruct both those power relationships and the canon of knowledge that has emerged from them. Only by seeing knowledge and language within historically constructed contexts can we begin to know. Only by attending to diverse voices can we really begin to understand the world and our lived experiences within it.

A Critical Estimate

These perspectives toward the role of schooling represent fine interpretations of the same educational and sociocultural processes found in all human societies. Each of the five perspectives attempts to explain the relationship among schooling, culture, and social structure and proposes different educational measures to make human society more egalitarian. As important as these theories are in helping us analyze the relationship between school and society and class structure and social inequities, all of the theories leave certain aspects of social reality unexplained. For example, social inequities continue to exist in socialistic or Marxist societies. At the same time, educational opportunities are accessible to many more groups of people in the United States than in other capitalistic or even noncapitalistic countries. In the area of their proposed programs for social change and educational reforms, they are intellectually compelling but practically not achievable. In fact, hardly any of the measures proposed by those who hold a critical, interpretivist, or postmodern perspective have had significant impact on how schools are run and children are educated.

At least two possible reasons explain why these theories have had little direct influence on how children are educated. One is that the relationship among education, schooling, and social stratification is extremely complex and multidimensional. Any reform programs based on a theory that is rooted in a single concept - for example, class domination or transmission of communication patterns will inevitably be inadequate. The impact of such measures will be limited if not superficial. What is needed is the development of a multi disciplinary theory of education that utilizes the findings and methods of a wide range of biological, physical, and social sciences as well as our lived experiences. This does not suggest that these five theories should be discarded, for they do provide insight into certain aspects of the relationship among schooling, culture, and society.

Second, the failure of educational theorists to make a genuine difference in the actual business of educating people may be attributable in large part to the fact that the theorists are outside of the world of educational politics. The theorists become "outsiders" because they are preoccupied with de-,,eloping and reproducing their own unique languages, which are 'able to those who do not belong to the same intellectual "class." not accessible.

For example, if the object of critical theory is to "change the world," why "should it describe itself in a language inaccessible to all but a few" (Noddings, 1995)? Since educational politicians and practitioners have their own ordering of meanings that are not open to the theorists, the theorists have very little, if any, power to affect educational establishments and their practices. For the theoretical ideas to make any difference at all, the theorists must become more actively involved in political movements of the larger educational community. Perhaps they should take seriously the following admonition:

If one is concerned to establish a more human society, then he ought to work to establish that society in the very places where people live and work. If one is intent on having man's work and his machines serve real human needs, then he ought to see to it that a man's work serves his human need and not assume this to be an inevitable by-product of letting talent rise to the top. Aid if it is believed that the requirements of technology and the nature of work are destroying the humanizing and educative functions of the family and the community, then one should reexamine the requirements of technology and the nature of work. (Feinberg, 1975)

CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCAITON BY YOUNG PAI AND SUSAN A. ADLER. THIRD EDITION. Columbus: Merrill-Prentice Hall. (2001).

MANUELA keeps dreaming about the village. She does not think about it very much in the daytime. Even when she thinks about Mexico, it is not usually about the village. In any case, during the day it is the brash, gleaming reality of California that dominates, its loud demand for full attention pushing into the background the old images and feelings. It is at night that the village comes back, reclaiming its power over Manuela. It is then as if she had never left it - or worse, as if she must inevitably return to it.

It is often very hot in the village, though at night one may freeze. The earth is dry. Time moves very slowly, as the white clouds move through the brightly blue sky over the brown and arid hills. Times moves slowly in the faces of the people too, and the faces too are brown and arid. Even the faces of the very young seem to hold old memories. The children do not smile easily. The day is measured by the halting motion of shadows over houses and trees. The years are mostly measured by calamities. The past is powerfully present, although there are few words for it. No one in the village speaks an Indian language, though everyone has Indian blood. Can the blood speak, without words? Do the dead speak from the earth? Somewhere in this blue sky and in these brown hills there are very old presences, more threatening than consoling. Some years ago the schoolteacher dug up some Indian artifacts and wanted to take them to the city, to sell them to a museum. Calamity struck at once, all over the village. The dead do not want to be disturbed, and they are dangerous.

The village is distant. Distant from what? Distant from everything, but most importantly distant from the places where time moves quickly and purposefully. There is no paved road, no telephone, no electricity. Even the schoolteacher only comes on two days of the week. He has two other villages to take care of, and he lives somewhere else. To get to the nearest bus station one rides on a donkey for three hours over footpaths of trampled dirt. Time and distance determine the world of the village, in fact and in Manuela's dreams. If she were to put it in one sentence, this world, she would have to say: It is very far away, and life there moves very slowly. On the maps the village is in the state of Guerrero, in a very specific location between Mexico City and the Pacific Ocean. In Manuela's dreams the village is located in the center of her self, deep down inside rather than out there somewhere.

Manuela was born in the village twenty-two years ago. Her mother died shortly afterward. Her father, already married to another woman with seven legitimate children, never acknowledged Manuela. Indeed, be has never spoken with her. She was raised by one of her mother's brothers, a man without land and much of the time without work, with a large family of his own that he barely managed to support. There was never any question about the family obligation to take care of Manuela; the only question at the time, lengthily discussed by her grandfather and the three uncles still living in the area, was which of the three would take the baby in. But this obligation did not greatly exceed supplying the bare necessities of life. There was never the slightest doubt about Manuel's status in her uncle's household as the unwanted bastard who took the food out of the mouths of her more deserving cousins- and she was told so in no uncertain terms on many occasions. If there was little food, she would be the hungriest. If there was hard work, she would be the one to do it. This does not mean that she received no affection. She was a very pretty, winsome child, and often people were kind to her. But she always knew that affection and kindness were not her right, were given to her gratuitously- and, by the same token, could be gratuitously taken away. As a child Manuela wished for someone who would love her all the time, reliably, "officially." However, she was only dimly unhappy in her uncle's household, since she knew nothing else. She was often hungry, sometimes beaten. She did not have shoes until her tenth birthday, when her grandfather made her a present of a pair. This was also the first occasion when she went outside the village, accompanying her grandfather on a visit to the doctor in the nearest town.

Her grandfather and one of her uncles in the village were ejidatarios, belonging to the minority that owned parcels of land under the village elido (agricultural cooperative). Most of the time the uncle with whom she stayed worked on this land, too, though be would hire himself out for work elsewhere when there was an opportunity. When she was not working in the house or taking' care of her little cousins, Manuela also worked in the fields or with the animals belonging to her family. After her tenth birthday she sometimes worked for outsiders, but she was expected to turn over the money she received for this. Sometimes she succeeded in keeping a few coins for herself, though she knew that she would be beaten if found out. She was allowed to school and, being very bright, she learned to read and write well. It was her brightness that attracted her grandfather, who was amused by her and took a liking to her (much to the annoyance of her cousins).

"Bad blood will show." "You will come to no good end. Like your mother." Manuela must have heard this hundreds of times during her childhood. The prophecy was fulfilled when she was fifteen and made pregnant by the secretary of eiido, one of the most affluent farmers in the village. When her condition could no longer be concealed, there was a terrible scene and her uncle threw her out of the house. Her grandfather, after slapping her a couple of times but mildly, gave her the address of an aunt in Acapulco and enough money to pay her busefare there. It was thus that she left the village.

Manuela, marveled at Acapulco and its astonishing sights, but needless to say, she lived there in a world far removed from that experienced by the tourists. Her Aunt, a gentle widow with two children and a maid's job in one of the big hotels, took Manuela in a very warmly (at least in part because she could use some help in the house). Manuela's baby was born there, a healthy boy whom she named Roberto. Not much later, Manuela also started to work outside the house.

A Mexican campestino, when he migrates, normally follows an itinerary taken before him by relatives and compadres. When he arrives, the latter provide an often intricate net-work of contacts that are indispensable for his adjustment to the new situation. They will provide initial housing, they can give information and advice, and, Perhaps most important, they serve is in informal labor exchange. Such a network awaited Manuela in Acapulco. In addition to the aunt she was staying with, there were two more aunts and an uncle with their respective families, including some twelve cousins of all ages. This family system, of course was transposed to the city from the village, but it took on a quite different character in the new context. Freed from the oppressive constraints of village life, the system, on the whole, was more benign. Manuela experience it as such. Several of her cousins took turns taking care of little Roberto when Manuela started to work. Her aunt's "fiancee" (a somewhat euphemistic term), who was head clerk in the linen supply department of the hotel, found Manuela a job in his department. The uncle, through a compadre who was head waiter to another hotel, helped her get a job there as a waitress. It was this uncle, incidentally, who had gone further than any other member of the Acapulco clan, at least for a brief time, an intelligent and aggressive man, he worked himself up in the municipal sanitation department to the rank of inspector. Through a coup, the details of which were shrouded in mystery, but which were safely assumed by everyone to involve fragility of heroic proportions, Uncle Pepe amassed the equivalent of about one thousand U.S. dollars in a few months time, a staggering sum in this ambience. With thus money, he set out for Mexico City, ostensibly to look into a business proposition. In fact he checked into one of the capitals finest hotels, made the rounds of nightclubs and luxury brothels, and returned penniless but not overly unhappy a month later. The clan has viewed him with considerable awe ever since.

Manuela now had a fairly steady cash income, modest to be sure, but enough to keep going. This does not mean, however, that she could keep all of it for herself and her child. The family system operated as a social insurance agency as well as a labor exchange, ind there was never a shortage of claimants. An Aunt required in operation. An older cousin set up business as a mechanic and needed some capital to start off. Another cousin was arrested and a substantial mordida was required to bribe his way out of jail. And then there were always new calamities back in the village, requiring emergency transfers of money back there. Not least among them was the chronic calamity of grandfather's kidney ailment, which consumed large quantities of family funds in expensive and generally futile medical treatments.

Sometimes, at the hotel, Manuela did baby-sitting for tourists with children. It was thus that she met the couple from California. They stayed in Acapulco for a whole month, and soon Manuela took care of their little girl almost daily. When they left the woman asked Manuela whether she wanted a job as a maid in the States. "Yes," replied Manuela at once, without thinking. The arrangements were made quickly. Roberto was put up with a cousin. Uncle Pepe, through two trusted intermediaries, arranged for Manuela to cross the border illegally. Within a month she arrived at the couples address in California.

And now she his been here for over a year. California was even more astonishing than Acapulco had been when she first left the village, but now she had more time to explore this new world. She learned English in a s hort time, and in the company of a Cuban girl who worked for a neighbor, she started forays into the American universe, in ever-wider circles from her employers' house. She even took bus trips to Hollywood and San Francisco. For the first time in her life, she slept in a room all by herself. And despite her regular payments for Roberto's keep, she started to save money and put it in a bank account. Most important, when started to think about her life in a new way, systematically. "What will become of you when you go back?" asked the American woman one day. Manuela did not know then, but she started to think. Carmelita, the Cuban girl, discussed the matter with her many times - in exchange for equal attention paid to her own planning exercises. Eventually, one project won out over all the alternatives: Manuela would return to go to commercial school, to become a bilingual secretary. She even started a typing course in California. But she would not return to Acapulco. She knew that, to succeed, she would have to remove herself from the family there. She would go to Mexico City, first alone, and then she would send for Roberto.

This last decision was made gradually. It was the letters that did it. Manuela, some months before, had mentioned the amount of money she had saved (a very large amount, by her standards, and enough to keep her and Roberto afloat for the duration of the commercial course). Then the letters started coming from just about everyone in the Acapulco clan. Most of the contents were family gossip, inquiries about Manuela's life in the States, and long expressions of affectionate feelings. There were frequent reminders not to forget her relatives, who took such good care of Roberto. Only gradually did the economic infrastructure emerge from this. There was to be a fiesta at the wedding of a cousin, and could Manuela make a small contribution. The cousin who had been in jail was still to be tried and there were lawyer's expenses. Uncle Pepe was onto the most promising business opportunity of his "long and distinguished career in financial activities" (his own words) and just three hundred American dollars would make it possible for him to avail himself of this never-to-recur opportunity - needless to say, Manuela would be a full partner upon her return. Finally, there was even a formal letter from grandfather, all the way from the village, containing an appeal for funds to pay for a trip to the capital so as to take advantage of a new treatment that a famous doctor had developed there. It took a while for Manuela to grasp that every dollar of her savings had already been mentally spent by her relatives.

The choice before Manuela now is sharp and crystal clear: She must return to Mexico - because she wants to, because of Roberto, and because the American authorities would send her back sooner or later anyway. She can then return to the welcoming bosom of the family system, surrender her savings, and return to her previous way of life. Or she can carry through her plan in the face of family opposition. The choice is not only between two courses of action, but between two moralities. The first course is dictated by the morality of collective solidarity, the second by the morality of personal autonomy and advancement. Each morality condemns the other - as uncaring selfishness in the former case as irresponsible disregard of her own potential and the welfare of her son in the latter. Poor Manuela's conscience is divided; by now she is capable of feeling its pangs either way.

She is in America, not in Mexico, and the new morality gets more support from her immediate surroundings. Carmelita is all for the plan, and so are most of the Spanish-speaking girls with whom Manuela has been going out. Only one, another Mexican, expressed doubt: "I don't know. Your grandfather is ill, and your uncle helped you a lot in the past. Can you just forget them? I think that one must always help one's relatives." Manuela once talked about the matter with the American woman. "Nonsense", said the latter, "You should go ahead with your plan. You owe it to yourself and to your son." So this is what Manuela intends to do, very soon now. But she is not at ease with the decision. Every time another letter arrives form Mexico, she hesitates before opening it, and she fortifies herself against the appeals she knows to be there.

Each decision, as dictated by the respective morality, has predictable consequences: If Manuela follows the old morality, she will, in all likelihood, never raise herself or her sone above the level she achieved in Acapulco - not quite at the bottom of the social scale, but not very far above it. If, on the other hand, she decide in accordance with the new morality (new for her, that is), she has at least a chance of making it up one important step on that scale. Her son will benefit form this, but probably no other of her relatives will. To take that step she must, literally, hack off all those hands that would hold her back. It is a grim choice indeed.

What will Manuela do? She will probably at least start out on her plan. Perhaps she will succeed. Bu once she is back in Mexico, the tentacles of the old solidarity will be more powerful. They will pull more strongly. It will be harder to escape than other village, the village of the mind within herself. The outcome of the struggle will decide whether the village will be Manuela's past or also her future. Outside observers should think very carefully indeed before they take sides in this contest.

Manuela's story is fiction, made up as a composite from several true stories. Manuela does not exist. But many Manuela do exist, not only in Mexico, but all over the Third World. Their moral dilemma must be understood if one is to understand "development."

Copyright (c) 1988 by Peter Berger

Pyramids of Sacrifice: Political Ethics and Social Change

Anchor Books: Garden City, New York (1976)

EDITOR'S NOTE: The !Kung and other Bushmen speak click languages. In the story, three different clicks are used.-

1. The dental click 0, as in lailai, lontah, and Igaugo. The click is sometimes written in English as tsk-tsk.

2. The alveopalatal click (!), as in Benla and !Kung.

3. The lateralclick (//), as in ll gom. Clicks function as consonants; a word may have more than one, as in In!au.

The !Kung Bushmen's knowledge of Christmas is thirdhand. The London Missionary Society brought the holiday to the southern Tswana tribes in the early nineteenth century. Later, native catechists spread the idea far and wide among the Bantu-speaking pastorales, even in the most remote corners of the Kalahari Desert. The Bushmen's idea of the Christmas story, stripped to its essentials, is "Praise the birth of white man's god-chief; what keeps their interest in the holiday high is the Tswana-Herero custom of slaughtering an ox for his Bushmen neighbors as an annual goodwill gesture. Since the 1930s, part of the Bushmen's annual round of activities has included a December congregation at the cattle posts for trading, marriage brokering, and several days of trance-dance feasting at which the local Tswana headman is host.

As a social anthropologist working with !Kung Bushmen, I found that the Christmas ox custom suited my purposes. I had come to the Kalahari to study the hunting and gathering subsistence economy of the! Kung, and to accomplish this it was essential not to provide them with food, share my own food, or interfere in anyway with their food-gathering activities while liberal handouts of tobacco and medical supplies were appreciated, they were scarcely adequate to erase the glaring disparity in wealth between the anthropologist, who maintained a two-month inventory of canned goods, and the Bushmen, who rarely had a day's supply of food on hand. My approach, while paying off in terms of data, left me open to frequent accusations of stinginess and hard-heartedness. By their lights, I was a miser.

The Christmas ox was to be my way of saying thank you for the cooperation of the past year; and since it was to be our last Christmas in the field, I determined to slaughter the largest, meatiest ox that money could buy, insuring that the feast and trance-dance would be a success.

Through December I kept my eyes open at the wells as the cattle were brought down for watering. Several animals were offered, but none had quite the grossness that I had in mind. Then, ten days before the holiday, a Herero friend led an ox of astonishing size and mass up our camp. It was solid black, stood five feet high at the shoulder, had a five-foot span of horns, and must have weighed 1,200 pounds on the hoof. Food consumption calculations are my specialty, and I quickly figured that bones and viscera aside, there was enough meat -at least four pounds - for every man, woman, and child of the 150 Bushmen in the vicinity of /ai/ai who were expected at the feast.

Having found the right animal at last, I paid the Herero L2O ($56) and asked him to keep the beast with his herd until Christmas day. The next morning word spread among the people that the big solid black one was the ox chosen by/ontah (my Bushman name; it means, roughly, whitey) for the Christmas feast. That afternoon I received the first delegation. Ben!a, an outspoken sixty-year-old mother of five, came to the point slowly.

"Where were you planning to eat Christmas?' "Right here at /ai/ai,' I replied. "Alone or with others?"

"I expect to invite all the people to eat Christmas with me.' 'Eat what?' "I have purchased Yehave's black ox, and I am going to slaughter and cook it." 'That's what we were told at the well but refused to believe it until we heard it from yourself" "Well, it's the black one," I replied expansively, although wondering what she was driving at. 'Oh, no!' Ben!a groaned, turning to her group. 'They were right.' Turning back to me she asked, "Do you expect us to eat that bag of bones?" "Bag of bones! it's the biggest ox at /ai/ai.' "Big, yes, but old. And thin. Everybody knows there's no meat on that old ox. What did you expect us to eat off it, the horns?" Everybody chuckled at Ben!alsone-liner as they walked away, but all I could manage was a weak grin.

That evening it was the turn of the young men. They came to sit at our evening fire. /gaugo, about my age, spoke to me man-to-man. "/ontah, you have always been square with us," he lied. "What has happened to change your heart? That sack of guts and bones of Yehave's will hardly feed one camp, let alone all the Bushmen around/ai/ai.'And he proceeded to enumerate the seven camps in the/ai/ai vicinity, family by family. "Perhaps you have forgotten that we are not few, but many. Or are you too blind to tell the difference between a proper cow and an old wreck? That ox is thin to the point of death."

'Look, you guys,' I retorted, my that is a beautiful animal, and I'm sure you will eat it with' Pleasure at Christmas." 'Of course we will eat it; it's food. But it won't fill us up to the point where we will have enough strength to dance. we will eat and go home to bed with stomachs rumbling."

That night as we turned in, I asked my wife, Nancy: "What did you think of the black ox?" It looked enormous to me. Why?' Well, about eight different people have told me I got gypped; that the ox is nothing but bones." "What's the angle?" Nancy asked. "Did they have a better one to sell?"

"No, they just said that it was going to be a grim Christmas because there won't be enough meat to go around. maybe I'll I get an independent judge to look at the beast in the morning. Bright and early, Halingisi, a Tswana cattle owner, appeared at our camp. But before I could ask him to give me his opinion on Yehave's black ox, he gave me the eye signal that indicated a confidential chat. we left the camp and sat down.

"/ontah, I'm surprised at you: you've lived here for three years and still haven't learned anything about cattle." "But what else can a person do but choose the biggest, strongest animal one can find?" I retorted. "Look ,just because an animal is big doesn't mean that it has plenty of meat on it. The black one was a beauty when it was younger, but now it is thin to the point of death."

"Well I've already bought it. what can I do at this stage?" "Bought it already? I thought you were just considering it. Well, you'll have to kill it and serve it, I suppose. But don't expect much of a dance to follow."

My spirits dropped rapidly. I could believe that Ben!a and/gaugojust might be putting me on about the black ox, but Halingisi seemed to be an impartial critic. I went around that day feeling as though I had bought a lemon of a used car.

In the afternoon it was to Tomazo'sturn. Tomazo is a fine hunter, a top trance performer (see "The Trance Cure of the! Kung Bushmen,' Natural History, November, 1967), and one of my most reliable informants. He approached the subject of the Christmas cow as part of my continuing Bushmen education.

'My friend, the way it is with us Bushmen," he began, "is that we love meat. And even more than that, we love fat. When we hunt we always search for the fat ones, the ones dripping with layers of white fat: fat that turns into a clear, thick oil in the cooking pot, fat that slides down your gullet, fills your stomach and gives you a roaring diarrhea," he rhapsodized.

"So, feeling as we do," he continued, "it gives us pain to be served such a scrawny thing as Yehave's black ox. it is big, yes, and no doubt its giant bones are good for soup, but fat is what we really crave and so we will eat Christmas this year with a heavy heart.

The prospect of a gloomy Christmas now had me worried, so I asked Tomazo what I could do about it. "Look for a fat one, a young one ... smaller, but fat. Fat enough to make us //gom (evacuate the bowels'), then we will be happy."

My suspicions were aroused when Tomazo said that he happened to know of a young, fat, barren cow that the owner was willing to part with. Was Toma working on commission, I wondered? But I dispelled this unworthy thought when we approached the Herero owner of the cow in question and found that he had decided not to sell.

The scrawny wreck of a Christmas ox now became the talk of the /ai/ai water hole and was the first news told to the outlying groups as they began to come in from the bush for the feast. What finally convinced me that real trouble might be brewing as the visit from u!au, an old conservative with a reputation for fierceness. His nickname meant spear and referred to an incident thirty years ago in which he had speared a man to death. He had an intense manner; fixing me with his eyes, he said in clipped tones:

"I have only just heard about the black ox today, or else I would have come here earlier. /ontah, do you honestly think you can serve meat like that to people and avoid a fight?" He

paused, letting the implications sink in. "I don't mean fight you, /ontah; you are a white man. I mean a fight between Bushmen. There are many fierce ones here, and with such a small quantity of meat to distribute, how can you give everybody a fair share? Someone is sure to accuse another of taking too much or hogging all the choice pieces. Then you will see what happens when some go hungry while others eat.

The possibility of at least serious argument struck me as all too real. I had witnessed the tension that surrounds the distribution of meat from a kudu or gemsbok kill, and had documented many arguments that sprang up from a real or imagined slight in meat distribution. The owners of a kill may spend up to two hours arranging and rearranging the piles of meat under the gaze of a circle of recipients before handing them out. And I also knew that the Christmas feast at /ai/ai would be bringing together groups that had feuded in the past. Convinced now of the gravity of the situation, I went in earnest to search for a second cow; but all my inquiries failed to turn one up.

The Christmas feast was evidently going to be a disaster, and the incessant complaints about the meagerness of the ox had already taken the fun out of it for me. Moreover, l was getting bored with the wisecracks, and after losing my temper a few times, I resolved to serve the beast anyway. if the meat fell short, the hell with it. In the Bushmen idiom, I announced to all who would listen:

"I am a poor man and blind. if I have chosen one that is too old and too thin, we will eat it anyway and see if there is enough meat there to quiet the rumbling of our stomachs."

On hearing this speech, Benia offered me a rare word of comfort. 'Its thin,' she said

philosophically, about the bones will make a good soup."

At dawn Christmas morning, instinct told me to turn over the butchering and cooking to a friend and take off with Nancy to spend Christmas alone in the bush. But curiosity kept me from retreating. I wanted to see what such a scrawny ox looked like on butchering, and if there was going to be a fight, I wanted to catch every word of it. Anthropologists are incurable that way.

The great beast was driven up to our dancing group, and a shot in the forehead dropped it in its tracks. Then, freshly cut branches were heaped around the fallen carcass to receive the meat. Ten men volunteered to help with the cutting. I asked /gaugoto make the breast bone cut. This cut, which begins the -butchering process for most large game, offers easy access for removal of the viscera. But it also allows the hunter to spot-check the amount of fat on the animal. A fat game animal carries a white layer up to an inch thick on the chest, while in a thin one, the knife will quickly cut to bone. All eyes fixed on his hand as/gaugo, dwarfed by the great carcass, knelt to the breast. The first cut opened a pool of solid white in the black skin. The second and third cut widened and deepened the creamy white. Still no bone. It was pure fat; it must have been two inches thick.

'Heylgau,' I burst out, "that ox is loaded with fat. What's this about the ox being too thin to bother eating? Are you out of your mind?'

'Fat?'/gau shot back, "You call that fat? This wreck is thin, sick, dead" And he broke out laughing. So did everyone else. They rolled on the ground, paralyzed with laughter. Everybody laughed except me; I was thinking.

I ran back to the tent and burst in just as Nancy was getting up. 'Hey, the black ox. It's fat as hell! They were kidding about it being too thin to eat. It was a joke or something. A put-on. Everyone is really delighted with it!" 'Some joke," my wife replied. "it was so funny that you were ready to pack up and leave /ai/ai.' If it had indeed been a joke, it had been an extraordinarily convincing one, and tinged, I thought, with more than a touch of malice as many jokes are. Nevertheless, that it was a joke lifted my spirits considerably, and I returned to the butchering site where the shape of the ox was rapidly disappearing under the axes and knives of the butchers. The atmosphere had become festive. Grinning broadly, their arms covered with blood well past the elbow, men packed chunks of meat into the big cast-iron cooking pots, fifty pounds to the load, and muttered and chuckled all the while about the thinness and worthiness of the animal and /ontah's poor judgment.

We danced and ate that ox two days and two nights; we cooked and distributed fourteen potfuls of meat and no one went home hungry and no fights broke out. But the 'joke' stayed in my mind. I had a growing feeling that something important had happened in my relationship with the Bushmen and that the clue lay in the meaning of the joke. Several days later, when most of the people had dispersed back to the bush camps, I raised the question with Hakekgose, Tatswana man who had grown up among the !Kung, married a!Kung girl, and who probably knew their culture better than any other non-Bushman.

'With us whites,' I began, Christmas is supposed to be the day of friendship and brotherly love. what I can't figure out is why the Bushmen went to such lengths to criticize and belittle the ox I had bought for the feast. The animal was perfectly good and their jokes and wisecracks practically ruined the holiday for me."

"So it really did bother you," said Hakekgose. "Well, that's the way they always talk when I take my rifle and go hunting with them, if I miss, they laugh at me for the rest of the day. But even if I hit and bring one down, it's no better. To them, the kill is always too small or too old or too thin; and as we sit down on the kill site to cook and eat the liver, they keep grumbling, even with their mouths full of meat. They say things like, 'Oh this is awful! What a worthless animal! Whatever made me think that this Tswana rascal could hunt!"

"Is this the way outsiders are treated?" I asked. 'No, it is their custom; they talk that way to each other too. Go and ask them. if /gaugo had been one of the most enthusiastic in making me feel bad about the merit of the Christmas ox. I sough him out first. "Why did you tell me the black ox was worthless, when you could see that it was loaded with fat and meat?" 'It is our way,' he said smiling. "We always like to fool people about that. Say there is a Bushman who has been hunting. He must not come home and announce like a braggarts have killed a big one in the bush!' He must first sit down in silence until I or someone else comes up to his fire and asks,'What did you see today?' He replies quietly, 'Ah, I'm no good for hunting. I saw nothing at all [pause] just a little tiny one.' Then I smile to myself," /gaugo continued, because I know he has killed something big. 'In the morning we make up a party of four or five people to cut up and carry the meat back to the camp. when we arrive at the kill we examine it and cry out, 'You mean to say you have dragged us all the way out here in order to make us cart home your pile of bones? Oh, if I had known it was this thin I wouldn't have come.'Another one pipes up, 'People, to think I gave up a nice day in the shade for this. At home we may be hungry but at least we have nice cool water to drink.' if the horns are big, someone says, 'Did you think that somehow you were going to boil down the horns for soup?'

"To all this you must respond..in kind. 'I agree,' you say, 'this one is not worth the effort: let's just cook the liver for strength and leave the rest for the hyenas. It is not too late to hunt today and even a duiker or a steenbok would be better than this mess.' Then you set to work nevertheless; butcher the animal, carry the meat back to the camp and everyone eats.' /gaugo concluded.

Things were beginning to make sense. Next, I went to Tomazo. He corroborated /gaugo's story of the obligatory insults over a kill and added a few details of his own. But,' I asked, 'why insult a man after he has gone to all that trouble to track and kill an animal and when he is going to share the meat with you so that your children will have something to eat?" 'Arrogance,' was his cryptic answer. "Arrogance?" "Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can't accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle." 'But why didn't you tell me this before?" I asked Tomazo with some heat. 'Because you never asked me," said Tomazo, echoing the refrain that has come to haunt every field ethnographer.

The pieces now fell into place. I had known for a long time that in situations of social conflict with Bushmen I held all the cards. I was the only source of tobacco in a thousand square miles, and I was not incapable of cutting an individual off for non-cooperation. Though my boycott never lasted longer than a few days, it was an indication of my strength. People resented my presence at the water hole, yet simultaneously dreaded my leaving. In short I was a perfect target for the charge of arrogance and for the Bushmen tactic of enforcing humility.

I had been taught an object lesson by the Bushmen; it had come from an unexpected corner and had hurt me in a vulnerable area. For the big black ox was to be the one totally generous, unstinting act of my year at /ai/ai, and I was quite unprepared for the reaction I received.

As I read it, their message was this: There are no totally generous acts. All "acts" have an element of calculation. One black ox slaughtered at Christmas does not wipe out a year of careful manipulation of gifts given to serve your own ends. After all, to kill an animal and share the meat with people is really no more than Bushmen do for each other every day and with far less fanfare.

In the end, I had to admire how the Bushmen had played out the farce - collectively straight-faced to the end. Curiously, the episode reminded me of the Good Soldier Schweik and his marvelous encounters with authority. Like Schweik, the Bushmen had retained a thoroughgoing skepticism of good intentions. Was it this independence of spirit, I wondered, that had kept them culturally viable in the face of generations of contact with more powerful societies, both black and white? The thought that the Bushmen were alive and well in the Kalahari was strangely comforting. Perhaps, armed with that independence and with their superb knowledge of their environment, they might yet survive the future.

Copyright (c) 1988 by Jaime S. Wurzel

Toward Multiculturalism: A Reader in Multicultural Education by Jaime S. Wurzel

Intercultural Press, Inc. Yarmouth, Maine (1988)

We're in his office in Durham, North Carolina. He is the business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers. On the wall is a plaque: "Certificate of Service, in recognition to CP. Ellis, for your faithful service to the city in having served as a member of the Durham Human Relations Council. February 1977.' At one time, he had been president (exalted cyclops) of the Durham chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. He is fifty-three years old.

My father worked in a textile mill in Durham. He died at forty-eight years old. it was probably from cotton dust. Back then, we never heard of brown. I was about seventeen years old and had a mother and sister depending on somebody to make a livin'. It was just barely enough insurance to cover his burial. I had to quit school and got to work. I was about eighth grade when I quit. My father worked hard but never had enough money to buy decent clothes. When I went to school, I never seemed to have adequate clothes to wear. I always left, school late afternoon with a sense of inferiority. The other kids had nice clothes, and I just had what Daddy could buy. I still got some of those inferiority feelin's now that I have to overcome once in a while. I loved my father. He would go with me to ball games. We'd go fishin' together. l was really ashamed of the way he'd dress. He would take this money and give it to me instead of putting it on himself. I always had the Ruling about somebody looking at him and makin' fun of him and makin' fun of me. I think it had to do somethin' with my life.

My father and I were very close, but we didn't talk about too many intimate things. He did have a drinking problem. During the week, he would work every day, but weekend he was ready to got plastered. I can understand when a guy looks at his paycheck and looks at his bills, larger than his paycheck. He'd done the best he could the entire week, and there seemed to be no hope. It's an illness thing. Finally you just say: "The heck with it. I'll just get drunk and forget it." My father was out of work during the depression, and I remember going with him to the finance company uptown and he was turned down. That's something that's always stuck. My father never seemed to be happy. It was a constant struggle with him just like it was for me. It's seldom I'd see him laugh. He was just tryin' to figure out what he could do form one day to the next.

After several years pumping gas at a service station, I got married. We had to have children. Four. One child was born blind and retarded, which was a real additional expense to us. He's never spoken a word. He doesn't know me when I go to see him. But I see him, I hug his neck. I talk to him, tell him I love him. I don't know whether he knows me or not, but I know he's well taken care of. All my life, I had to work, never a day without work, worked all the overtime I could get and still could not survive financially. I began to say there's somethin' wrong with this country. I worked my butt off and just never seemed to break even.

I had some real great ideas about this great nation. (Laughs). They say to abide by the law, go to church, do right and live for the Lord, and everything will work out. But it didn't work out. It just kept gettin' worse and worse. I was workin' a bread route. The highest I made one week was seventy-five dollars. The rent on our house was about twelve dollars a week. I will never forget: outside of this house was a 265-gallon oil drum, and I never did get enough money to fill up that oil drum. What I would do every night, I would run up to the store and buy five gallons of oil and climb up the ladder and pour it in that 265 gallon drum. I could hear that five gallons when it hits the bottom of that oil drum, splatters, and it sounds like it's nothin'‘ in there. But it would keep the house warm for the night. Next day you'd have to do the same thing.

I left the bread rout with fifty dollars in my pocket. I went to the bank and I borrowed four thousand dollars to buy the service station. I worked seven days a week, open and close and finally had a heart attack. Just about two months before the last payments of that loan. My wife had done the best she could to keep it runnin'. Tryin' to come out of that hole, I just couldn't do it. I really began to get bitter. I didn't know who to blame. I tried to find somebody. I began to blame it on black people. I had to hate somebody. Hatin' America is hard to do because you can't see it to hate it. You gotta have something' to look at to hate. (Laughs). The natural person for me to hate would be black people, because my father before me was a member of the Klan. As far as he was concerned, it was the savior of the white people. It was the only organization in the world that would take care of the white people. So I began to admire the Klan.

I got active in the Klan while Iw as at the service station. Every Monday night, a group of men would come by and buy a Coca-Cola, go back to the car, take a few drinks, and come back and stand around talkin'. I couldn't help but wonder: Why are these dudes comin' out every Monday? They said they were with the Klan and have meetings close-by. Would I be interested? Boy that was an opportunity I really looked forward to! To be part of something'. I joined the Klan, went from member to chaplain, from chaplain to vice-president, from vice-president to president. The title is exalted cyclops.

The first night I went with the fellas, they knocked on the door and gave the signal. They sent some robed Klansmen to talk to me and give me some instructions. I was led into a large meeting room, and this was the time of my life! It was thrilling. Here's a guy who's worked all his life and struggled all his life to be something and here's the moment to be something. I will never forget it. Four robed Klansmen led me into the hall. The lights were dim, and the only thing you could see was an illuminated cross. I knelt before the cross. I had to make certain vows and promises. We promised to uphold the purity of the white race, fight communism, and protect white womanhood.

After I had taken my oath, there was loud applause goin' throughout the building', must a been at least four hundred people. For this one little ol'person. it was a thrilling moment for C.P. Ellis. lt disturbs me when people who do not really know what it's all about are so very critical of individual Klansmen. The majority of'em are low-income whites, people who really don't have a part in something. They have been shut out as well as the blacks. Some are not very well educated either. just like myself. We had a lot of support from doctors and lawyers and police officers. Maybe they've had bitter experiences in this life and they had to hate somebody. So the natural person to hate would be the black person. He's beginning' to come up, he's beginning' to learn to read and start voting' and run for political office. Here are white people who are supposed to be superior to them, and we're shut out.

I can understand why people join extreme right-wing or left-wing groups. They're in the same boat I was. Shut out. Deep down inside, we want to be part of this great society. Nobody listens, so we join these groups.

At one time, I was state organizer of the National Rights party. I organized a youth group for the Klan. I felt we were getting old and our generation's gonna die. So I contacted certain kids in schools. They were having' racial problems. On the first night, we had a hundred high school students. when they came in the door, we had 'Dixie' playing'. These kids were just thrilled to death. I begin to hold weekly meeting's with 'em, teach in the principles of the Klan. At that time, I believed Martin Luther King had Communist connections. I began to teach that Andy Young was affiliated with the Communist party.

I had a call one night from one of our kids. He was about twelve. He said: 'I just been robbed downtown by two niggers." I'd had a couple of drinks and that really teed me off. I go downtown and couldn't find the kid. I got worried. I saw two young black people. I had the.32 revolver with me. I said: 'Nigger, you seen a little young white boy up here? I just got a call from him and was told that some niggers robbed him of fifteen cents." I pulled my pistol out and put it right at his head. I said: 'I've always wanted to kill a nigger and I think I'll make you the first one." I nearly scared the kid to death, and he struck off. This was the time when the civil rights movement was really beginning' to peak. The blacks were beginnin' to demonstrate and picket downtown stores. I never will forget some black lady I hated with a purple passion. Ann Atwater. Every time I'd go downtown, she'd be leadin' a boycott. How I hated-pardon the expression, I don't use it much now-how I just hated that black nigger. (Laughs.) Big, fat, heavy woman. She'd pull about eight demonstrations, and first thing you know they had two, three blacks at the checkout counter. Her and I have had some pretty close confrontations.

I felt very big, yeah. (Laughs.) we're more or less a secret organization. We didn't want anybody to know who we were, and I began to do some thinkin'. What am I hidin' for? I've never been convicted of anything in my life. I don't have any court record. What am I, C.P. Ellis, as a citizen and a member of the United Klansmen of America? Why can't I go to the city council meeting and say: "This is the way we feel about the matter? We don't want you to purchase mobile units to. set in our schoolyards. We don't want niggers in our schools."

We began to come out in the open. We would go to the meetings, and the blacks would be there and we'd be there. it was a confrontation every time. I didn't hold back anything. We began to make some inroads with the city councilmen and county commissioners. They began to call us friend. Call us at night on the telephone: "C.P., glad you came to that meeting last night." They didn't want integration either, but they did it secretively, in order to get elected.

They couldn't stand up openly and say it, but they were glad somebody was sayin' it. We visited some of the city leaders in their home and talk to them privately. it wasn't long before councilmen would call me up: the blacks are comin' up tonight and makin' outrageous demands. How about some of you people showin' up and have a little balance?' I'd get on the telephone: 'The niggers is comin' to the council meeting tonight. Persons in the city's cal led me and asked us to be there." We'd load up our cars and we'd fill up half the council chambers, and the blacks the other half. During these times, I carried weapons to the meetings, outside my belt. We'd go there armed. We would wind up just hollerin' and fussin' at each other. What happened? As a result of our fightin' one another, the city council still had their way. They didn't want to give up control to the blacks nor the Klan. They were usin' us.

I began to realize this later down the road. one-day I was walkin' downtown and a certain city council member saw me comin'. I expected him to shake my hand because he was talkin' to me at night on the telephone. I had been in his home and visited with him. He crossed the street. Oh shit, I began to think, somethin's wrong here. Most of 'em are merchants or maybe an attorney, an insurance agent, people like that. As long as they kept low-income whites and low-income blacks fightin', they're gonna maintain control. I began to get that feeling after I was ignored in public. I thought: Bullshit, you're not gonna use me any more. That's when I began to do some real serious thinkin'. The same things is happening in this country today. People are being used by those in control, those who have all the wealth. I'm not espousing communism. We got the greatest system of government in the world. But those who have it simply don't want those who don't have it to have any part of it. Black and white. When it comes to money, the green, the other colors make no difference. (Laughs.)

I spent a lot of sleepless nights. I still didn't like blacks. I didn't want to associate with'em. Blacks, Jews, or Catholics. My father said: "Don't have anything to do with them.' I didn't until I met a black person and talked with him, eyeball to eyeball, and met a wish person and talked to him, eyeball to eyeball. I found out they're people just like me. They cried, they cussed, they prayed, they had desires. just like myself. Thank God, I got to the point where I can look past labels. But at that time, my mind was closed.

I remember one Monday night Klan meeting. I said something was wrong. Our city fathers were using us. And I didn't like to be used. The reactions of the others was not too pleasant: "Let's just keep fightin' them niggers. I'd go home at night and I'd have to wrestle with myself. I'd look at a black person walkin' down the street, and the guy'd have ragged shoes or his clothes would be worn. That began to do somethin' to me inside. I went through this for about six months. I felt I just had to get out of the Klan. But I wouldn't get out.

Then something happened. The state AFL-CIO received a grant from the Department of HEW, a $78,000 grant: how to solve racial problems in the school system. I got telephone call from the president of the state AFL-CIO. 'We'd like to get some people together from all walks of life." I said: "All walks of life? Who you talkin' about?' He said: "Blacks, whites, liberals, conservatives, Klansmen, NAACP people." I said: 'No way am I comin' with all those niggers. I'm not gonna be associated with those type of people." A White Citizens Council guy said: 'Let's go up there and see what's goin' on. It's tax money bein' spent. I walk in the door, and there was a large number of blacks and white liberals. I knew most of'em by face' cause I seen'em demonstratin' around town. Ann Atwater was there. (Laughs.) I just forced myself to go in and sit down.

The meeting was moderated by a great big black guy who was bushy-headed. (Laughs.) That turned me off. He acted very nice. He said "I want you all to feel free to say anything you want to say." Some of the blacks stand up and say it's white racism. I took all I could take. I asked for the floor and I cut loose. I said: "No sir, it's black racism. If we didn't have niggers in the schools, we wouldn't have the problems we got today."

I will never forget. Howard Clements, a black guy stood up. He said. "I'm certainly glad C. P. Ellis come because he's the most honest man here tonight." I said "What's that nigger tryin' to do?" (Laughs). At the end of that meeting, some blacks tried to come up shake my hand, but I wouldn't do it. I walked off.

Second night, same group was there. I felt a little more easy because got some things off my chest. The third night, after they elected all the committees, they want to elect a chairman. Howard Clements stood up and said: I suggest we elect two co-chairpersons.' Joe Beckton, executive director of the Human Relations Commission, just as black as he can be, he nominated me. There was a reaction from some blacks. Nooo. And, of all things, they nominated Ann Atwater, that big old fat black gal that I had just hated with a purple passion, as co-chairman. I thought to myself: Hey, ain't no way I can work with that gal. Finally, I agreed 1, either for survival or against black people to accept it,'cause atthis point, I was tired of fightin or against Jews or against Catholics.

A Klansman and a militant black woman, co-chairmen of the school committee. It was impossible. How could I work with her? But after about two or three days, it was in our hands. We had to make it a success. his give me another sense of belonging', a sense of pride. This helped this inferiority feelin' l had . A man who has stood up publicly and said he despised black people, all of a sudden he was willin' to work with'em. Here's a chance for a low-income white man to be somethin'. in spite of all my hatred for blacks and Jews and liberals, I accepted the job. Her and I began to reluctantly work together. (Laughs.) She had as many problems workin' with me as I had workin' with her.

One night , I called her: "Ann, you and I should have a lot of differences and we got'em now. But there's somethin' laid out here before us, and if it's gonna be a success, you and I are gonna have to make it one. Can we lay aside some of these feelin's?' She said: 'I'm willing if you are.' I said: "Let's do it." My old friends would call me at night: C.P., what the hell is wrong with you? You're sellin' out the white race." This begin to make me have guilt feelin's. Am I doin' right? Am I doin' wrong. Here I am all of a sudden makin' an about-face and tryin'to deal with my feelin's, my heart. My mind was beginnin' to open up. I was beginnin' to see what was right and what was wrong. I don't want the kids to fight forever. We were gonna go ten nights. By this time, I had went to work at Duke University, in maintenance. Makin' very little money. Terry Sanford give me this days off with pay. He was president of Duke at the time. He knew I was a Klansman and realized the importance of blacks and whites getting along. I said:"If we're gonna make this thing a success, l've got to get to my kind of people.' The low-income whites. We walked the streets of Durham, and we knocked on doors and invited people- Ann was goin' into the black community. They just wasn't respondent us when we made a "house calls. Some of'em were cussin'us out. 'You're sellin'us out, Ellis, get out of my door. I don't want to talk to you." Ann was gettin' the same response from blacks: "What are you doin' messin' with that Klansman?'

One day Ann and I went back to the school and we sat down. We began to talk and just reflect. Ann said: "My daughter came home cryin' every day. She said her teacher was makin' fun of me in front of the other kids." I said: "13oy, the same thing happened to my kid. White

Liberal teacher was makin' fun of Tim Ellis's father, the Klansman. In front of other peoples. He came home cryin'." At this point -- (he pauses, swallows hard, stifles a sob) - l begin to see, here people from the far ends of the fence, having' identical problems, except hers bein' black and me bein' white. From that moment on, I tell ya, that gal and I worked together good. I begin to love the girl, really. (He weeps).

The amazing thing about it, her and l, up to that point, had cussed each other, bawled each other. We didn't know we had things in common. We worked at it, with the people who came to these meetings. They talked about racism, sex education, about teachers not bein' qualified. After seven, eight nights of real intense discussion, these people, who'd never talked to each other before, all of a sudden came up with resolutions. It was really somethin', you had to be there to get the tone and feelin' of it. At that point, I didn't like integration, but the law says you do this and I've got to do what the law says, okay? We said: let's take these resolutions to the school board." The most disheartening thing I've ever faced was the-school system refused to implement any one of these resolutions. These were recommendations from the people who pay taxes and pay their salaries. (Laughs.)

I thought they were good answers. Some of'em I didn't agree with, but I been in this thing from the beginning, and whatever comes of it, I'm gonna support it. Okay, since the school board refused, I decided I'd just run for the school board. I spent eighty-five dollars on the campaign. The guy runnin' against me spent several thousand. I really had nobody on my side. The Klan turned against me. The low-income whites turned against me. The liberals didn't particularly like me. The blacks were suspicious of me. The blacks wanted to support me, but they couldn't muster up enough to support a Klansman on the school board. (Laughs.) But I made up my mind that what I was doin' was right, and I was gonna do it regardless what anybody said. It bothered me when people would call and worry my wife. She's always supported me in anything I wanted to do. She was changing, and my boys were too. I got some of my youth corps kids involved. They still followed me.

I was invited to the Democratic women's social hour as a candidate. Didn't have but one suit to my name. Had it six, seven, eight years. I had it cleaned, put on the best shirt I had and a tie. Here were all this high-class wealthy candidates shakin' hands. I walked up to the mayor and stuck out my hand. He give me that handshake with that rag type of hand. He said: 'C.P I'm glad to see you." But I could tel I by his handshake he was lyin' to me. This was botherin me. I know I'm a low-income person. I know I'm not wealthy. I know they were sayin': 'What's this little ol' dude runnin' for school board?" Yet they had to smile and make like they're glad to see me. I begin to spot some black people in that room. I automatically went to them and that was a firm handshake. They said: 'I'm glad to see you, C.P." I knew they meant it-you can tell about a handshake. Every place I appeared, I said I will listen to the voice of the people. I will not make a major decision until I first contacted all the organizations in the city. I got 4,640 votes. The guy beat me by two thousand. Not bad for eighty-five bucks and no constituency. The whole world was opening' up, and I was learnin' new truths that I had never learned before. I was beginnin' to look at a black person, shake hands with him, and see him as a human bein'. I hadn't got rid of all this stuff. I've still got a little bit of it. But somethin' was happenin' to me. It was almost like bein' born again. it was a new life. I didn't have these sleepless nights I used to have when I was active in the Klan and slippin' around at night. I could sleep at night and feel good about it. I'd rather live now than at any other time in history. it's a challenge.

Back at Duke, doin' maintenance, I'd pick up my tools, fix the commode, unstop the drains. But this got in my blood. Things weren't right in this country, and what we done in Durham needs to be told. I was so miserable at Duke, I could hardly stand it. I'd go to work every morning just hatin' to go. My whole life had changed. I got an eighth-grade education, and I wanted to complete high school. Went to high school in the afternoons on a program called PEP-Past Employment Progress. I was about the only white in class, and the oldest. I begin to read about biology. I'd take my books home at night,'cause I was determined to get through. Sure enough, I graduated. I got the diploma at home. I come to work one mornin' and some guy says: We need a union.' At this time I wasn't pro-union. My daddy was anti-labor too. We're not gettin' paid much, we're having' to work seven days in a row. We're all starvin' to death. The next day, I meet the international representative of the Operating Engineers. He give me authorization cards. "Get these cards out and we'll have an election.' There was eighty-eight for the union and seventeen no's. I was elected chief steward for the union. Shortly after, a union man come down from Charlotte and says we need a full-time rep. We've got only two hundred people at the two plants here. It's just barely enough money comin' in to pay your salary. You'll I have to get out and organize more people. I didn't know nothin' about organizing' unions, but I knew how to organize people, stir people up. (Laughs.) That's how I got to be business agent for the union.

When I began to organize, I began to see far deeper. I began to see people again bein' used. Blacks against whites. I say this without any hesitancy: management is vicious. There's two things they want to keep: all the money and all the say-so. They don't want these poor workin' folks to have none of that. I begin to see management fightin' me with everything they had. Hire anti-union law firms, badmouth unions. The people were makin' a dollar ninety-five an hour, barely able to get through weekends. I worked as a business rep for five years and was seeing' all this.

Last year, I ran for business manager of the union. He's elected by the workers. The guy that ran against me was black, and our membership is seventy-five percent black. I thought: Claiborne, there's no way you can beat that black guy. People know your background. Even though you've made tremendous strides, those black people are not gonna vote for you. You know how much I beat him? Four to one. (Laughs.)

The company used my past against me. They put out letters with a picture of a robe and a cap: Would you vote for a Klansman? They wouldn't deal with the issues. I immediately called for a mass meeting. I met with the ladies at an electric component plant. I said: 'Okay, this is Claiborne Ellis. This is where I come from. I want you to know right now, you black ladies here, I was at one time a member of the Klan. I want you to know, because they'll tell you about it.' I invited some of my old black friends. I said: 'Brother Joe, Brother Howard, be honest now and tell these people how you feel about me." They done it. (Laughs.) Howard Clements kidded me a little bit. He said: 'I don't know what I'm doin' here, support in an ex-Klansman." (Laughs.) He said: 'I know what C.P. Ellis come from. I knew him when he was. I knew him as he grew, and grew with him. I'm tellin' you now: follow, follow this Klansman." (He pauses, swallows hard.) "Any questions?" "No," the black ladies said. "Let's get on with the meeting, we need Ellis." (He laughs and weeps.) Boy, black people sayin' that about me. I won 134 to 41. Four to one.

It makes you feel good to go into a plant and butt heads with professional union busters. You see black people and white people join hands to defeat the fascist issues they use against people. They're tryin' the same things with the Klan. it's still happenin‘ today. Can you imagine a guy who's got an adult high school diploma run into professional college graduates who are union busters? I gotta compete with 'em. I work seven days a week, nights and on Saturday and Sunday. The salary's not that great, and if I didn't care, I'd quit. But I care and I can't quit. I got a taste of it. (Laughs.)

I tell people there's a tremendous possibility in this country to stop wars, the battles, the struggles, the fights between people. People say: "That's an impossible dream. You sound I like Martin Luther King.' An ex-Klansman who sounds like Martin Luther King. (Laughs.) I don't think it's an impossible dream. it's happened in my life. it's happened in other people's lives in America.

I don't know what's ahead of me. I have no desire to be a big union official. I want to be right out here in the field with the workers. I want to walk through their factory and shake hands with that man whose hands are dirty. I'm gonna do all that one little ol' man can do. I'm fifty-two years old, and I ain't got many years left, but I want to make the best of 'em. When the news came over the radio that Martin Luther King was assassinated, I got on the telephone and begin to cal I other Klansmen. We just had a real party at the service station. Real ly rejoicing' 'cause that son of a bitch was dead. Our troubles are over with. They say the older you get, the harder it is for you to change. That's not necessarily true. Since I changed, I've set down and listened to tapes of Martin Luther King. I listen to it and tears come to my eyes 'cause I know what he's sayin' now. I know what's happenin'.

POSTSCRIPT: The phone rings. A conversation. 'This was a black guy who's director of 0peration Breakthrough in Durham. I had called his office. I'm interested in employing' some young black person who's interested in leamin' the labor movement I want somebody who's never had an opportunity, just like myself just so he can read and write, that's all.

Copyright (c) 1988 by Jaime S. Wurzel

Toward Multiculturalism: A Reader in Multicultural Education by Jaime S. Wurzel

Intercultural Press, Inc. Yarmouth, Maine (1988)

Literary theorist Barbara Hardv (1978) once asserted that narrative ought not be regarded as an "aesthetic invention used by artists to control, manipulate, and order experience, but as a primary act of mind transferred to art from life" (p. 12). Elaborating on the primacy of narrative in both our interior and exterior lives, Hardv suggests that

storytelling plays a major role in our sleeping and waking lives. We dream in narrative, daydream in narrative, remember, anticipate, hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticize,. construct, gossip, learn, hate and love by narrative. (p. 13)

From this perspective, narrative can be regarded as locally illuminating, a central way we organize and understand experience (Mishier, 1986; VanManen, 1990). It is also a primary way we construct our multiple identities as human beings for whom race, gender, class, culture, ethnicity, language, ability, sexual orientation, role, and position make a profound difference in the nature and interpretation of experience (Tatum, 1997; Thompson & Tyagi, 1996).

In this article, Identities explore and write about unlearning racism in teaching and teacher education. Identities do not begin in the scholarly tradition of crisply framing an educational problem by connecting it to current policy and practice and/or to the relevant research literature. Instead, Identities begin with a lengthy narrative based on my experiences as a teacher educator at a moment in time when issues of race and racism were brought into unexpectedly sharp relief. Identities do so with the assumption that narrative is not only locally illuminating, as Hardy's work suggests, but also that it has the capacity to contain and entertain within it contradictions, nuances, tensions, and complexities that traditional academic discourse with its expository stance and more distanced impersonal voice cannot (Fine, 1994; Gitlin, 1994; Metzger, 1986).

The idea that racism is something that all of us have inevitably learned simply by living in a racist society is profoundly provocative (King, Hollins, & Hayman, 1997; McIntosh, 1989; Tatum, 1992). For many of us, it challenges not only our most precious democratic ideals about equitable access to opportunity, but also our most persistent beliefs in the possibilities of school and social change through enlightened human agency (Apple, 1996; Giroux, 1988; Leistyna, Woodrum, & Sherblom, 1996; Noffke, 1997). Perhaps even more provocative is the position that part of our responsibility as teachers and teacher educators is to struggle along with others in order to Unlearn racism (Britzman, 1991; Cochran-Smith, 1995a; Sleeter, 1992), or to interrogate the racist assumptions that may be deeply embedded in our own courses and curricula, to own our own complicity in maintaining existing systems of privilege and oppression, and to grapple with our own failures to produce the kinds of changes we advocate. Attempting to make the unending process of unlearning racism explicit and public is challenging and somewhat risky. Easily susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation, going public involves complex nuances of interpretation, multiple layers of contradiction, competing perspectives, and personal exposure (Cochran-Smith, 1995b; Cole & Knowles, 1998; Rosenberg, 1997). Identities go public with the stories in this article not because they offer explicit directions for unlearning racism, but because they pointedly suggest some of the most complex questions we need to wrestle with in teacher education: In our everyday lives as teachers and teacher educators, how are we complicate - intentionally or otherwise - in maintaining the cycles of oppression (Lawrence & Tatum, 1997) that operate daily in our courses, our universities, our schools, and our society? Under what conditions is it possible to examine, expand, and alter longstanding (and often implicit) assumptions, attitudes, beliefs, and practices about schools, teaching, students, and communities? What roles do collaboration, inquiry, self-examination, and story play in learning of this kind? As teacher educators, what should we say about race and racism, what should we have our students read and write? What should we tell them about who can teach whom, who can speak for whom, and who has the right to speak at all about racism and teaching?

Blind Vision: A Story From a Teacher Educator

A White European American woman, Identities taught for many years at the University of Pennsylvania, a large research university in urban Philadelphia whose population was predominantly White, but whose next-door neighbors in west Philadelphia were schools and communities populated by African Americans and Asian immigrants. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the students Identities taught were White European Americans, but they worked as student teachers primarily in the public schools of Philadelphia where the population was often mostly African American or - in parts of north and northeast Philadelphia mostly Latino. In those schools that appeared on the surface to be more ideally integrated, the racial tension was sometimes intense, with individual groups insulated from or even hostile toward one another.

The teacher education program Identities directed had for years included in the curriculum an examination of race, class, and culture and the ways these structure both the U.S. educational system and the experiences of individuals in that system. For years my students read Comer (1989), Delpit (1986, 1988), Giroux (1984), Heath (1982 a, 1982b), Ogbu (1978), as well Assante (1991), McIntosh (1989), Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez ( ' 1992), Rose (1989), Sleeter and Grant (1987), Tatum (1992), and others who explore issues of race, class, culture, and language from critical and other perspectives. Identities thought that the commitment of my program to urban student teaching placements and to devoting a significant portion of the curriculum to issues of race and racism gave me a certain right to speak about these issues as a teacher educator. Identities thought this with some degree of confidence until an event occurred that was to change forever the way Identities thought about racism and teacher education. This event was to influence the work Identities did with colleagues in the Penn program over the next six years, as well as the work in which Identities am presently engaged as a teacher educator at Boston College, where Identities collaborate with other teacher educators, teachers, and student teachers in the Boston area.

The event that is described in the following narrative occurred at the end of a t%vo-hour student teaching seminar that was held biweekly for the thirty-some students in the Penn program at the time.

We had come to the end of a powerful presentation about the speaker's personal experiences with racism, both as a young Native boy in an all-White class and later as the single minority teacher in a small rural school. The presentation had visibly moved many of us. The guest speaker a Native American who worked in a teacher education program at another university asked my student teachers about their program at Penn. I had no qualms. Our program was well known and well received. Students often raved about it to visitors from outside. Knowing and sharing the commitment of my program to exploring issues of race, my guest asked in the last few minutes of our two-hour seminar, "And what does this program do to help you examine questions about race and racism in teaching and schooling?" Without hesitation, one student teacher, a Puerto Rican woman, raised her hand and said with passion and an anger that bordered on rage, "Nothing! This program does nothing to address issues of race!" After a few seconds of silence that felt to me like hours, two other students - one African American and one Black South African - agreed with her, adding their frustration and criticism to the first comment and indicating that we read nothing and said nothing that addressed these questions. I was stunned. With another class waiting to enter the room, students - and I - quickly exited the room.

My first responses to this event included every personally defensive strategy I could muster. In the same way that my students sometimes did, I identified and equated myself with "the program."And in certain important ways, I suppose I was the program in that I had been the major architect of its social and organizational structures, and I was ultimately responsible for its decisions. I relived the final moments of the seminar, turning the same thoughts over and over in my head: How could she say that@ How could others agree? After all, the compelling presentation we had all just heard was in and of itself evidence that we addressed issues of race in our program. And besides, ,just a few days earlier, she and a group of five other women students had presented a paper at a teacher research conference at Penn. They had chosen to be part of an inquiry group that was to write a paper about race and their student-teaching experiences because I had invited them to, I had suggested the topic. They had used the data of their writing and teacher research projects from my class to examine the impact of race and racism on their student teaching experiences. How could she say that?

I counted up the ongoing efforts I had made to increase the diversity in our supervisory staff and in our pool of cooperating teachers. I had insisted that we send student teachers to schools where the population was nearly 100 percent African American and Latino, schools that some colleagues cautioned me were too tough for student teachers, that some student teachers complained were too dangerous, and one had once threatened to sue me if I made her go there even for a brief field visit. I talked about issues of race openly and, I thought, authentically in my classes - all of them, no matter what the course title or the topic. I thought about the individual and personal efforts I had made on behalf of some of those students - helping them get scholarships, intervening with cooperating teachers or supervisors, working for hours with them on papers, lending books and articles. I constructed a long and convincing mental argument that I was one of the people on the right side of this issue. Nobody can do everything, and I was sure that I already paid more attention to questions of racism and teaching than did many teacher educators. How could she say that? I was stunned by what had happened, and deeply hurt - surprised as much as angry.

During the first few days after that seminar session, many students - most of them White - stopped by my office to tell me that they thought we were indeed doing a great deal to address issues of race and racism in the program, but they had clearly heard the outrage and dissatisfaction of their fellow students and they wanted to learn more, to figure out what we should do differently. Some students - both White students and students of color stopped by or wrote notes saying that they thought we were currently doing exactly what we should be doing to address issues of race-ace in the program. And a few students - all White - stopped by to say that all we ever talked about in the program and in my classes was race and racism and what they really wanted to know was when we were going to learn how to teach reading.

I knew that the next meeting of the seminar group would be a turning point for me and for the program. I struggled with what to say, how to proceed, what kind of stance I needed to take and would be able to take. I knew that I needed to open (not foreclose) the discussion, to acknowledge the frustration and anger (even the rage) that had been expressed, and, above all, I knew that I needed not to be defensive. I felt very heavy - it was clear to me that I was about to teach my student teachers one of the most important lessons I would ever teach them. I was about to teach them how a White teacher, who - notwithstanding the rhetoric in my classes about collaboration, shared learning, and co-construction of knowledge - had a great deal of power over their futures in the program and in the job market, how that White teacher, who fancied herself pretty liberal and enlightened, responded when confronted directly and angrily about some of the issues of race that were right in front of her in her own teaching and her own work as a teacher educator.

The very different responses of my students and my own shock and hurt at some of those responses pointed out to me on a visceral level the truth that many of the articles we were reading in class argued on a more intellectual level: how we are positioned in terms of race and power vis-a-vis others has a great deal to do with how we see, what we see, want we want to see, and what we are able not to see. I thought of Clifford Geertz's discussion of the difficulties involved in representing insider knowledge and meaning perspectives. He suggests that, ultimately, anthropologists cannot really represent 'local knowledge" - what native inhabitants see - but only what they see through; that is, their interpretive perspectives on their own experiences. This situation laid bare the enormous differences between what I - and people differently situated from me - saw and saw through as we constructed our lives as teachers and students.

I didn't decide until right before the seminar exactly what I would say. I had thought of little else during the week. I felt exposed, failed, trapped, and completely inadequate to the task. In the end, I commented briefly then opened up the two hours for students to say whatever they wished. I tried to sort out and say back as clearly as I could both what f had heard people say at the seminar and the quite disparate responses I had heard in the ensuing week. It was clear from these, I said, that nobody speaks for anybody or everybody else. As I spoke, I tried not to gloss over the scathing critique or make the discrepancies appear to be less discrepant than they were. Especially for many of the students of color in the program, I said that I had clearly heard that there was a feeling of isolation, of being silenced, a feeling that we had not dealt with issues of race and racism in a 'real" way - briefly perhaps, but in ways that were too intellectualized and theoretical rather than personal and honest. Notwithstanding the view expressed by some students that all we ever talked about was race, I reported a strong consensus that an important conversation had been opened tip and needed to continue, although I also noted that it was clear some conversations about race and racism, maybe the most important ones, could not be led by me, a white teacher.

I concluded by saying that despite my deep commitments to an antiracist curriculum for ail students, whether children or adults, and despite my intentions to promote constructive discourse about the issues in teacher education, I realized I didn't "get it" some (or much) of the time. This seemed to be one of those times. I admitted that these things were hard, uncomfortable, and sometimes even devastating to hear, but we needed to hear, to listen hard, and to stay with it.

What I remember most vividly about that seminar are the tension and the long silence that followed my comments and my open invitation to others to speak. My seminar co-leader (and friend) told me later that she was sure we all sat in silence for at least twenty minutes (my watch indicated that about three minutes had passed). The same woman who had responded so angrily the week before spoke first, thanking us for hearing and for providing time for people to name the issues. Others followed. All of the women of color in the program spoke, most of them many times. A small portion of the White students participated actively. Students critiqued their inner-city school placements, describing the inability or unwillingness of some of the experienced teachers at their schools to talk about issues of race and racism, to be mentors to them about these issues. They said we needed more cooperating teachers and more student teachers of color. They spoke of middle-class, mostly White teachers treating poor children, mostly children of color, in ways that were abrupt and disrespectful at best, reprehensible and racist at worst. Some spoke passionately about the disparities they had observed between their home schools and the schools they had cross-visited - disparities in resources and facilities, but even more in the fundamental ways teachers treated children in poor urban schools on the one hand, and in middle-class urban or suburban schools on the other. They complained that our Penn faculty and administrators were all white, naming and counting tip each of us and assuming I had the power and authority, but not the will, to change things. They said that the lack of faculty of color and the small number of students of color in the program gave little validation to the issues they wished to raise as women and prospective teachers of color. Many of them were angry, bitter. They spoke with a certain sense of unity as if their scattered, restrained voices had been conjoined, unleashed.

The co-leader and I avoided eye contact with one another, our faces serious and intense but carefully trying not to signal approval or disapproval, agreement or disagreement. Many White students were silent, some almost ashen. Some seemed afraid to speak. One said people were at different levels with issues of race and racism, implying that others in the room might not understand but that she herself was beyond that. Another commented that she too had experienced racism, especially because her boyfriend was African American. One said that when she looked around her student-teaching classroom, she saw only children, not color. Another complained that she didn't see why somebody couldn't just tell her what she (didn't get so she could just get it and get on with teaching. I cringed inside at some of these comments, while several of the women of color rolled their eyes, whispered among themselves. One who was older than most of the students in the program eventually stopped making any attempt to hide her hostility and exasperation. She was openly disdainful in her side comments. Finally, a young White woman, with clear eyes and steady voice, turned to the older woman and said she was willing to hear any criticism, any truth about herself, but she wanted it said in front of her, to her face. The only man of color in the program, who sat apart from the other students, said all he wanted to do was to be an effective teacher. He did not want to be seen as a Black male teacher and a role model for Black children, but as a good teacher. Others immediately challenged him on the impossibility and irresponsibility of that stance.

For nearly two hours, the tension in the room was palpable, raw. As leaders we said little, partly because we had little idea what to say, partly because we had agreed to open up the time to the students. We nodded, listened, took notes. Toward the end, we asked for suggestions - how the group wanted to spend the two or three seminar sessions remaining in the year that had any flexibility in terms of topic, schedule, or speakers. We asked for recommendations. There were many suggestions but only a few that we could actually do something about in the six weeks or so that remained before the students graduated, given the already full schedule and the final press of certification and graduation details. (Many of the suggestions that we took up in the following year are described in the remainder of this article. For the current year, we opened up discussion time and included student teachers in planning and evaluation groups.)

Two students wrote me letters shortly after this seminar. One was appreciative, one was disgusted. Both, I believe, were heartfelt. A White woman wrote: "When You began to speak at the last seminar, I held my breath. The atmosphere in the room was so loaded, so brooding. It felt very unsafe. What would you say? What could you say? It would have been so very easy at this point to retreat into academe - to play The Professor, The Program Director, and not respond or address the fact that there were painful unresolved issues to be acknowledged, if not confronted.... Instead you responded honestly and openly, telling us how you were thinking about things, how you felt and the dilemmas you encountered as you too struggled to 'get it.' . . . Your words were carefully considered ... and seemed spoken not without some cost to you.' In contrast, a White man wrote:

After this evening's seminar, I thought I would drop you this note to let you know how I react to the issues that were (and were not) confronted.... To be honest, I feel that the critical issues of race and racism have been made apparent and important in my studies ... since I began [the program]. That they should have been made the fulcrum point of the curriculum and each course is problematic. I would say no; others (more vehemently) would insist on it.... I really have no idea how to most effectively proceed. I do know one thing. I am committed to bringing issues of race into my classroom, wherever I may teach. However, being nonconfrontational by nature, and with sincere respect for the opinions of my fellow students, I will probably not attend another session about this. Frankly, my students, and my career in education will benefit a lot more by staying at home and spending a few hours trying to integrate multicultural issues into my lesson plans than they will by talking one more time about race.

It would be an understatement to say that these events were galvanizing as well as destabilizing for me, for the people I worked closely with, and for the students who graduated just six weeks later. Everything was called into question - what we thought we were about as a program, who we were as a community, what learning opportunities were available in our curriculum, whose interests were served, whose needs were met, and whose were not. But it would be inaccurate to say that these events caused changes in the program over the next six years or that we proceeded from this point in a linear way, learning from our "mistakes" and then correcting them. Although the story of "so then what happened?" is of course chronological in one sense, it is decidedly not a story of year-by--year, closer and closer approximations of 'the right way' to open and sustain a discourse about race and racism in teacher education programs aimed at preparing both students of color and White students to be teachers in both urban and other schools. Rather, the story is an evolving, recursive, and current one about what it means to grapple with the issues of racism and teaching in deeper and more uncertain ways.

It is also important to say, I think, that the above account of what happened is a fiction, not reality or truth, but my interpretation of my own and other people's experience in a way that makes sense to me and speaks for me. Although part of my intention in telling this story is to uncover my failure and unravel my complicity in maintaining the existing system of privilege and oppression, it is impossible for me to do so without sympathy for my own predicament. My experience as a first-generation-to-college, working-class girl who pushed into a middle-class, highly educated male profession has helped give me some vision about the personal and institutional impact of class and gender differences on work, status, and ways of knowing. But my lifelong membership in the privileged racial group has helped keep me blind about much of the impact of race. In fact, I have come to think of the story related above as a story of 'blind vision" - a White female teacher educator with a vision about the importance of making issues of race and diversity explicit parts of the pre-service curriculum and, in the process, grappling (sometimes blindly) with the tension, contradiction, difficulty, pain, and failure inherent in unlearning racism.

Of course, it is what we do after we tell stories like this one that matters most, or, more correctly, it is what we do afterwards that makes these stories matter at all. In the remainder of this article, I examine what I tried to do as a teacher educator and what we tried to do in our teacher education community after this story was told. We wanted to do nothing short of total transformation, nothing short of inventing a curriculum that was once and for all free of racism. What we did do over time was much more modest. Over time we struggled to unlearn racism by learning to read teacher education as racial text, a process that involved analyzing and altering the learning opportunities available in our program along the lines of their implicit and explicit messages about race, racism, and teaching, as well as - and as important as - acknowledging to each other and to our students that this process would never be finished, would never be 'once and for all." In the pages that follow, I analyze and illustrate this process, drawing on the following experiences and data sources: the evolution of three courses I regularly taught during the years that followed these events; the changes we made over time in the intellectual, social, and organizational contexts of the program; and tile persistent doubts, questions, and failures we experienced as recorded in notes, reflections, conversations and other correspondences. In the final section of the article, I consider lessons learned and unlearned. I address the implications of reading teacher education as racial text for my own continuing efforts as a teacher educator now working with student teachers find teacher educators in a different urban context (Cochran-Smith et al., 1999; Cochran Smith & Lytle, 1998).

Reading Teacher Education as Racial Text

Reading teacher education as racial text is an analytical approach that draws from three interrelated and somewhat overlapping ideas. First is the idea that teaching and teacher education - in terms of both curriculum and pedagogy - can be regarded and read as "text." Second is the idea that pre-service teacher education has both an explicit text (a sequence of required courses and fieldwork experiences, as well as the public documents that advertise or represent the goals of a given program) and a subtext (implicit messages, subtle aspects of formal and informal program arrangements, and the underlying perspectives conveyed in discourse, materials, and consistency/inconsistency between ideals and realities). Third is the notion that any curriculum, teacher education or otherwise, can and - given the racialist society in which we live - ought to be read not simply as text but as racial text.

Teaching as Text

A number of recent writers have advanced the idea that the work of teaching can be regarded as "text" that can - like any other text - be read, reread, analyzed, critiqued, revised, and made public by the teacher and his or her local community. This assumes that teaching, like all human experience, is constructed primarily out of the social and language interactions of participants. To make teaching into readable "text," it is necessary to establish space between teachers and their everyday work in order to find what McDonald (1992) calls 'apartness." He suggests: This is the gist of reading teaching, its minimal core: to step outside the room, figuratively speaking, and to search for perspective on the events inside. It is simple work on its face, private and comparatively safe, the consequence perhaps of deliberately noticing one's own practice in the eyes of a student teacher, of undertaking some classroom) research, even - as in my case - of keeping a simple journal and doing -.1 little theoretical browsing. By such means, teachers may spot the uncertainty in their own practice. They may spot it, as I did, in unexpected tangles of conflicting values, in stubborn in a surprising prevalence of half-steps. (P. I 1). McDonald suggests that reading teaching collaboratively is difficult and complex, requiring group members to set aside pretensions and fears born of isolation, but also allowing, eventually, for the discovery of voice and a certain sense of unity.

Along related but different lines, I have been suggesting in work with Susan Lytle (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992, 1993, 1999) that communities of teachers use multiple forms of inquiry to help make visible and accessible everyday events and practices and the ways they are differently understood by different stakeholders in the educational process. Oral and written inquiry that is systematic and intentional, we have argued, "transforms what is ordinarily regarded as 'just teaching' - - . into multi-layered portraits of school life' (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992, p. 310). These portraits and the ways teachers shape and interpret them draw on, but also make problematic, the knowledge about teaching and learning that has been generated by others. At the same time, they help to build bodies of evidence, provide analytic frameworks, and suggest cross-references for comparison. Part of the point in McDonald's work, and in ours, is that "reading teaching as text" means representing teaching through oral and written language as well as other means of documentation that can be revisited, 'Researched to use Ann Berthoff's language (Berthoff, 1987) - connected to other "texts" of teaching, and made accessible and public beyond the immediate local context. Using the metaphor "teaching as text" makes it possible to see treat connecting the various texts of teaching in the context of local inquiry communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) can be understood as a kind of social and collective construction of intertextualitv or dialogue among texts. This leads to the second aspect of conceptualizing teacher education as text - examining not only what is explicit (the major text), but also what is not easily visible or openly public (the subtext).

Texts and Subtexts in Teacher Education

As text, teacher education is dynamic and complex - much more than a sequence of courses, a set of field work experiences, or the readings and written assignments that are required for certification or credentialing purposes. Although these are part of what it means to take teacher education as text, they are not all of it. This also means examining its subtexts, hidden texts, and intertexts - reading between the lines as well as reading under, behind, through, and beyond them. This includes scrutinizing what is absent from the main texts and what themes are central to them, what happens to the formal texts, how differently positioned people read and write these texts differently, what they do and do not do with them, and what happens that is not planned or public. Ginsberg and Clift's (1990) concept of the hidden curriculum in teacher education is illuminating here, as is Rosenberg's (1997) discussion of the underground discourses of teacher education. Both of these call attention to the missing, obscured, or subverted texts - what is left out, implied, veiled, or subtly signaled as the norm by virtue of being unmarked or marked with modifying language. Ginsberg and Cleft suggest that: [the] sources of hidden curricular messages include the institutional and broader social contexts in which teacher education operates and the structure and processes of the teacher education program, including pedagogical techniques and texts and materials within the program. Messages are also sent by the ... interpersonal relationships that exist between the numerous groups who might be considered to be educators of teachers. (p. 451)

Along more specific lines, Rosenberg (1997) describes the underground discourse about race in a small teacher education program in a rural area of New England. Rosenberg refers to 'the presence of an absence,' or the figurative presence of racism even in the actual absence of people of color at an overwhelmingly White institution. Rosenberg's characterization of an underground discourse about race connects to the third idea I have drawn upon in this discussion: the necessity of reading teacher education not just as complicated and dynamic text, but as racial text.

Teacher Education as Racial Text

Castenell and Pinar (1993) argue that curriculum can and ought to be regarded as racial text. Their introduction to a collection of essays by that name, Understanding Curriculum as Racial Text develops this argument by locating current curriculum issues within the context of public debates about the canon and about the racial issues that are embedded within curriculum controversies. To understand curriculum as racial text, they suggest, is to understand that : all Americans are racialist beings; knowledge of who we have been. who we are, and who we will become is a story or text we construct. In this sense curriculum - our construction and reconstruction of this knowledge for dissemination to the young - is racial text. (P. 8)

In forwarding this view of curriculum, Castenell and Pinar imply that it is critical to analyze any curriculum to see what kind of message or story about race and racism is being told, what assumptions are being made, what identity perspectives and points of view are implicit, and what is valued or devalued. They acknowledge, of course, that curriculum is not only racial text, but is also a text that is political, aesthetic, and gendered. They argue, however, that it is, "to a degree that European Americans have been unlikely to acknowledge, racial text" (p. 4). In conceptualizing curriculum as racial text, then, they link knowledge and identity, focusing particularly on issues of representation and difference. They argue that, although it is true that 'We are what we know. We are, however, also what we do not know." (p. 4).

Taken together, the three ideas just outlined - that all teaching (including teacher education) can be regarded as text, that teacher education has both public and implicit or hidden texts, and that the text of teacher education is (in large part) racial text - lay the groundwork for the two sections that follow. In these sections I suggest that my colleagues and I - as participants in one teacher education community - struggled to unlearn racism by learning to read teacher education as racial text. In the first section I discuss both the possibilities and the pitfalls of making race and racism central to the curriculum by using "up close and personal" narratives, as well as distanced and more intellectualized theories and accounts. Next I show that it is necessary to 'read between the lines,' or to scrutinize closely the implicit messages about perspective, identity, and difference in a curriculum even after race and racism have been made central. Finally I turn to more general issues in teacher education offering brief lessons learned and unlearned when teacher education is regarded as racial text and when narrative is used to interrogate race and racism.

Getting Personal: Using Stories about Race and Racism in the Curriculum

For the teacher education community referred to in the opening narrative of this article, reading teacher education as racial text came to mean making issues of diversity (particularly of race and racism) central and integral, rather than marginal and piecemeal, to what we as student teachers, cooperating teachers, and teacher educators read, wrote, and talked about. Consciously deciding to privilege these issues meant rewriting course syllabi and program materials, reinventing the ways we evaluated student teachers, changing the composition of faculty and staff, drawing on the expertise and experience of people beyond ourselves, and altering the content of teacher research groups, student seminars, and whole-community sessions. For example, in response to the events described above, we worked the following year with a group of outside consultants to plan and participate in a series of 'cultural diversity workshops jointly attended by students, cooperating teachers, supervisors, and program directors. In the next year, we focused monthly seminars for the same groups on race and culture through the medium of story, led by Charlotte Blake Alston, a nationally known African American storyteller and staff-development leader. In the years to follow, we participated in sessions on Afrocentric curriculum led by Molefi Asante; on Black family socialization patterns and school culture led by Michele Foster; on multicultural teaching and Asian American issues in urban schools led by Deborah Wei; on constructing curriculum based on Hispanic children's literature, particularly using books with Puerto Rican themes and characters, led by Sonia Nieto; and on learning to talk about racial identity and racism led by Beverley Tatum. In addition, we offered sessions on using children's cultural and linguistic resources in the classroom and on constructing antiracist pedagogy led by our program's most experienced cooperating teachers - both teachers of color and White teachers - from urban and suburban, public and private, poor and privileged schools in the Philadelphia area. A central part of these activities was "getting personal' about race and racism - putting more emphasis on reading, writing, and sharing personal experiences of racism and digging at the roots of our own attitudes at the same time that we continued to read the more intellectualized, and thus somewhat safer, discourse of the academy. This meant making individual insider accounts (even though not as well known as the writing of the academy) a larger part of the required reading. Along with the usual reading of Comer, Delpit, Ogbu, Heath, and Tatum we began to read more of Parham, Foreman, Eastman, Cohen, and Creighton - all of whom were student teachers, cooperating teachers, and supervisors in our program.

All of us in the community wrote and read personal accounts about race and class that were published in-house in an annual collection we called, 'A Sense of Who We Are.' These were used as the starting point for many class discussions, school-site meetings, and monthly seminars. For example, Daryl Foreman, an experienced cooperating teacher, wrote about her experiences as a child whose mother took her north to Pennsylvania for a summer visit. She wrote about the sights and scenes of 1960s Harrisburg and then turned to one unforgettable experience:

It had been four days since my mother left Harrisburg.... She left us in the warm and capable hands of my aunt. We'd been behaving as tourists. But now, my younger sister and I had to accompany my aunt to work. For years, she'd been employed by a well-to-do White family whom I'd never met....

At four o'clock, I was starving and my aunt informed me that it was -normal' for us to eat in the kitchen while (the family] dined elsewhere.

Before dinner, the woman of the house entered the kitchen offering to set the tables - one in the kitchen and the other in the dining room. She grabbed two sets of dishes from the cupboard. She delivered a pretty set of yellow plastic plates to the kitchen dining area and a set of blue china to the dining room..After dinner she came back and thanked my aunt for the delicious meal, then prepared to feed the dog. She walked toward the cupboard and opened it. Her eyes and hands traveled past the pretty set of plastic dishes and landed on the blue china plates. After she pulled a blue china plate from the cupboard, she filled it with moist dog food and placed it on the floor. He ran for the plate. I shrieked ...

To this day, I'm not sure if I shrieked at the shock of [people] sharing dinnerware with a dog or because the dog got a piece of blue china while I ate from yellow plastic.

David Creighton, a student teacher, wrote about working in an Italian restaurant in South Philadelphia in the 1990s:

"Yo, Dave, what are you anyway;' said Tony Meoli, a waiter in LaTrattoria in South Philadelphia.

'Whaddava mean?" I, the new busboy, said.

'Like, uh, what's your nationality? You know, where are vou from? I mean, you're obviously not Italian.'

Oh. Well. I'm Russian with some German mixed in,' I said.

'Well, just as long as you're not Jewish," said Tony. - We don't like Jews around here."

"Actually, I am Jewish,' I said.

'Oh, sorry, I was just kiddin' you know."

'Don't worry, about it,' I said ...

Creighton went on to describe the culture of South Philadelphia, pointing out the racial and ethnic insulation and the considerable hostility between and among various groups. Then he continued: I had only worked there about four months when at the end of my Sunday night shift I was told with no warning, "We won't be needing you anymore." What?" I said. I felt I had done a good job. No one ever complained about my work. I was always on time, and I was' developing a good rapport with the waiters who often commended me on my efforts. Also, I really needed the money. "Why? I said

'I don't know,' said the bartender.

You know, Dave, Hitler had the right idea for you people, with the gas chambers and all,' said, Joe Piselli only half jokingly. 'One day I'm gonna gas you down there in the kitchen.'

'You know, Joe, Hitler wasn't all that crazy about Catholics either. You woulda been next,' I said.

'Yeah, well at least I ain't no Jew," he said.

"Thank God," I said.

Reading and writing first-person accounts like these as starting points for interrogating unexamined assumptions and practices can evoke a shared vulnerability that helps a group of loosely connected individuals gel into a community committed to dealing with issues of race more openly. Accounts like these can move a pre-service curriculum beyond the level of celebrating diversity, enhancing human relations, or incorporating ethnic studies into the curriculum, positions that are rightly criticized for their focus on ethnicity as individual choice and their limited goal of attitudinal change (McCarthy, 1990, 1993; Nieto, 1999; Sleeter & Grant, 1987) rather than analysis of systemic and institutional structures and practices that perpetuate racism and oppression. As I pointed out above, narratives also have the capacity to contain many of the contradictions, nuances, and complexities that are necessary for understanding the roots and twists of racism and the many ways these interact with the social life of schools and classrooms. But the considerable power of accounts that "get personal" about race is also their pitfall. They can use some people's pain in the service of others' understanding, as I suggest below, and they can also imply that we all similar experiences with racism, experiences that beneath the surface of their details and contexts are the same. Over the years, I have come to realize that this lesson in unlearning racism, which is an especially difficult one to hold onto, helps to explain some of the depth of anger expressed by the student teachers in the story with which this article began.

Stories about Whom? Stories for Whom?

Several of the students of color in the blind vision story related above claimed we had done nothing in the program to help students understand issues of race, that we did not talk about it in "real" ways. Factually, this was not the case. We had read a large number of articles by both White scholars and scholars of color, and we had shared some personal incidents in class and had intellectualized discussions. It is clear to me now, though, that these discussions were framed primarily for the benefit of White students who were invited to learn more about racism through stories of other people's oppression. The stories were not sufficiently linked to larger issues or framed in ways that pushed everybody to learn not regardless of butt with full regard for differences in race, culture, and ethnicity.

I should have learned this lesson a long time ago. I had known it in certain ways even at the time of the incident described in my narrative - my detailed notes indicate that it was one of the points I tried to make to the students after the incident occurred. But for me, as a White teacher educator, it is a lesson that needs to be learned over and over again. Although I thought I had learned this lesson then, I learned it again several years later from Tuesday Vanstory, an African American woman who was a supervisor in the program that year but had been a student in the program years before. We had a difficult discussion about race in our supervisors' inquiry group where we had considered ways to respond to a particularly troubling journal entry written by a White student teacher. In it she had complained about the students of color in the program sometimes separating themselves from the others, sitting together on the perimeter of the classroom and/or not participating in certain discussions. The journal writer used the phrase "reverse discrimination" and questioned how we could ever move forward if everybody would not even talk to each other. Several White members of the supervisors' group voiced somewhat similar concerns. They were genuinely distressed, wanting open conversations and resentful of the figurative as well as literal separation along racial lines of some members from the larger group when certain topics arose.

Vanstory had sat silent for a long time during this discussion, then finally burst out and demanded, "But who are those discussions for? Who do they really serve?" There was silence for a while and then confusion. She wrote to me that same day about the discussion:

I must say that I was very upset after today's supervisors' meeting. There's nothing like a discussion on' race, class, and culture to get my blood boiling, especially when I am one of a few who is in the "minority.' Believe me, it is not at all comfortable. I really wanted to say nothing. I didn't want to blow my cool. I wanted to remain silent, tranquil. Instead I spouted off in what felt like a very emotional and, at times, a nonsensical response....

I ran across a sociological term a few years ago: "master status." It is the thing you can never get away from, the label that others give you that they won't ever release and they won't let you forget. Can you imagine the constant confrontation of the issue of race permeating every day of your life for one reason or another? (Over representation or under representation of people who look like you do in whatever arena, the blatant inequities in quality of life for the masses - educational opportunities. housing, ability to pass down wealth or privilege, the stinging humiliations that come from the months or pens of others who may or may not be well-intentioned, IQ scores being thrown in your face, etc.). It is reality for us. It is not a discussion, not a theory. It is flesh and blood....

And to come to school and have to play 'educator' to the others who want to discuss race or understand, or release some guilt, or even in a very few cases, people who want to see a real change ... It gets tired ...

Marilyn, I think that vou are very brave and genuine to ask the tough questions that you ask yourself and your White students. But the truth is, your perspective, your reality does not necessarily reflect ours.

In Teaching to Transgress (1994), bell hooks makes a point remarkably similar to Vanstorv's. Although hooks is discussing White feminist writers rather than teachers or teacher educators as Vanstory was, her comments contribute to a larger argument about the necessity of rethinking pedagogy in the current age of multiculturalism:

Now Black women are placed in the position of serving White female desire to know more about race and racism, to "master' the subject. Drawing on the work of Black women, work that they once dismissed as irrelevant, they now reproduce the servant-served paradigms in their scholarship. Armed with new knowledge of race, their willingness to say that their work is coming from a White perspective (usually without explaining what that means), they forget that the ver), focus on racism emerged from the concrete political effort to forge meaningful ties between women of different race and class groups, This struggle is often completely ignored. (pp. 103-104)

I am convinced that reading and writing accounts about race and racism that get personal, as well as reading more intellectualized arguments about these issues, is vital to pre-service teacher education. As I have tried to suggest, however, reading teacher education as racial text reveals that this is also a complex activity that is fraught with problems. Compelling personal stories often evoke a ,strong sense of empathy for others (Rosenberg, 1997), a false sense that all of us have experienced hurt and frustration varying in degree but not in kind, that all of us underneath have the same issues, that all of us can understand racism as personal struggle, as individual instance of cruelty, discrete moment of shame, outrage, or fear. In addition to using some people's experience in the service of others' education, then, personal narratives can also obscure more direct confrontation of the ways that individual instances of prejudice are not all the same - that some are deeply embedded in and entangled with institutional and historical systems of racism based on power and privilege, and some are not. Reading teacher education as racial text means trying to make issues of racism central, not marginal, and close and personal, not distant and academic. But it also means helping all of the readers and writers of such stories understand that schools and other organizational contexts are always sites for institutional and collective struggles of power and oppression (Villegas, 1991), not neutral backdrops for individual achievement and failure (McCarthy, 1993). And it means being very careful about what is said after stories are told and considering carefully whose stories are used in whose interest.

The foregoing discussion is not meant to suggest that racism was or should be the only topic in the teacher education curriculum or that everything else is secondary. I am not suggesting here that student teachers and their more experienced mentors should talk only about racism or that if we learn to talk about race and racism constructively, we do not need to learn anything else in the teacher education curriculum. It is a problem, for example, if there is no time in courses on language and literacy in the elementary school to explore and critique process writing, basal reading programs, whole language, phonics instruction, and standardized and nonstandardized means of assessing verbal aptitude and achievement. But issues of language, race, and cultural diversity are implicated in and by all of these topics, as I discuss in the next section of this article, and it is a fallacy to assume that there is a forced and mutually exclusive choice in pre-service education - emphasizing either pedagogical and subject matter knowledge or knowledge about culture, racism, and schools as reflections of societal conflicts and sites for power struggle.

Reading Between the Lines: Perspectives, Identity, and Difference

Understanding curriculum as racial text requires thorough scrutiny of implicit perspectives about race and careful attention to issues of identity and difference (Castenell & Pinar, 1993). In teacher education this means not looking simply at a synopsis of the "plot" of a pre-service program (to carry the text metaphor further). It also means examining the roles of starring and supporting characters and analyzing the plot line by line, as well as between the lines, for underlying themes and for the twists and turns of the stories told or implied about race, racism, and teaching.

Following the events recounted in the "blind vision" story, our teacher education community attempted not only to make issues of race up close and personal, but also to "read between the lines" of the curriculum. As director of the program and instructor of core courses on language, learning, and literacy, I had earlier examined class discussions that explicitly dealt with racism and teaching, as well as the essays and projects my students completed (see Cochran-Smith, 1995a, 1995b). In these analyses, I had tried to understand how student teachers constructed issues related to race and racism and how they linked these to their roles as prospective teachers. I had also looked at how I constructed the issues and how I linked them to my role as teacher educator and mentor. But at this point, as part of our group's larger, more intensive efforts, I wanted to look further - between and underneath the explicit lines that narrated my courses. I wanted to get at the implicit it, more subtle perspectives by scrutinizing what is included what is omitted from readings and discussions, how issues were sequenced and juxtaposed with one another, which messages are consistent and fundamental, and - inevitably which were not. To do so, I used as data the evolution of course syllabi, assignments, and activities, as well as students' responses, class discussions, and my own detailed notes and reflections on three required courses I taught (a two-course sequence on reading and language arts in the elementary school and a course on children's literature). All three were designed to explore the relationships of literacy, learning, and culture and their implications for the teaching of reading, writing, literature, and oral language development.

What I found was in one sense exactly what I expected to find. Over the years we had increased the amount of time and attention we gave to questions of culture, race, and racism. In fact, these issues had become a central theme of my courses and of the program in general. But what I found when I read between and under the lines of the curriculum as racial text was a contradiction. On the one hand. the first part of the course presented heavy critique of the inequities embedded in the status quo and of the ways these were perpetuated by the current arrangements of schooling. On the other hand, the latter part of the course privileged pedagogical perspectives drawn from theories and practices developed primarily by White teachers and scholars of child development, language learning, and progressive education. There was as well an underlying White European American construction of self-identity and other, of 'we" and 'they."

White Theory, White Practice

My courses were intended to help students think through the relationships of theory and practice, learn how to learn from children, and construct principled perspectives about teaching and assessing language and literacy learning. Two themes ran throughout that were not about literacy and literature per se but were intended to be fundamental to these courses and to the entire program: 1) understanding teaching as an intellectual and political activity and the teacher as active constructor (not simply receiver) of meaning, knowledge, and curriculum; and 2) developing critical perspectives about the relationships of race, class, culture, and schooling.

A between-the-lines analysis revealed a sharp contrast in the subtle messages my courses projected about these two themes. The notion of teacher as a constructor of meaning and active decision maker was consistent. Readings and class discussions conceptualized the teacher as knowledge generator, as well as critical consumer of others' knowledge, as active constructor of interpretive frameworks as well as poser and pondered of questions, and as agent for school and social change within local communities and larger social movements. Student teachers were required to construct (rather than simply implement) literature and literacy curriculum, critique teachers' manuals and reading textbooks according to their assumptions about teacher and student agency, and function as researchers by treating their ongoing work with children as sites for inquiry about language learning access and opportunity. Research and writing by experienced teachers from the local and larger inquiry communities were part of the required reading for every topic on the syllabi.

In addition, the knowledge and interpretive frameworks generated by teachers were regarded as part of the knowledge base for language and literacy teaching. They were not mentioned only when the topic was teacher research itself or when the point was to provide examples of classroom practice or of the application of others' ideas. Guest speakers included teachers as often as university-based experts. Teachers' ways of analyzing and interpreting data, creating theories, assessing children's progress, and constructing and critiquing practice (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992) were foregrounded and valued as much as those generated by researchers based outside classrooms and schools. In addition, in multiple assignments in my courses, students were required to alter and analyze conventional curriculum and pedagogy based on systematic data collection about teaching and learning. They were prompted to challenge conventional labeling and grouping practices, and they were invited to be part of teacher-initiated alternative professional development groups struggling to 'teach against the grain" (Cochran-Smith, 1991). Reading between and under the lines exposed little discrepancy, with regard to teachers' roles as knowledge generators and change agents, between the texts and subtexts of the curriculum.

By contrast, the same kind of close reading with regard to critical perspectives on race and racism led to different and more troubling insights. In my two-semester language and literacy course, a major segment early in the syllabus had to do with-race, class, and culture. For this segment students read selections by the well-known scholars mentioned earlier, as well as personal narratives written by members of the local and larger teacher education communities. Spread over three to four weeks, this portion of the course emphasized the following: both schooling systems and individuals' school experiences are deeply embedded within social, cultural, and historical contexts, including institutional and historical racism; European perspectives are not universal standards of the evolution of higher order thought, but culturally and historically constructed habits of mind; and the standard 'neutral" U.S. school and its curriculum have been generated out of, and help to sustain, unearned advantages and disadvantages for particular groups of students based on race, class, culture, gender, linguistic background, and ability/disability. Described in detail elsewhere (Cochran-Smith, 1995b), this part of the course gave students the opportunity to 'rewrite their autobiographies" or reinterpret some of their own life stories and experiences based on new insights about power, privilege, and oppression. This part of the course also prompted students to 'construct uncertainty" - that is, to pose and investigate questions of curriculum and instructional strategies informed by their experiences as raced, classed, and gendered beings and contingent upon the varying school contexts and student populations with whom they worked.

The remainder of the course was organized around major topics in elementary school language and literacy: controversies about learning to read and write (including child language acquisition, whole language as a theory of practice, basal reading approaches, reading groups, and phonics instruction); teaching reading and writing in elementary classrooms (including emergent literacy and extending literacy through reading aloud, language experience, literature study, process writing, journals, and other activities and strategies); and interpretation and use of assessments in language and literacy (including standardized tests and alternative assessments such as portfolios, informal reading inventories, and holistic assessments). For each topic, underlying assumptions about the nature of language, children as learners, teaching and learning as constructive processes, and classrooms/ schools as social and cultural contexts were identified and critiqued.

The pedagogy that was advocated was more or less "progressive," "whole language,' 'developmental," and 'meaning-centered,' with emphasis on children as readers and writers of authentic texts and the classroom as a social context within which children and teachers together construct knowledge. There was a distinct bias against skills-centered approaches that taught reading and writing in isolated bits and pieces using texts and exercises constructed specifically for that purpose. Instead it was emphasized that language skills emerged from authentic language use and from instruction within the context of language use.

Reading between the lines forced other realizations. The pedagogy I advocated was drawn from theories and practices developed primarily by White teachers and scholars. The prominent names on this part of the syllabus were revealing - Dewey (1916), Britton (1987), Berthoff (1987), Graves (1983), Calkins (1991, 1994), Edelsky, Mtwerger, and Flores (1991), Dyson (1987), emphasizes teachers' ties to the school community, teachers' belief in the learning ability of all children (not just an exceptional few who, through education, can make their way 'out" of the lives common to their parents and community members), and teachers' strategies for establishing personal connections with students and helping them connect new knowledge to previous experiences and ideas.

When I revised my language and reading courses, Ladson-Billings's The Dreamkeepers was one of the central texts, and I included in discussions about reading/writing pedagogy many other readings about culturally relevant language pedagogy (e.g., Au & Kaivakami, 1994; Ballenger, 1992; Foster, 1993). In addition to readings about language and literacy theory, debates about pedagogy, and so on, new additions were intended in part to alter the curriculum as racial text. Particularly, they were intended to provide frameworks for understanding successful and unsuccessful teaching of poor and privileged White children and children of color - frameworks that were not dichotomous and that included but were more complex than whole language versus basals. These were also intended to prompt more attention to issues of community, as well as richer and more diverse perspectives on pedagogy, skills, and explicit versus implicit instruction (Delpit, 1988). 1 also wanted to diminish the implicit subtext of criticism of teachers who worked successfully, particularly with children of color, using methods other than those that might be termed "progressive" or "whole." Including these new readings also made the course more complicated and made its underlying conception of teaching as an uncertain activity (Dudley-Marling, 1997; McDonald, 1992) even more pronounced than it had been. Always eschewing the possibility of "best practices" that cut across the contexts and conditions of local settings, I had for years told students that the answer to most questions about "the best' ways to teach something was 'it depends" (Cochran-Smith, 1995b). Having uncovered unintended contradictions in the lessons I taught my students made me realize that pedagogical decisions "depend' on an even wider, richer, and more nuance array of variables and conditions than I had implied.

Identity and Difference: We and They

Understanding the racial narrative that underlies a curriculum is a process that requires intense self-critical reflection and analysis, as Castenell and Pinar (1993) have made clear:

Debates over what we teach the young are also - in addition to being debates over what knowledge is of most worth - debates over who we perceive ourselves to be, and how we will represent that identity, including what remains as 'left over,' as 'difference.' (p. 2)

Reading between the lines of my own courses and of the larger teacher education curriculum revealed a White European American construction of self-identity and "other." "We," I came to realize, often referred not to "we who are committed to teaching elementary school differently and improving the life chances of all children," but to "we White people (especially we White women) who are trying to learn how to teach people who are different from us.' On the one hand, it could be argued that this perspective is exactly what is needed, given the demographic disparities, now well documented (National Education Goals Panel, 1997; Quality Education for Minorities Project, 1990), between the racial composition of the group entering the nation's teaching force (more than 90% White European American) and the nation's schoolchildren (increasingly a wide array of racial, cultural, and language groups). In elementary education, in addition to being White and European American, the group entering the teaching force is also overwhelmingly female. In a certain sense, then, one could make a persuasive case that a White European American and female construction of self and other is just what the pre-service teacher education curriculum ought to have. On the other hand, the program I directed had 20-25 percent students of color and 15-20 percent male students. A curriculum for "White girls" was surely not the answer. Rather, we were committed to constructing a curriculum that helped all student teachers - with full acknowledgment of differences in race, culture, and gender - interrogate their experiences, understand schools and schooling as sites for struggles over power, and become prepared to teach in an increasingly multiracial and multicultural society. To do so, we had to revise the story that curriculum told about identity and rewrite the characters who were central in that story, particularly who 'we and they,' self and other," 'regular and left over' were.

One incident from my course on literature for children, which I have taught in various iterations for more than twenty years, provides an example of the ways I tried consciously to alter the assumed definition of self and other, we and they, in my courses. What I wanted to do was to construct discussions where "we and they" shifted away from 'we White people who are trying to learn to teach those other people - those people of color' and toward we educators who are trying to be sensitive to, and learn to teach, all students - both those who are different from us and those who are like us in race, class, and culture." I began to use Lynne Reid Banks's The Indian in the Cupboard (1981) as one of the six or eight novels my students read in common for the literature course. My course had for years included many children's books that were highly regarded for their portrayals of the perspectives of African American, Asian, and Hispanic family and childhood experiences (Harris, 1993), and the course had for years focused on the politics of children's literature (Taxel, 1993). The point of adding The Indian in the Cupboard was not to add 'the Native American experience" to the list of cultures represented in the course. Rather, the point was to create an opportunity to prompt an altered conception of self and other, an altered sense of who "we" were as teachers.

Published in 1981, when the New York Times called it "the best novel of the year,' The Indian in the Cupboard continues to be highly acclaimed and widely used as a whole-class text in upper elementary and middle schools, and its popularity has increased since it was made into a Disney motion picture. A fantasy about Omri, a British boy who receives as a present a collector's cupboard, the book revolves around a plastic Indian figure who comes to life (but remains three inches high) when the boy casually places him inside the cupboard and closes the door. A toy cowboy and soldier eventually come to life too and interact with the Indian and the boy. The book is charming in many ways, well written and pivoting on premises that are extremely appealing to children - being bigger than adults, having toys come to life, and keeping a powerful secret. But in addition to positive reviews about the popularity of the book and the high quality of its writing, the book has also been criticized as racist, perpetuating stereotypes about Native Americans at the same time that it charms and appeals. The first year I used the book, all of my students were prospective teachers, many of whom were just completing a year of student teaching in urban schools where the population was primarily African American, Asian, and/or Puerto Rican. I asked the class to read the novel and jot down their responses and then read the critical commentary I had assigned.

In an excoriating critique of images of Native Americans in children's books, MacCann (1993) argues that the vast majority of children's books with Native American characters or themes are written from a non-Native perspective. With few exceptions, they portray Native American cultures as futile and obsolete and turn on the "persistent generalization' that American society has been 'shaped by the pull of a vacant continent drawing population westward' and available to any enterprising European (p. 139). About The Indian in the Cupboard specifically, MacCann writes:

Even in the fantasy genre the displacement of American Indian societies can be

an underlying theme, as in The Indian in the Cupboard [Banks, 1986} and its sequel The Return of the Indian (Banks, 1986]. These narratives are set in modern times . . . but the cultural content is rooted in the image of the Indian as presented in Hollywood westerns and dime novels. Little Bear is a plastic toy Indian who comes to life in the boy's magical cupboard, but remains just three inches in height. He grunts and snarls his way through the story, attacking the child, Omri, with a hunting knife, and later attacking a traditional enemy, a three-inch cowboy. At every turn of plot, Little Bear is either violent or childishly petulant until he finally tramples upon his ceremonial headdress as a sign of remorse. The historical culpability of the cowboy and others who invaded [Native American] territory is ignored. Native Americans are seen as the primary perpetrators of havoc, even as they defend their own borders. (p. 145)

In Through Indian Eyes (Slapin & Seale, 1992), a collection of articles written primarily by Native Americans, the review of The Indian in the Cupboard and its sequel is also wholly negative. It concludes: My heart aches for the Native child unfortunate enough to stumble across, and read, these books. How could she, reading this, fail to be damaged? How could a White child fail to believe that he is far superior to the bloodthirsty, subhuman monsters portrayed here (p. 122)

My students read these critiques after they had read and responded to the novel and came to class prepared to discuss both. Most of my students reported that they were completely engrossed in the unfolding story, and some were shocked by the negative critiques and even embarrassed that they had not noticed the racist overtones (and undertones) until after they finished the book. Many were uncertain about what to think. The discussion was intense and animated:

The book is full of stereotypes. If a book has stereotypes, does that mean you just shouldn't use it in your classroom;

There are lots of stereotypes about Indians, but there are also stereotypes about cowboys and soldiers - doesn't this make the book sort of balanced'-

The very idea of an American Indian adult as the possession (and a miniature possession at that) of a White English child is totally offensive and off-putting - does it really matter what else the book does or doesn't (to?

Since the boy's wrong assumptions about Indians are for the most part pointed out and corrected by the narrator as the story goes along, doesn't it actually sort of "teach" some correct facts;

In the final analysis, isn't what really matters how engaging the story is for kids and what the quality of the writing is?

How can we evaluate the realism of the characters in a story that is obviously fantasy rather than history or biography?

Since none of us had any Native American children in the classes we student taught this year, does that make the issue of potentially hurting a Native child reader irrelevant?

Students were divided about what they thought of the book. Many saw it as more or less harmless, assuming that those who considered the book racist were self-interested extremists, interested only in what was "politically correct," or manufacturing problems where there were none. Others strongly disagreed, assessing the book as promoting shallow stereotypes with little redeeming social value. At some point in this very intense discussion, I inserted, 'What if it were The Jew in the Cupboard or The Black in the Cupboard? Would that be all right?" For a few minutes there was dead silence. The looks on the faces of my students, many of whom were Jewish, African American, or Hispanic, indicated that it would decidedly not be all right to have a children's book with those titles or those story lines. Why then, I asked, was it all right for elementary and middle school teachers each year to teach to the whole class a children's book that had an Indian in the cupboard?

This was a turning point in the course, one that prompted some of the best discussion of the semester. Several students, African American and Hispanic, talked about how this opened their eyes to racism in a different way. They admitted that they had never worried too much about 'Redskins" and tomahawks as symbols for sports teams, or grotesque caricatures and cigar-store Indians as icons for margarine, sports utility vehicles, and blue jeans. The discussion about race and racism changed that day. For a while everybody seemed to have new questions, and nobody seemed as sure as they had been about the answers. I believe this was because in this discussion there was a different underlying construction of identity and difference, an altered perspective on what was assumed to be the standard from which we defined 'regular and different,' 'self and other.' When 'other' was Native American and . self' everyone else in the room, there were new opportunities for students to interrogate their assumptions, new opportunities to struggle with the issue of what it means to teach those who are different from and the same as our multiple selves.

Telling the story of what happened when I added The Indian in the Cupboard to my course is in no way intended to suggest that all we have to do in teacher education is figure out who is "not in the room" and then construct that person as the "other," that all we have to do is be certain to include in the curriculum fictional or research literature about racial or cultural groups that are not actually represented in a given teacher education program. That is not at all the point here. Nor is the point to claim that this kind of "inclusion" would be desirable or even possible. The point I do wish to make is that it is critically important to scrutinize the often very subtle messages about identity and difference that float between the lines of the curriculum and consciously work to construct opportunities in which all the members of the community are able to interrogate their constructions of self and other. As I have argued already, however, these opportunities must always be connected to larger understandings of the histories of oppression and privilege and must always be couched in understandings of institutional and organizational racism.

Conclusion: Lessons Learned and Unlearned

What are the lessons learned here about unlearning racism? One has to do with the power of narrative in teacher education and, as importantly, the power of teacher education as narrative. As I have tried to show throughout this article, both the personal and the fictional stories about race and racism that we invite participants to read and write can break down the barriers of distanced, academic discourse and make possible revelations about participants' positions, identity, and standpoint. Stories can serve as touchstones for shared experience and commitment. As one primary way we understand and construct our professional lives and our multiple identities, stories can help us scrutinize our own work and theorize our own experience. But stories can also be extremely negative, particularly when the stories of some groups are used - unintentionally or not - in the service of others' desire to learn and/or when powerful emotions are unleashed and participants are then left to fend for themselves in the aftermath. Stories can be negative if they prompt a false sense of sameness and personal empathy that is unconnected to historical and institutional racism, to schools as sites for power struggles, or to ownership of the roles privilege and oppression play in everyday life. It may also be the case that there are some stories that individuals should not be coaxed to share in mixed racial groups and some that group leaders should not attempt to solicit. Finally, it must be understood that the narratives we use as tools and texts in the teacher education curriculum confound and are confounded by larger and more deeply embedded messages, messages that are revealed only when the curriculum is interrogated, or consciously read as racial text.

The second lesson is connected to the title of this article, which implies two contradictions: blind vision, a phrase that suggests simultaneous seeing and not seeing; and "unlearning," a word that signifies both growth and the undoing or reversing of that growth. These contradictions are intentional, chosen not only to signal the enormous complexities inherent in the ways race and culture are implicated in teaching and teacher education, but also to caution that blindness is an inevitable aspect of trying to act on a vision about including racism in the teacher education curriculum, that failing is an inherent aspect of unlearning racism. I am completely convinced that . reading the curriculum as racial text,' in the sense that I have described it in this article, is critical to a vision for pre-service education. But I am also convinced that this is a slow and stumbling journey and that along the way difficulty, pain, self-exposure, and disappointment are inevitable. To teach lessons about race and racism in teacher education is to struggle to unlearn racism itself - to interrogate the assumptions that are deeply embedded in the curriculum, to own our own complicity in maintaining existing systems of privilege and oppression, and to grapple with our own failure.

Nikki Giovanni's "A Journey' (1983, p. 47) eloquently conjures up the image of blind vision that I wish to connect to the idea of the learning racism. I conclude this article with her poem:

A Journey*

It's a journey . . . that I propose ... I am not the guide ... nor

technical assistant . . . I will be your fellow passenger . . .

Though the rail has been ridden ... winter clouds cover ...

autumn's exuberant guilt ... we must provide our own guideposts ...

I have heard from previous visitors ... the road washes out

sometimes and passengers are compelled ... to continue

groping . . . or turn back I am not afraid . . .

I am not afraid of rough spots or lonely times ... I don't fear ... the success of this endeavor

I promise vou nothing

I accept your promise ... of the

same we are simply riding a wave ... that may carry or crash ...

It's a journey and I want ... to go ...

'A journey" from 'Those Who Ride the Night Winds by Nikki Giovanni. Copyright @D 1983 by Nikki Giovanni. Reprinted by permission of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

Article Found in : Harvard Educational Review, vol. 70, no. 2 (Summer 2000) : 157-189.

Tracking includes a whole range of ability-related grouping practices in elementary and secondary schools. Though specific practices differ widely, they all organize schools so that students who appear to be similar in their educational needs and potential can be taught together, and taught separately from other students. Tracking is closely connected with testing, since many tests were created during the (early part of the century precisely to sort students into different tracks. Even now, tracking is, in part, both the result of and the reason for much of the testing that takes place in schools. There is no question that tracking, the assessment practices that still supports it, and the differences in educational opportunity that result from it limit many minority students schooling opportunities and life chances. Schools relying heavily on test results to form and legitimate their judgments about students intellectual capacities determine that African American and Latino students. far more than others, have learning deficits and limited potential. Not surprisingly, then, schools place these students disproportionately in low-track, remedial programs that provide them with restricted educational opportunity.

But just as testing and tracking are inextricably linked to each other, so are they linked to all of the other dimensions of schooling that affect students opportunities and achievement. Tracking and testing are two problematic school structures that support and are supported by much else that is wrong with schools-low expectations for many students; thin, skills-based curricula; and passive, teacher-dominated instructional strategies, to name just a few. It follows, then, that any effective solution to tracking requires attention to these other conditions. Regrouping students into heterogeneous classrooms is necessary but not sufficient to solve these problems. What is needed is a comprehensive set of mutually supportive changes that include new ways of thinking as well as new practices. Such changes are not only solutions in the sense of a technical "fix" for the tracking problem; these are promising directions for reinventing schools generally-schools where tracking would not make sense. Effecting such far-reaching change is no easy matter. Testing and tracking are well entrenched, not only as educational practices intended to help schools to identify and address differences in how quickly and easily students learn, but also as a societal mechanism for sorting students and preparing them for future schooling (if they are thought to be suited for it) and for the adult occupations they will assume. Both functions have legitimacy in and outside of schools. Thus, changing tracking and the tests that support it must include a strategy that engages schools and communities in rethinking basic school purposes. Simply concentrating on how to make schools more technically "effective" misses the point if schools purposes are misguided. Schools already are effective at much of what they attempt: sorting, limiting the best opportunities to a few, and so on. A successful strategy to examine school practices and purposes must be slow, incremental, inclusive, and artfully orchestrated. In the following sections, we elaborate a cultural view of tracking and testing problems and examine some promising strategies for making schools places where the status quo of testing and tracking no longer make sense.

The Problem

From their earliest school years, African American and Latino students are consistently over represented in low-track, remedial, and special education programs. Educators justify these placements by pointing out that children from these groups typically perform less well on commonly accepted assessments of ability and achievement. Moreover, conventional school wisdom holds that low track, remedial, and special education classes help these students, since they permit teachers to target instruction to the particular learning deficiencies of low-ability students. However, research about human capacity and learning suggests that conventional placement tests measure only a very narrow range of students abilities; in particular they provide little information about students higher order cognitive abilities, such as how well they generate ideas or solve problems, or about how well they can accomplish real-world tasks. Furthermore, students do not profit from enrollment in low-track classes: they do not learn better, and they have less access than other students to knowledge, engaging learning experiences, and resources (see Oakes, Gamoran, and Page, 1991, for a review).

Testing and Tracking. As the Twig Is Bent. . .

Testing and tracking often begin prior to kindergarten. Over the past decade, a growing number of local school systems have begun to administer "readiness" tests to select some five-year-olds for the academic demands of kindergarten, others for a less academic pre-kindergarten class, and still others to stay home and wait another year. Many systems use such tests to guide placement decisions about first graders. Because children prior academic learning opportunities have considerable influence on their scores, it is not surprising that children with academically rich preschool and school4ike home environments do better on such tests and are more likely to be judged as developmentally "ready" for "regular" kindergartens and suited for high-ability first-grade classrooms. Thus, these tests place low- income children-a group in which most minority children fit-at a clear disadvantage, since most of them have less educationally advantaged preschool opportunities, and, on average, minority children score less well than whites (Ellwein and Eads, 1990; Ellwein, 1991). Thus, it is no surprise that we find disproportionate numbers of young minority children in special "transitional" classes, in separate programs for "at-risk" children, and in other types of low-ability primary classrooms. Even more troublesome, these "readiness" tests are not sufficiently accurate to be used as a basis for placement decisions. They were not designed to predict whether or not children will succeed in a particular placement, and they do not do it well (Meisels, 1989; Shepard, 1992).

In spite of good intentions, elementary schools do not increase achievement when they divide students into whole classes by ability levels. And, while some limited and flexible regrouping schemes do often yield positive effects on average achievement (particularly plans that increase student mobility between "levels" with a multi grade structure), they also usually increase the inequality of "achievement That is, children in high groups often benefit the most, and those in low groups the least. Over time, then, the achievement gap between high- and Low-group students widens. We have no evidence that the slight positive effect on average achievement is sustained over years of schooling.

Tracking propels children through the system at different speeds-even though, the slower groups have as their goal "catching up." Low groups spend relatively more time on decoding Sider the mean activities, whereas high groups move on to comings of stories and progress farther in the curriculum. High group students do more silent reading and, when reading aloud, are less often interrupted than low-group students. The High group advantage presumably accumulates as the years pass, and students with a history of membership in high-ability groups are more likely to have covered considerably more material by the end of elementary school.

In this way, tracking in the elementary grades determines much of what happens later. Differences in pace through a sequenced curriculum (particularly in mathematics and reading) lead to differences in coverage. Coverage differences result in kids falling, further and further behind and in receiving increasingly different curricula. These differences further stabilize students track placements. Before long, students in slower groups lack the prerequisite curricular experiences needed to qualify (score well on tests) for faster groups or to succeed in faster or higher groups. Moreover, they are likely to have internalized the judgment that they are less able and less likely to succeed, and, as a consequence, are no longer eager to put forth the hard work it might take to do well in a higher-ability class (Rosenholtz and Simpson, 1984).

Secondary School Tracking. ". . . So Grows the Tree"

Early in the middle-school years, there begins an intentional shift away from the goal of propelling kids through the same curriculum at different speeds (with the illogical intention that these students will "catch up"). Instead, middle schools-still relying on slow, special, and remedial classes-change their intention.5 for students. Now, not only is the speed different, so is the direction. Rather than being propelled through the same curriculum at different speeds albeit with much missed by those in slower groups and classes students are pulled intentionally through different curricula toward different "end points": different high schools, different post-high school expectations. Increasingly, these different destinations influence judgments about appropriate placements and course taking. They confront different courses with different names-sometimes prefixed with "basic," "regular, "pre-," "honors," or "gifted"-and clearly different in content and rigor (for example, slower-track students taking a "crafts" elective instead of foreign language). The differentiated curriculum conforms to a larger social purpose preparing students for different failures-and creates even greater curricular differences than would be expected from-n differences in pace and consequent losses in coverage.

As students proceed through middle and high schools, increasingly disproportionate percentages of African American and Latino middle-grade and high school students enroll in low ability tracks (Braddock, 1989; Braddock and Dawkins, 1993-. Oakes, 1990; Oakes, Gamoran, and Page, 1991). For examples Oakes (1990) found that all minority secondary schools enroll far greater percentages of their students in low-track classes compared to all - white schools, and that in racially mixed schools the concentration of minority students in low-track classes is dramatic. For example, 66 percent of the science and mathematics classes with disproportionately large minority enrollments (compared to their representation in the student body as a whole) were low track, compared with only 5 percent of the disproportionately white classes. In contrast, only 9 percent of the disproportionately minority classes were high track, compared to 57 percent of the disproportionately white classes. These findings were echoed in an Educational Testing Service study of the effects of middle school tracking in six minority, urban districts, which found that minority students were over represented in low track math classes (23 percent compared to only 8 percent of the white students) and under represented in high-track classes (36 percent of the minorities compared to 56 percent of whites) (Villegas and Watts, 1991).

In part, these disproportionate placements stem from real differences in minority and white students opportunities and achievements in elementary school-differences that are often a consequence of earlier tracking. These differences-and disproportionate placements are exacerbated by schools reliance on standardized tests in making tracking decisions. Even though such tests underestimate minority students capabilities, they typically carry more weight than information about students past classroom performance or teachers recommendations, particularly when students move into new schools where counselors may have little or no contact with students former teachers (Oakes, Selvin, Karoly, and Guiton, 1992; Villegas and Watts, 1991).

However, even when white and minority students are comparable in their scores on achievement tests, minorities are more likely than their white peers to be placed in lower tracks. Oakes (1995) documents school-by-school and district wide placements in two school systems-Rockford, Illinois, and San Jose, California whose ability grouping and tracking systems were subject to scrutiny in 1993 in conjunction with school desegregation court cases. The data showed that in both school systems, tracking credited racially unbalanced classes in elementary, middle, and senior high schools. This imbalance took two forms: (1) white (and Asian, in San Jose0 students were consistently over represented, and African American and Latino students - were consistently under represented, in high-ability classes in all subjects; and (2) in contrast, African American or Latino students were consistently over represented, while white and Asian students were consistently under represented, in low-ability tracks in all subjects.

In both San Jose and Rockford, placement practices skewed enrollments in favor of whites over and above that which can be explained by measured achievement. As a group, African American and Latino students scored lower on achievement tests than whites and Asians in both school systems. However, African American and Latino students were much less likely than comparably scoring white or Asian students to be placed in accelerated courses. For example, in San Jose, Latino eighth graders with average" scores in mathematics were three times less likely than similarly scoring whites to be placed in an "Accelerated" math course. Among ninth graders, the results were similar. Those Latinos scoring between 40 and 49, 50 and 59, and 60 and 69 Normal Curve Equivalents (NCES) were less than half as likely as their white and Asian counterparts to be placed in accelerated tracks. The discrimination was even more striking among the highest-scoring students. While only 56 percent of Latinos scoring between 90 and 9 NCEs were placed in accelerated classes, 93 percent of whites and 97 percent of Asians gained admission to these classes.

In Rockford, white students whose scores fell within a range that would qualify them for participation in either a higher or lower track (that is, their scores were the same as those of students in the lower track) were far more likely to be placed in high-track classes than were African American students whose scores fell within that same range. Additionally, in a number of schools, Rockfords high-track classes included exceptionally low scoring students; rarely were these students African American. In contrast, quite high-scoring African Americans Were often found in low-track classes; this was seldom the case for high scoring whites. Among several striking examples of skewed placements in Rockfords junior highs was one school where the range of reading comprehension scores among eighth grade in Basic (low-track) English classes was from the Ist to the 72nd National Percentile. Of these, ten students scored above the national average of 50 NP. Six of these high-scoring students were African American, including the highest-achieving student in the class. A seventh was Latino.

Interestingly, both school districts defended their skewed placements as fair, given the proportionately higher mean scores for whites than for African Americans and Latinos. However, these averages simply masked the systematic discrimination against individual minority students in the placement process.

At least two additional and related factors play a role in creating the skewed patten of track placements. One is the pervasive stereotypical expectations that society and schools hold for students of different -racial and ethnic groups that can negatively influence the placement of minority students with marginal test scores (for example, "Latino parents don't care much about their children school achievement and are unlikely to help their children at home"). A second is "politicking" by savvy parents who want their children placed in the best classes. Although such parents are not exclusively white, in most schools white parents, especially middle-class white parents, better understand the inequalities in the school structure and feel more confident that the school will respond positively to their pressure (Oakes and Guiton, 1995; Useem, 1992a, 1992b). Students from different backgrounds sometimes receive different information, advice, and attention from counselors and teachers. While many secondary schools claim that students "choose" their tracks, low track, minority students most often report that others made

decisions for them (Villegas and Watt, 1991).

Low-track courses consistently offer less demanding topics and skills, while high-track classes typically include more complex material. Teachers of low-track classes give less emphasis than teachers of other classes to such matters as basic science concepts, students interest in math and science, their development of inquiry and problem-solving skills, and preparation of students for further study in math and science (Oakes, 1990). It is important to note that these goals need not depend on students prior knowledge or skills. On the contrary, math and science educators increasingly see these goals as essential for all students-regardless of their current skill levels. High-track teachers in all subjects often stress having students become competent and autonomous thinkers. In contrast, low-track teachers place greater emphasis on conformity to rules and expectations (Oakes, 1985, 1990, 1995).

Teaching strategies differ in ways consistent with this pattern of curricular disadvantage. Teachers allocate less time to instruction (as opposed to routines, discipline, and socializing) in low tracks, and learning activities more often consist of drill and practice with trivial bits of information, seat work, and worksheet activities. When technology is introduced in low tracks, it is often in conjunction with low-level tasks, such as computation. Computer activities, for example, often mimic texts and worksheets (Oakes, Gamoran, and Page, 1991). Low-track teachers tend to tightly control students opportunities, activities, and interactions. Furthermore, while these disadvantages affect all the students in minority students may be especially disadvantaged, because teachers may treat them less favorably. For instance, Villegas and Watts (1991) found that in racially mixed, low-track classes, teachers focused their interactions with minority students on behavioral rather than educational concerns (six times more often than with whites), both telling students what to do (three times more often for minorities than for whites) and criticizing them (five times more often).

Since many schools track their teachers as well as their students, low-track students have less exposure to well qualified teachers. While some schools rotate the teaching of low- range ability classes, it is more typical for teachers to jockey among themselves for high-track assignments, or for principals to use class assignments as rewards and sanctions. Such political processes work to the detriment of low-track students, since til(. least well-prepared teachers are usually assigned to low-track students. For example, teachers of secondary low-ability science and mathematics classes are typically less experienced, less likely to be certified in math or science, hold fewer degrees in these subject, have less training in the use of computers, and less often to report themselves to be "master teachers" than their colleagues in upper-track classes. These differences are particularly troublesome for students in schools with large minority and low income populations because these schools have fewer well-qualified teachers to begin with. In such schools, for instance, low-track students are frequently taught math and science by teachers who are not certified to teach those subjects, if they are certified at all (Oakes, 1990).

These track-related differences have pernicious consequences stemming from conceptions and judgments about human capacity and individual differences that connect with students race and social class. The differences are not educationally appropriate adaptations to variation in students learning aptitude, speed, or style-. Not surprisingly, the combination of separating students into different groups and providing different knowledge and learning conditions to these groups affects students aspirations, further schooling opportunities, and achievement. For example, Sanford Dornbush (1994) documents a striking impact of tracking on minority students ability to realize their post-high school aspirations. Dornbush looked separately at the group of students who met three criteria: (1) wished to graduate from a four-year college, (2) expected to graduate, and (3) believed they were in a college-prep program that would prepare them for entrance to four-year colleges. He found that nearly half the disadvantaged minorities in that group were actually not taking the right courses in math and science, compared lo only about 20 percent of non-Hispanic whites and Asians. In mathematics, for example, 50 percent of the African Americans ;and 52 percent of the Latinos in the sample had these track misperceptions. The percentages were far lower for non-Hispanic whites and Asians (29 and 18 percent, respectively), but they were still considerable. With the analysis limited to those student who had scored above the 50th percentile nationally in mathematics on their ninth-grade test, the percentages remained significant. In this latter group, 32 percent of minority students Compared with 12 percent of whites and Asians held a mistaken view of where their high school courses would lead them.

Moreover, Braddock and Dawkins (1993) show that track assignments impact students future learning opportunities in their analyses of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of U.S. students who were eighth graders in 1988 (NELS:88). As tenth graders, those students who were in high-ability groups as eighth graders were the most likely to enroll in college-prep courses, and those who had been in low-ability eighth-grade classes the least likely, independent of such factors as grades, test scores, aspirations, and social background factors. Interestingly, too, students in eighth-grade mixed-ability classes were more likely than comparable peers in low tracks to enter college-prep classes. However, those enrolled in high-ability groups as eighth graders were more likely than their counterparts in mixed ability classes to do so. Similarly, Dornbush (1994) found that the initial high school track placements of students who scored in the middle ranges of achievement in the eighth grade influenced the courses students took throughout their high school years. For example, students scoring in the fifth decibel on eighth-grade tests and who were placed in biology as ninth graders had a 71 percent change of taking physics or chemistry later. In stark contrast, similarly scoring students who were placed in low-level science in grade nine had only a 7 percent chance of enrolling in these advanced courses. In fact, at every Nth hierarchy, students placed level of the eighth-grade achievement in college-track classes far outpaced their peers in later advanced science course taking. Overall, Dornbush and his colleagues found that 85 percent of high school students end up in the same science and math tracks in which they began. Additionally, as much other work has suggested, with levels of achievement. controlled, low-track students feel less challenged, try less hard, do less homework, and say that teachers are less likely to ask them to demonstrate their understanding.

With regard to achievement outcomes, Gamoran (1990) found in a longitudinal study of tracking and the transition between middle school and senior high that about 25 percent of the variance in track-related learning differences was attributable to differences in curriculum and instruction. Additionally, longitudinal analyses of the NELS:88 students show that when students with similar achievement levels in the eighth grade are placed in different tracks, their subsequent achievement diverges. Those placed in higher tracks benefitted; those in the lower track suffered negative effects on learning. Similarly, Oakes (1994) study of San Jose and Rockford schools found a differential effect of tracking; high placement led to achievement gains, and low-track participation had a negative effect on students learning outcomes. In San Jose, for example, students who were placed in lower-level courses consistently demonstrated lesser gains in achievement over time than their comparably scoring peers placed in high4evel courses. These results were consistent across achievement levels: whether students began with relatively high or relatively low achievement, those placed in lower-level courses showed lesser gains over time than similarly situated students placed in higher-level courses. In both systems, achievement differences accrued in the context of the opportunity differences noted earlier. In short, low-track students-disproportionately African American and Latino-get less and learn than their high track peers.

Promising alternatives

Regrouping students into heterogeneous classrooms is necessary but not sufficient to solve the problems of current sorting practices. Rather, what is needed is a comprehensive set of mutually supportive changes that lead to new ways of thinking as well as new practices. The following are some brief descriptions of promising alternatives that both challenge prevailing school norms and incorporate new organizational structures, curriculum, teaching strategies, and other necessary accompaniments to detracking.

New Norms

Schools wrestling with detracking do not adopt an exclusively practical focus on alternatives. They also challenge the philoso1)hies, values, and beliefs that underlie tracking practices and that make detracking such a difficult technical and political matter. Developing new norms concerning intelligence and learning are particularly important.

Current sorting practices are grounded in faulty conceptions that intelligence is global (for example, a single entirely that can be measured by IQ) and fixed quite early either before birth or soon thereafter-and that learning is primarily the accumulation of a linear sequence of knowledge and skills. Also important are historically rooted beliefs about individual and group differences in intelligence and learning.

As long as the capacity to learn is understood, for all practical purposes, as unalterable, and the range in capacity among schoolchildren is perceived as great, tracking will seem sensible. Schools will continue to accommodate differences by separating students by ability and adapting curriculum and instruction accordingly. The fact that learning capacity seems to be unevenly distributed among groups-with disadvantaged minorities exhibiting less-appears to schools to be beyond their control. Thus, schools typically conclude that the disproportionate assignment of low-income and minority students to low-track classes is an appropriate, if regrettable, response.

Alternatives to tracking only make sense when schools seriously entertain new conceptions of intelligence and learning. For example, work by Howard Gardner (1983; see also Gardner and Hatch, 1989) and Robert Sternberg (I 984, 1986; Sternberg, Okagaki, and Jackson, 1990) argues compellingly that intelligence is multifaceted and developmental and that learning is a complex process of constructing meaning. Serious consideration of such work enables schools to give new credibility to popular notions such as "all children can learn," rather than clinging to the limiting interpretation that all children can achieve their very different "potentials." Importantly, because this new knowledge largely discredits the types of tests schools use to assess students "ability"-that is, their "potential" - this work also helps many educators shake the lingering suspicion that minority students are not as intelligent as whites because they tend to score less well. To accompany new practices, then, detracking requires a critical and unsettling rethinking of fundamental and widely accepted educational norms.

New Practices That Embody New Norms

While some successful alternatives to traditional practices may emerge in schools that simply place students in mixed-ability classes and leave everything else the same, there is little to recommend this sink-or-swim approach. For example, altered norms about individual and group differences in learning capacity are unlikely to be sustained if teachers and students lack the working conditions and learning conditions to support them. Successful tracking alternatives do not gloss over the fact that children are different and that they need opportunities to learn differently, than in heterogeneous schools and classrooms. Meeting these diverse needs may required schools to participate in a full agenda of school reform. (For a more detailed accounting of how several current national reform efforts have embodied this agenda, see Oakes and Quartz, 1995.)

Initial steps to achieve successful heterogeneity may be seen as a way to blend previously distinct reforms in curriculum, teaching practices, parent involvement, school organization, and so on. Seen in this much larger context, first steps may be modest. Schools may reconsider the time-the grade or year-in students careers that introducing particular types of experiences is appropriate. In some schools, for example, learning that was thought to be prerequisite to the successful completion of a particular grade (for example, mastery of a common set of basic reading skills in grade one) may give way to longer-term learning goals in ungraded classes (for instance, individual development of literacy between ages five and eight). Practices such as group work, once reserved for elementary school, may become valued in high school. Rigorous conceptual knowledge previously "saved" for high school may reach children much earlier (Oakes and Lipton, 1990).

Students Working Together

The research on and development of cooperative small-group learning strategies, which has roughly paralleled the recent interest in detracking, have produced a body of theory and practice that demonstrates that it is not only possible for students previously in lower tracks to meet high-track standards, it is possible for students previously in the middle and high tracks to meet new, more rigorous standards for intellectual development than what schools have been aspiring to achieve. Furthermore, a consistent finding in cooperative learning research has been that in heterogeneous groups students, whether highly skilled or struggling with the subject, can make gains in achievement and social skills that exceed the gains they would have made in homogeneous groups or classrooms.

Cooperative learning, then, occupies a central spot in many if not most schools efforts to detract students. However, even within the cooperative learning research and development "communities" there may be a tendency to oversell the method and neglect the need for dramatically reconceptualized curricula and lessons. Current curricula undermine the power of cooperative learning to make a difference. While an otherwise ordinary lesson may be enhanced by slight modifications that allow children to work together, some teachers and schools are at work to combine with cooperative learning strategies long-range, complex, multidimensional lessons that stretch the learning challenges for all students while allowing all students to succeed.

Moreover, we have empirical evidence suggesting that African American and Latino children may achieve better when they work with others (Stavin, 1990; Cohen, 1994), particularly when they are working on tasks that focus on whole concepts or real situations rather than fragmented skills or abstractions. (Of course, there is also considerable evidence that these approaches help non-minority students learn as well.) One of the most striking examples of a fully developed cooperative learning strategy is Edward DeAvilas and Elizabeth Cohens conceptually rich, experience-based bilingual science curriculum that has achieved remarkable success with heterogeneous groups of young Latino and Anglo children (Cohen, 1994; Cohen, Kepner, and Swanson, 1995). In their Finding Out Disinbursement to program, groups of students rotate among classroom "centers" at which they work together solving complex science problems. The tasks they engage in also require acquisition of fundamental math knowledge and skills; the interactive process they use promotes the literacy development of both English- and Spanish-speaking children.

Rich, Complex Curriculum

Combining cooperative groups with a thematic or problem solving orientation can provide a rich intellectual, yet concrete, context to help students organize knowledge, construct meanings, and sustain interest. It also acknowledges and attends specifically to the social construction of knowledge-that much learning takes place in a "community of learners" (Shoenfeld, 1988) - and to the necessity of highly developed social skills to accomplish most productive work.

Henderson, Landesman, and Marshall (1992) describe an example of a thematic approach to mathematics instruction for Latino students in detracked classes. They demonstrate how even subject areas thought to be highly sequential and skills based are amenable to a richer and more complex treatment.

The first project taken up in the mathematics classes as part of the Careers theme involved designing and building bridges. Within each of the Theme classes, students were divided randomly into groups of five. These groups then formed construction companies, giving their enterprises names such as The Pajareo Builders, Albert Einstein Co., The Mexican Corporation, Trust Us Co., Inc. Within each company, different career-related roles were assigned by the group to its members. These roles were those of Manager, Engineer, Transportation Officer, Architect, and Accountant. The duties of each career group were explained at meetings of all students assigned to a particular role. All goods needed for construction were purchased from a warehouse. Materials included cardboard (representing land), glue, toothpicks, and so on.

Each company was allotted 1.5 million dollars for its project. Calculating amounts, writing checks, and keeping records of accounts brought arithmetic operations into play. Determining the amount of material needed to construct the bridges involved estimation. Before constructing the bridge, students had to develop their plans on graph paper, drawing figures to scale. This involved measurement. At the next stage students dealt with lengths, perimeters, and areas, to assure the bridge would fit where they wanted it. Next came geometric visualization and discussions of similarity and congruence of figures. Finally, stress tests on the bridge and a discussion of optimal design involved some basic concepts of physics. The finished products, were subjected to stress testing, using weights....

The key mathematical topics (each with myriad subtopics) included in the scope and sequence were 1) addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of whole numbers; 2) decimals; 3) fractions; 4) numbers and number theory; 5) problem solving; 6) estimation; 7) geometry; 8) measurement; 9) ratio, proportion, percent; 10) statistics and probability; II) pre-algebra; and 12) technology [p. 241.

It appears that this large-concept, thematic unit not only allowed for but invited teachers to include additional abstract topics that might not have been written into a traditional grade level scope and sequence, including: "the solving of simple ]linear algebraic equations with one unknown (e.g., 50 x - 600 = 0). Geometry topics ... included material on angles, measurement and the classification of differing degrees, the use of a protractor,

different types of angles. . . equilateral and isosceles triangles and their properties ... rays, parallel lines, perpendicular lines, intersecting lines, transversalis, regular polygons, congruent figures, symmetry, and reflections" (pp. 25-26).

Clearly, the rich and complex lesson partly described above will raise concerns regarding teacher training, curricular coverage, planning time, class size, acceptance of interactive, noisy classes, and much more. Even so, the payoff in terms of students deep and lasting understanding warrants the concerns and costs. Importantly, because this curriculum frames learning tasks as complex problems, provides contexts that give facts meaning, takes students informal knowledge seriously, allows for multiple "right answers, and promotes socially constructed knowledge, it groups of students promises to be much more accommodating of diverse in prior knowledge and skills. More practically, it provides learning opportunities where it is less likely that some student will have to be left behind or that some will be bored because the lessons have been watered down.

Broadening Assessment

The team that developed this thematic approach to mathematics is confident that their observations are consistent with Roland Tharps (1989) findings that hands-on activities combined with complex problem solving are more effective in promoting the learning of low-achieving Latino students than a conventional mathematics curriculum. But how does one assess the learning that results from such rich and complex mathematics lessons? This learning is filled, to be sure, with facts and algorithms but also abounds in sophisticated processes, enhanced intuition, social skills (including leadership), and knowledge of all sorts that could not have been anticipated prior to or even during the lesson, Exclusive reliance on typical terminal testing-that is, paper-and-pencil exams at the end of "units" with numbers and a few contrived "word problems"--could kill much of the value of such a lesson. Typical assessments do not encourage returning to the lesson and clarifying misconceptions experienced earlier, and rarely do they provide feedback at a point in the learning process where the student can or is willing to make use of it. They serve to falsely identify what is "really" important in the lesson (successfully solving numerical problems, getting a good grade, and little else). Because they are expressed as a single score or grade, they result in easy public comparisons and reinforce a classroom status hierarchy that can eventually sabotage successful mixed-ability groups (Cohen, 1994; Cohen, Kepner, and Swanson, 1995). This last is a particularly telling point in light of the consistently lower scores achieved by African

American and Latino students.

Grant Wiggins (1991, p. 10) observes that "learning is authentic and effective when the assessments are authentic." We would propose this blend of authentic learning and assessment: both learning and assessment have occurred when the entire class completes the learning task-when there is no distinction between ending the lesson and successfully completing the lesson.

Going beyond typical assessments toward a blend of authentic learning and assessment may be one of the toughest challenges schools face. The new norms, skills, and professional teaching conditions required for sophisticated new instruction are exactly those needed to assess the complex learning that results. Just as a rich, complex, well-planned lesson allows teachers and students alike to "cover" the curriculum by seizing unanticipated learning opportunities and capitalizing on prior knowledge, that same sensitivity must be employed in student assessment. While there is much interest in process evaluations (watching students work at each step of a problem-solving process), product evaluations that include the results of projects or portfolios, structured observations of students problem solving, and more, it is difficult to imagine how these technologies (arts?) can overcome the habits, politics, and tradition that hold conventional testing, grades, and comparisons in place. Perhaps, for the short range, the most we can hope for is a dual system of assessment where educators and policy makers affirm their commitment and obligation to protect students from the effects of traditional assessments while they educate them with promising authentic evaluations.

Extra Time and Extra Help

Even when schools adopt norms reflecting confidence in all students capabilities, schools are still confronted with the reality that some students need more time and instructional support than others. If detracking schools are not to water down the rigorous curriculum they have in place for high-achieving students, the logical alternative is for them to find ways for students formerly in the lower tracks to meet the rigorous expectations now found only in the high track. Thus, they face the challenge of reconfiguring schedules, course offerings, and staffing patterns to enable all students to get the time and help they need without being removed from heterogeneous classrooms. Most schools find that, once the idea makes sense-once norms change-devising strategies for providing extra time and help is quite easy.

For example, some schools schedule students time with special education or Chapter I resource teachers after school. Others team regular teachers and teachers assigned to categorical programs so that specialized help can be incorporated into the regular classroom. This latter strategy is quite consistent with the intent of the new Chapter I legislation. Other schools employ tutoring programs or peer counseling for after-school helped. Still other schools make available tape-recorded reading assignments so less accomplished readers can participate. Increasingly popular and successful (and effective) are tutorial or "booster" classes that provide a "double dose" of rigorous academic curriculum to help them keep up in their heterogeneous classes (Maclver, 1991). Some schools add extra class periods to their schedules so that students have time to take these courses; others ask students to give up an elective course to free up time for their booster classes.

For example, Parkway South High School, a suburban Missouri school that draws 80 percent of its students from surrounding middle- and upper-middle-class neighborhoods and 20 percent from central-city St. Louis (by virtue of the schools participation in the voluntary metropolitan desegregation plan) has experimented with providing students who are having difficulty in regular English class with an additional "tutorial" class. This tutorial both replaces the low-track "basic" class and prepares students for success in the regular English class-a supremely logical program that provides extra help instead of a watered-down substitute. It also prevents the resegregation of the African American "transfer" students into remedial tracks. In addition, Parkway South has eliminated its ninth- and tenth grade social studies honors classes and replaced them with "blended" social studies classes in which students many contract to earn a weighted honors grade. This program reflects the social studies faculties desire to have a heterogeneous class (in both race and ability level) discuss social issues.

Promising Programs

A few increasingly visible programs demonstrate how new norms and practices can support a culture that provides both access and success for minority students who might otherwise be locked into low-track classrooms. These programs defy tidy categorization as alternatives to tracking. These are programs that have either used their detracking experiences to create school cultures hospitable to a wide range of new practices or that have found that their adoption of alternative practices invites detracking.

AVID is such a program. Conceived by a high school English teacher in 1980 and now widely adopted in San Diego city and county schools, AVID succeeds by providing to underachieving students-especially those from ethnic and linguistic minority backgrounds-massive amounts of social support, including study skills, intensive practice in writing literary, social science, and scientific essays, and intensive tutorials in their course work. They receive campus tours and hear firsthand from college students and professors what college life is like. To build confidence and self-esteem they work in cooperative learning groups. In short, program developers claim that AVID provides students explicit instruction in the hidden curriculum of the school (Mehan, Hubbard, and Villanueva, 1992; Swanson, Mehan, and Hubbard, 1995).

AVID seems to be of sufficient scope and magnitude to sustain itself as a locus for curriculum and organizational changes; it includes subject matter cadres, has incorporated mentor teacher resources, oversees extensive teacher training, and works cooperatively with university researchers who participate in training, program analysis, and evaluation. But it must be noted that AVID is not an isolated program that has been given the responsibility to "take care of a problem while the rest of the educational enterprise is business as usual. The development of AVID over the years has paralleled a broader commitment by San Diego City Schools district administration to increase the access of all students to high-quality curriculum and instruction through the reduction of tracking.

Another large-scale reform effort that promises to reduce the ill effects of tracking on minority students is the Accelerated Schools Project, headquartered at Stanford University. Accelerated Schools for at-risk elementary and middle school students represent an attempt to "create schools that speed-up the learning of such students to bring them into the educational mainstream by the end of elementary school" (Levin, 1991, p. 2). Now

expanding to include middle schools, the Accelerated Schools use an enrichment strategy, rather than remediation, to enable students to succeed in mainstream classrooms. This approach is characterized both by the development of new norms of equity (for example, high expectations for at-risk students that are reinforced by deadlines for making all children in the school academically able) and the development of new curricula and practice (such as curricula that build on students personal and cultural strengths, instruction based on problem-solving and interesting applications, and creative school organization).

Like AVID schools, Accelerated Schools do not see themselves primarily as "track busters." However, they do consider heterogeneous classes as the most appropriate way to educate all children when sufficient supports are in place both in and out of those classes so all students can succeed.

Like the Accelerated Schools program, the Success for All program, developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University for Baltimore Public Schools, sees ensuring children early competence, especially in reading, as a way to narrow the divergence in students skills by the end of the third grade, thus making heterogeneous classes less daunting to students and teachers alike. "Success is defined as performance in reading, writing, language arts, and mathematics at or near grade level by the third grade, maintenance of this status through the end of the elementary grades, and avoidance of retention or special education" (Madden and others, 1993, p. 1; Slavin and Madden, 1995). Cooperative groups as well as tutoring (often on an as-needed, rotating basis) combined with frequent assessments assure that students do not "fall through the cracks."

AVID, Accelerated Schools, and Success for All are examples of relatively formal, external support systems that provide initial and ongoing help and protection for individual schools to depart from convention and serve at-risk students. But sometimes individual schools are themselves the cornerstones of dramatic change. Sure, they receive help and support, particularly from their central administration and university researchers, but they march to their own drummers and it is outsiders who stand amazed at their achievements. Pioneer Valley Regional Middle School in Northfield, Massachusetts, is such a school:

Eight years ago, a small cadre of teachers at Pioneer Valley Regional School decided it could do more for students by ending tracking.... An ad hoc committee pushing for heterogeneous grouping found a strong ally in the chairman of the school committee, who told them, "Im a product of that school. I was a 5, the lowest track. It took me years to get over it, it hurt so bad."

In its next step, the school held teacher workshops, and faculty from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst taught a course on teaching styles and strategies to prepare the faculty for implementing the changes....

[The] chairman of the English Department was adamantly opposed to the change in the beginning ... [but] decided to give heterogeneous grouping a try after reading the research that showed it furthered things he believed in as a teacher. When he was working with a mixed group of students, he found that neither teaching as he always had nor watering down the curriculum worked with a mixed group of students. The English department decided to "get rid of the concept that the classroom is where you go to be evaluated" and develop a new curriculum around themes...... The first year it bombed." . . . "We did not know what to do. We had always been the center of the class, made the decisions, told the kids how to look at material and judge its quality... The secret ... was to create a situation where everyone learned together, and no one dominated."

They created new structures within the classroom.... Students are paired; an absentee calls his partner to get assignments and the days work. Small groups are formed according to skills. A terrific writer is told his or her job is to help everyone in the group succeed in writing.

[The principal] reports a noticeable change in the school climate since tracking ended. "There are fewer discipline problems, and more kids are engaged in learning. The teachers are doing more exciting things because they cant lecture." The faculty has become so confident about the value of heterogeneous grouping that, backed by a variety of educational groups and corporate sponsors, the school recently sponsored a conference on "Derailing the Tracked School" that drew some 200 participants....

[The principals] caveat to those attending was that derailing tracking "was not a painless process" and is still continuing [Caldwell, 1990, p. 61].

The example of Pioneer Valley shows what can be accomplished within a school community with unity of purpose, emphasizing that this unity and its results have been nine years in their development. However, countless other schools in all stages of change are making similar efforts with partial but encouraging success (see, for example, Wheelock, 1992).

While full-blown projects like those described above provide helpful examples for other schools, they should not be regarded as models to be copied, but as purveyors of a more general lesson. This lesson, we argue, is that creating a culture of detracking is more important than any particular alternatives or implementation strategies a school might attempt. The particulars of detracking vary considerably among schools. (Even the AVID and Accelerated Schools projects observe that the nature and pace of school changes vary enormously.) However, we can also detect commonalties in the cultures of successfully detracking schools. Two such commonalities are readily apparent from the previous discussion:

Recognition that tracking is supported by Powerful norms that must be acknowledged and addressed as alternatives are created

Willingness to broaden the reform agenda, so that changes in the tracking structure become part of a comprehensive set of changes in school practice

While it is convenient to organize this look at detracking into the categories of (1) norms and (2) practices embedded in the larger school reform agenda, each category is seen as inclusive of the other. Some changes in programs and practices are driven by the adoption of new norms. At the same time, sometimes experimentation with new programs and practices can alter old norms. For example, when skeptical parents or teachers discover many benefits and few disadvantages to heterogeneous classes in pilot or experimental programs, they may change their beliefs about individual and group differences in ability to learn. That, in turn, generates enthusiasm for new technologies of curriculum, instruction, and organization consistent with the new beliefs.

Change Strategies: Moving from Problems to Promise

Going a step further, successful detracking also depends on change strategies that are never distant from norms and practice. The medium (strategy) for bringing forth change can never run counter to the message (norms and technology) of change. Schools and communities democratic and inclusive purposes for attending to neglected and ill-served poor and minority youth must be mirrored in democratic and inclusive processes of change.

Again, the Accelerated Schools project provides a useful example of how new norms and practices combine to help move school from problem-creating practices, like traditional assessment and tracking, toward more promising approaches for minority students. While expecting and finding rapid gains in student achievement, the project attends to both norms and technical change strategies grounded in educational research and democratic principles. The project recognizes explicitly that improved opportunities for at-risk children must take place in a culture that welcomes departures from usual school practice. Toward this end, normative changes in the schools include participation, communication, community, reflection, experimentation, risk taking, and trust. These latter drive what the project calls its "capacity-building" elements. These include creating a vision that permeates all school activities; locating decision making about crucial educational matters at the school site; developing an accountability system that monitors process as well as outcomes; providing tangible incentives; providing access to information about options that includes access, to data bases, collaboration with university-based facilitators, school and other agencies, and so on; building processes for open inquiry, discourse, reflection, and deliberation on difficult-to-recognize problems; ensuring central office support; and devising creative and idiosyncratic ways to provide teachers with time for all of the above (for example, one Accelerated School principal teaches a daily aerobics class to students to free up time for teachers to meet) (Levin, 1991).

A closer look at these and other capacity-building elements helps to identify three other characteristics of many other schools that are successfully detracking.

Engagement in a process of inquiry and experimentation that is idiosyncratic, opportunistic, democratic, and politically sensitive

Schools finding some measure of success engage in difficult but fascinating inquiry into their own schools. They experiment with small-scale tracking alternatives of their own design moving and changing where they can, when they can, and with those who are eager to go along. This process is not merely politically well advised; even in the unlikely event that everyone favored detracking, schools could not simply replace tracking with the "correct" alternative.

Detracking requires opening up the dialogue about tracking both inside and outside the school. Some districts and schools convene school community task forces that read research on tracking, assess local practices, and explore alternatives (a recent example is Boston Public Schools). Other school systems collect data about their own grouping structures and course placements and analyze these by race, socioeconomic background, language, gender, and special education status (see, for example, San Diego City five-year data collection effort). Such strategies promote serious consideration of a number of important questions: What are our schools grouping goals, and are they being met by our use of grouping? What is the procedure for placing students into ability groups? Are there ample opportunities for interaction among students from different ability groups? What successful practices are employed within high-ability classes that can be replicated school wide?

Such inquiry-based approaches allow schools to make sense out of their own experiences, to bring competing interests and opinions into the open, and in the process, generate ideas for pilot projects and, eventually, new policies and practice.

Alterations in teachers roles and responsibilities, including changes in the way the adults in the school work together

Serious detracking-just like any significant school reform needs hands-on, practical-minded, experimenting administrators, and it requires philosophical, inquiring teachers. Where changes are occurring, site and district administrators take the time to become immersed in new practices and become familiar with the new roles teachers are being asked to assume. When they do, administrators sense firsthand the full range of school wide alterations needed to support new classroom practice, they can better explain and defend new practices to their communities, and they can more completely assess the effectiveness of the practices. Teachers, on the other hand, must help create new practices and structures-not just implement them. If their roles are reduced to following new sets of teaching protocols or learning new classroom scripts, they are unlikely to be effective-if they adopt the new practices at all.

Moreover, the comprehensive changes that detracking requires almost always triggers significant changes in the way teachers work together. In nearly every school we have encountered teachers report that it is neither technically nor emotionally possible to undertake the shift to heterogeneous grouping in isolation. Teaming is the most common solution, although thin does not necessarily mean that teachers actually teach together-. Sometimes teaming means that teachers at a particular level or of a particular subject pool their resources to create lessons for heterogeneous classes, try them out individually, then collectively assess and revise them for future use. In other cases, teachers form cross-disciplinary teams that share responsibility for a group of students for one or more years. This approach seems particularly useful among middle school teachers, who then are able to make decisions together about their students academic and social needs. Of course, productive working together imposes some demands on the school schedule; it requires additional time-some of which must be provided during the school day.

Persistence over the long haul that is sustained by risk-taking leaders who are clearly focused on scholarship and democratic values

Tracking is entrenched; sensible alternatives are complex, sometimes counterintuitive, usually controversial. In the final analysis, even when alternatives emerge from an inclusive, democratic process of inquiry and experimentation, steering the detracking process through inevitably troubled waters calls for strong leaders who unequivocally and unambiguously-if gently-assert the research and theory and democratic values that support detracking..

At schools we have watched struggle over tracking, we have heard leaders clearly identify specific ways that student success is thwarted by traditions that hold tracking in place. They have openly, often courageously, acknowledged that curricular, administrative, teaching, and other traditions are more powerful than the professions best knowledge of how children actually learn, and that sometimes these traditions are contrary to deeply held democratic values.

Conclusion

Clearly, new ways of organizing schools and the new instructional practices that must accompany them can improve education for low-income and minority students. In searching for examples of better, more equitable organization and instruction (and the norms that underlie them), we have found many schools serving low-income and minority youth that are making progress, though low-income and minority it should surprise no one that "best practice" in this regard (as in most others) is often found in schools that serve advantaged, white students. On the other hand, it may surprise many that advantaged schools are as ripe for testing and tracking reforms as are schools whose disadvantaged students make the problems more serious because they combine faulty notions of r",e with discredited conceptions of ability. Even so, advantaged schools have as many different tracks as disadvantaged schools (although they do have better qualified teachers and proportionately fewer students in the lowest tracks). The very tests schools use to reify the "low ability of low-income and minority children are also used to make subtle but powerful distinctions among white youth in advantaged schools. These schools, too, send strong messages via labels and lowered expectations that most of their students are not-honors, not-gifted, not-the-very-best. Finally, these schools offer low-track instruction dominated by the same kind of low-level curriculum, drill and practice, and lowered expectations that plague less privileged schools.

Why should an advocate for low-income and minority youth be concerned about exposing these practices in schools that are relatively superior? The answer is complex-encompassing both narrow self-interest and broad social concerns. We would like to believe that no other reason is necessary for removing the barriers that testing and tracking create for minority children educational opportunities and attainments than the fact that it is possible to do so. Unfortunately, the nation has a rather poor record of making broad institutional changes on behalf of disadvantaged children. We only have to look to the history of desegregation and Head Start programs to know that such efforts engender, in the worse cases, violent resistance and in the best cases, grudging and stingy compliance. Detracking, carrying with it as it does the specter of within-school desegregation, is unlikely to be well received if it is argued exclusively as a reform on behalf of minority children.

As important, however, is that tracking and the testing that supports it is not an exclusively minority issue, even if minority children are disproportionately harmed by it. These are broad institutional non-ns and practices that affect all children. As noted above, most of the children stigmatized and disadvantaged by "low-ability"judgments and low-track placements are neither minority nor poor. Advocates for low-income and minority students will most effectively serve their constituents and the rest of society if they place their demands for changes in testing and tracking in the context of seeking better schools for all children.

Images of Teaching: The TIMSS Video Taping Project1

Many readers may be aware of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). This study showed that, especially in eighth and twelfth grades, US students were far behind their competitors in Europe and the Far East in mathematics and science achievement. The few developing countries that participated in the program, such as Colombia and South Africa, scored at the bottom. But readers may not be aware that, in an effort to understand what was happening in the classroom, the TIMSS researchers undertook to video-tape actual eighth grade mathematics lessons in the US, Germany, and Japan. One hundred randomly selected classrooms in Germany, 50 in Japan, and 81 in the US were videotaped. Subsequently, questionnaires were distributed to the teachers who were videotaped. A complex coding system was adopted to identify what teachers were actually doing in their classrooms; to ensure objectivity, coders were also provided with written transcripts and descriptions of each lesson, without identifying the country. This was the first time videotaping had been used to compare cultural differences in teaching. The results are fascinating, but perhaps dismaying, for those hoping for educational reform in the US.

US versus Japanese Classrooms

In the first place it was found that the mathematical content of the US eighth grade lessons lagged by at least a year compared to Germany and Japan; that is, the US eighth grade teachers were teaching concepts which had already been taught in seventh grade in Germany and Japan. But the problem was worse than that, since it was found that teachers in the US were providing fragmented, disjointed lessons, especially compared to the Japanese, whose lessons were far more coherent. The typical US lesson presented a problem, demonstrated a procedure, and then set the stage for students practicing the procedure. The Japanese approach worked at a much deeper level. The problem set the stage for students to work, individually or in groups, on developing solution procedures. In quantitative terms, in the US 96% of seat work time was spent in practicing routine procedures. In contrast in Japan, 41% of the time was spent in practice, 15% in applying concepts, and 44% in inventing or analyzing situations in new ways.

The US teachers described skills that they wanted their students to learn. They seemed to believe that mathematics was mostly a set of procedures and the goal was to help students become proficient executors of the procedures. They regularly intervened whenever students exhibited confusion or frustration. Individual differences among students were considered an obstacle to effective teaching. The activities in each lesson were modular, with few connections among them. Almost one third of US lessons were interrupted in some way. Many US teachers seemed to believe that learning mathematical terms and practicing skills was not very exciting and acted as if student interest would be generated only by diversions outside of mathematics. They often tried to jazz up the lesson by being entertaining or even talking about other subjects.

Japanese teachers acted as if mathematics was a set of relationships between concepts, facts and procedures. These relationships were revealed by developing a variety of solution methods to problems, studying and refining the methods, and talking explicitly about these relationships. In the course of a lesson, students were allowed to make mistakes and then examine the consequences, and rarely would a teacher show students how to solve a problem midway through the lesson. Japanese teachers believed that individual differences were a resource because they provided a range of ides and solution methods for student discussions and reflection. The Japanese treated each lesson much as one would treat a lecture in a university course or a sermon. Lessons were planned as complete experiences, as stories with a beginning a middle, and an end. Their meaning was in the connections between parts. They were never interrupted from the outside.

Professional Development in Japan

Nearly all Japanese schools are engaged in kounaikenshuu – a continuous process of school based professional development, usually three-hour weekly meetings. One of the their most important endeavors is "lesson study," in which teachers develop and implement lesson plans which are critiqued by other teachers. Lesson study is based on long term continuous improvement, with a constant focus on student learning. Through kounaikenshuu, teachers feel that they are contributing to knowledge about teaching rather than simply their own professional development.

Lessons for Educational Reform

Based on the videotaping, subsequent interviews, and the experience of professional development in Japan, the lessons for educational reform are as follows:

1. expect and seek continuous but incremental improvement;

2. focus on student learning goals;

3. focus on teaching, not teachers (e.g., providing teachers with masters or even doctorates may not change how they operate in the classroom);

4. make improvement the continuous work of teachers; and

5. build a system that can learn from its own experience.

To ensure that these changes can happen, the school must be restructured as a place where teachers can learn. In particular the concept of "lesson study" undertaken by the Japanese should be introduced into in-service training.

Videotaping and Educational Change

The TIMSS videotaping study revealed profound differences in pedagogy, which deeply effect how and how much students learn. Based on the methodology, which is in the public domain, any country, state, or district can, through videotaping of a small random sample of classrooms, objectively identify the common classroom practices of its educational system. For the first time a base line for starting the critical process of real classroom change is available.

A separate article in this issue of TechKnowLogia, "Video Technology for Teacher Training: Micro-Teaching and other Adventures," shows how micro-teaching, a decades old method of improving teaching through videotaping, has been a powerful but inadequately used tool for improving teaching. As part of the process of making the school the center where teachers learn, videotaping can also be used within schools, as a means of enabling teachers to critique their colleagues' work and, in the process, develop more effective teaching methods.

1 Based on The Teaching Gap, by James W. Stigler and James Hiebert, 1999, The Free Press, New York; and The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eight grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan and the United States, Washington D.C., National Center for Education Statistics, and Kleuwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1999.

TechKnowLogia, November/December 2000

Gloria Ladson-Billings

In second grade my classmates and I all read from the same Dick and Jane basal reader. I was chastised more than once for reading ahead. But during that year, I was also chosen to attend a special reading class. Unlike today's remedial reading classes, that class was reserved for accelerated readers, We were a select group of about five or six students and we went to reading class each day for about thirty to forty minutes. There we read "real' books, not basal textbooks about faraway places and interesting people.

Our teacher was Mrs. Gray, a tall, elegant African American woman who seemed to love children and the idea that she could expose them to new experiences. One Saturday just before Christmas break Mrs. Gray took the class downtown on the subway train to see the dancing fountains and the Christmas displays at John Wanainaker's, Philadelphia landmark department store, I had been in Wanainaker's many times to shop with my mother', but this was the first time I could remember being taken for the express purpose of being entertained. "Now remember,' admonished Mrs. Gray, "when we get downtown people will be looking at us. If you misbehave they're not going to say, look at those bad children. They're going to say look at those bad colored children!' She did not have to tell us twice. We knew that we were held to a higher standard than other people. We knew that people would stare at us and that the stares would come because of our skin color, Despite the "burden of blackness," it was a magical visit. I felt special, I felt important. I felt smart!

THE BASICS OF CULTURALLY RELEVANT TEACHING

In this chapter I discuss the, ways that the teachers in my study see themselves, their students, and their students' parents. With each vignette I attempt to introduce the teachers individually and to share information about them - by way of interview comments and classroom observations - that illustrates their culturally relevant practices. Rather than attempt to show how all of the teachers demonstrate culturally relevant teaching in all of its aspects, I have selected examples that I believe are most illustrative of each aspect.

First, let us begin with a look at the many teachers who are reluctant to acknowledge racial differences or grapple with these and other differences in the classroom.

In her book White Teacher, Paley suggested that teachers must take care not to ignore color. When she moved to an integrated private school, an African American parent confronted her with the "knowledge" that her children were black, and knew they were black, and she wanted that difference to be recognized as a comfortable and natural one. Delpit's review of Paley's book points to this as the beginning of "the journey through acknowledging and valuing differences."

My own experiences with white teachers, both preservice and veteran, indicate that many are uncomfortable acknowledging any student differences and particularly racial differences. Thus some teachers make such statements as "I don't really see color, I just see children" or "I don't care if they're red, green, or polka dot, I just treat them all like children." However, these attempts at color-blindness mask a "dysconscious racism," an "uncritical habit of mind that justifies inequity and exploitation by accepting the existing order of things as given. This is not to suggest that these teachers are racist in the conventional sense. They do not consciously deprive or punish African American children on the basis of their race, but , at the same time they are not unconscious of the ways in which some children are privileged and others are disadvantaged in the classroom. Their "dysconsciousness" comes into play when they fail to challenge the status quo, when they accept the given as the inevitable.

In an earlier study that illustrated this kind of behavior, preservice teachers were asked to explain the economic, social, and educational disparities that exist between white and African American children. 4 Presented with data on African American and white children's life chances, the students were asked three questions: How can you explain these disparities? What are some differing ideological explanations for these disparities? What can schools do about these disparities?

The students' responses to the first question provide some telling insights. Most cited the fact that African Americans had been enslaved as the explanation for their present economic, social, and educational conditions. A few students suggested that African Americans' failure to gain equal opportunities in the society explained the disparities. Only one student offered racism as an explanation.

The belief of the majority of the students that African Americans' enslavement more than a hundred years ago explains today's disparities suggests that they could not envision how conditions could be otherwise. The enslavement of African Americans is a part of history. Thus, according to this view, the past alone determines the future of a people. A more fundamental problem with this point of view in the classroom context is the following: If a teacher looks out at a classroom and sees the sons and daughters of slaves, how does that vision translate into her expectations for educational excellence? How can teachers who see African American students as mere descendants of slaves be expected to inspire them to educational, economic, and social levels that may even exceed their own?

The usual antidote for this persistent view of African American children is for the viewer to pretend that he or she does not see the color that once forced their ancestors into slavery. Thus the teacher claims to be color-blind. However, such claims cannot be valid. Given the significance of race and color in American society, it is impossible to believe that a classroom teacher does not notice the race and ethnicity of the children she is teaching. Further, by claiming not to notice, the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child's identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction. Saying we are aware of students' race and ethnic background is not the same as saying we treat students inequitably. The passion for equality in the American ethos has many teachers (and others) equating equality with sameness. All example may either clarify this point.

In a classroom of thirty children a teacher has one student who is visually impaired, one who is wheelchair bound, one who has limited English proficiency, and one who is intellectually gifted. If the teacher presents identical work in identical ways to all of the students, is she dealing equitably or inequitably with the children? The visually impaired student cannot read the small print on an assignment, the wheelchair-bound student cannot do push-ups in gym, the foreign-language student cannot give an oral report in English, and the intellectually gifted student learns nothing by spelling words she mastered several years ago.

The notion of equity as sameness only makes sense when all students are exactly the same. But even within the nuclear family children born from the same parents are not exactly the same. Different children have different needs and addressing those different needs is the best way to deal with them equitably. The same is true in the classroom. If teachers pretend not to see students' racial and ethnic difference, they really do not see the students at all and are limited in their ability to meet their educational needs.

TEACHERS WITH CULTURALLY RELEVANT PRACTICES HAVE HIGH SELF-ESTEEM AND A HIGH REGARD FOR OTHERS

Although my neighborhood was predominantly African American, a few white families lived there. Most attended Catholic schools. It made sense to us; they were Catholic. One of the neighborhood white boys went to a private boarding school. His father had died and this made him eligible for a private school for orphan boys (I guess a mother's presence did not count in those days). The school he attended did not accept African American boys. (Many years later that school would become a battleground in the civil rights struggle in our city). Only one white family, which consisted of seventeen children, sent their kids to my elementary school. They were extremely poor and often showed up unclean and unkempt. Everyone in the school community knew them and some felt a pang of sympathy for them, for as poor as we all were, we knew we were not quite as poor as they were.

But they seemed to take some comfort in the fact that although they were extremely poor, at least they were not black. Every fight these children ever had came as a result of their calling one of the African American children "nigger." WE had to wonder who or what they thought we were. An what did that make them, since they were resigned to spending six hours of every school day with us?

One dimension of culturally relevant teaching is the teachers' perception of themselves and others. Too often teachers have a poor opinion of themselves and their profession. In contrast, teachers who practice culturally relevant methods not only see themselves as professionals but also strongly identify with teaching. I begin my individual profiles of the teachers in my study with one who exemplifies this quality.

Pauline Dupree is an African American woman who lives in the more affluent white community that borders the district where my study was carried out. She attends an African American Baptist church that many of the students and parents in the some she appears reserved and district attend. To some she appears reserved and humorless but during my two years of study, I found her to be serious and sophisticated. She describes herself as a no-nonsense, no-frills teacher.

Dupree is a slender, attractive African American woman. She is always impeccably dressed in a style that reminds one of a corporate executive. Her outfits always are coordinated; she seems to have a different pair of shoes for each. During our first interview she said that the girls in her class sometimes peek around the classroom door in the morning to see what she is wearing. When one of her students asked why she was always "so dressed up", Dupree replied that she dressed the way she did because she was coming to work and she worked with very important people, so she wanted to look good.

Dupree's classroom' reflects her penchant for neatness. As the saying goes, there is a place for everything and everything is in its place. Despite of the fact that her class is housed in one of the school's smaller portable classrooms, she found a way to utilize the space efficiently and avoid a sense of clutter. Stepping from the boisterous playground into her classroom is like stepping into another world. The students are well behaved and orderly - much like Pauline Dupree herself.

During our interview Dupree commented that she was somewhat dismayed at some of the young white teachers who had come to work in the district. "They come in here dressed like people going to scrub somebody's kitchen. I mean what kind of message do you send the children when you don't care enough to put on clean, pressed clothes?"

Mrs. Harris, my third -grade teacher, was quite a sharp dresser. She wore beautiful high-heeled shoes. Sometimes she switched to flats in the afternoon if her feet got tired, but every morning began with the click, click, click of her high heels as she greeted us up and down the rows. I wanted to dress the way Mrs. Harris did. I didn't want to wear old-lay comforters like Mrs. Benn's and I certainly didn't want to wear worn-out loafers like those of my first-grade teacher, Miss Schwartz. I wanted to wear beautiful, shiny, high-heeled shoes like Mrs. Harris's. That was the way a teacher should look, I thought.

Dupree's thinking about the importance of personal appearance is supported by Foster. In Foster's memoirs of his years as a high school teacher in New York City, he cites several examples of students' recollections of teachers who dressed poorly. Fooster suggests that in minority communities attention to personal appearance and presentation are extremely important. He describes jailed civil rights protestors who urged their lawyers to change from their blue jeans to conservative suits and to trim their long hair into more conservative haircuts so that they would look more like the prosecutor and the judge. Foster also suggests that the worst dressed teachers are white male secondary-school teachers. He believes that their feelings about the low status of teachers contribute to poor self-esteem that translates into little or no regard for how they dress.

This is clearly not the case for Pauline Dupree. She cares very much about the way she dresses. This suggests that she also cares about the people she works with and about her profession. Being a teacher is a special calling for her.

Dupree tells her fourth-grade class about teaching as a worthwhile profession.

DUPREE: HOW many of you think you'd like to be teachers when you grow up' (A few students raise their hands, all of them girls)

DUPREE: What about some of you boys? (Several students snicker.)

DUPREE: Don't you know how important teachers are? Without good teachers, none of the successful people you've read about would have learned the basic things like

reading, writing, math, and science that helped them become successful.

MALE STUDENT: But I want to make a lot of money . . .be a basketball star!

DUPREE: That's a good goal, but most basketball players spend more time in classrooms than they do being basketball stars. They have short careers and they have to be prepared to do something afterward. If you're prepared educationally, you could teach. As far as money is concerned, it is true teachers don't earn as much as I think they should but there really is more to work than earning money.

ANOTHER MALE STUDENT: Like what, Mrs. Dupree?

DUPREE: Like getting the chance to work with the most important people in the world.

FEMALE STUDENT: VVho?

DUPREE: All of you. Every weekday morning when I wake up I know I'm on my way to work with the most important people in the world. Do you know why you're the most important people in the world?

(Silence.)

DUPREE: Because you represent the future. How you turn out will have consequences for us all. What you decide to do with your lives can help make this community and the world a better place. I hope a few of you will seriously consider teaching. I'll bet quite a few of you would make excellent teachers.

In the midst of unpacking after one of my numerous moves, I came across my college yearbook. In it, I spotted a photo of one of my professors. On it she had written, "Best wishes to a very capable student who will one day go on to pursue doctoral studies." My eyes widened in amazement,- my mouth dropped open. Why on earth would she have written that? There was nothing about me as an undergraduate that indicated graduate school material I didn't even know what I wanted to do with my life back then,- I'm not sure I even knew what graduate school was or what it required.

TEACHERS WITH CULTURALLY RELEVANT PRACTICES SEE THEMSELVES AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY, SEE TEACHING AS GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, AND ENCOURAGE THEIR STUDENTS To DO THE SAME

This quality is very evident in Julia Devereaux's work. Devereaux is an African American woman who has lived in the school community most of her life. She attended the very school in which she teaches. She is active in the local Catholic church and she serves as the local troop's Girl Scout leader. She is also the president of the district's teachers' association. None of her own three children attended the public schools in the district. Her two daughters went to a local black liberation school where she had once taught (she had been married to a member of the Black Panthers) and later went on to an exclusive white private school. Her son currently attends a Catholic grade school that serves a largely African American and Latino population.

Devereaux's classroom is the portable one next to Dupree's. Both are fourth-grade teachers but there is a tremendous contrast in the classroom climates. Where Dupree's class is neat and orderly, Devereaux's may be described as one of one of organized chaos." It is a busy classroom presided over by a busy teacher. Devereaux constantly looks for materials and supplies to purchase for her students. She takes advantage of special offers and bargains for classroom teachers offered by publishers and teacher supply stores. In consequence her room is filled to the brim with books, posters, novelty pencils, pens, erasers, key chains, coffee cups, and other interesting items. Devereaux is a scavenger who does not mind spending time looking for things that can be used in her classroom.

Along the back wall of the classroom are book shelves overflowing with books - some whole-class sets, others with random, single titles. Devereaux keeps her desk at the rear of the classroom. It has probably been some time since she has seen the top of it because it is covered with books and papers. But the condition of the desk is of little consequence to her because, as its placement in, the room suggests, she spends little time there.

This job demands that you be up and active. I don't have time to sit down at a desk. I need to be able to move in and among the children all day. I'm always saying to the kids, "Put that on my desk . . . put this on my desk." By the end of the day, so many things have been put on my desk that I can't even see it. But my teaching is not about paper, it's about people.

Devereaux believes that teaching offers a humane, ethical way for people to give back to the community. Because she is fluent in French, Devereaux could have opted to teach in a more affluent high school district. She reflects on her choice to remain in the African American community.

I wanted to teach here so much! My first job barely paid the rent. I taught in the private black liberation school where my own kids went too. I just don't believe that you just take, take, take from the community and never give back. That's what I try to tell my students today. You've got to get a good education because the community needs your brain power.

Throughout the school day, Devereaux reminds her students of ways in which they can become more involved in the community. In addition to talking about building community, she demonstrates how to do it. She offers her home phone number to all of her students' parents. She establishes a telephone tree so that important information can get to the parents quickly.

One Friday, one of Devereaux's students did not arrive home. The student's mother called Devereaux in a panic. Devereaux reassured her that they would find the boy. She activated her telephone tree and the parents organized search parties. The student was found at the home of a friend at about 11:30 that night. Devereaux insists that she could never have done such a thing alone but because the parents worked together as a community the whole group helped in the search.

One of the persistent complaints among today's teachers is that parents are not involved enough in the schools. Teachers lament the fact that ignore and ignore children come from households where both parents work. One statistic suggests that 75 percent, of parents never visit their children's schools." I don't recall my parents going out of their way to come to school. perhaps once a year they came for a conference or a student performance, but neither my mother nor my father was very visible. They were too busy working. They expected me to do what the teacher told me to do. However, if any teachers needed my parents for something, all they had to do was call.

Ann Lewis, a sixth-grade teacher, also emphasizes the idea of community. Lewis is a white woman who has lived in the community all her life. Her mother is one of the few white residents who did not participate in the "white flight" of the 1950s; she has lived in the community for more than forty years. Lewis says that it was the excellent teachers in the district she had as a child that inspired her to become a teacher. Lewis identifies strongly with the African American community; she has speech patterns similar to African American speakers. For a recent television documentary about the community and the school district, Lewis was asked by community members to be a spokesperson. She was the only white teacher that they saw as a legitimate spokesperson for the district.

Lewis and Devereaux were classmates. Now, both in their early forties, the two attended school together as girls. Like Devereaux, Lewis has been active in school district politics and preceded Devereaux as teacher association president. indeed, she has been president of the local teachers' association at least four times.

Perhaps because of her own active community involvement, Lewis insists that her students form a viable social community before they can become a viable learning community.

They have to care about each other and to depend on one another before we can really get anything meaningful accomplished. We have to have a sense of family, of "teamness." When we see ourselves as a team that works together, we can do anything. Having a kind of team spirit helps them to understand that one person's success is success for them all and that one person's failure is failure for everybody.

One of the ways Lewis builds community in her classroom' is through her annual camping trip. Every fall semester she arranges a five-day camp for her students near the San Francisco Bay coastline. Organized through the county's environmental education program, Lewis and students camp out with several other groups of students. The goals are to teach about the environment, encourage cross-cultural contact, and in Lewis's case, to build a sense of togetherness and team spirit among her students.

Because many parents in the district have had negative experiences with teachers, Lewis must spend almost a month convincing some that the camping trip is a worthwhile experience and that they should grant their permission. Lewis makes sure that each student is prepared with a sleeping bag and any other necessary equipment.

Many inner-city teachers shy away from this kind of intense interaction with their students. The working hours for them are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 3:00. Lewis's camping trip represents a sacrifice on her part, but she feels that this experience is a necessary one to mold each group of individual students into a cohesive whole.

"Well, Miss Philadelphia, when are you coming to my house for dinner?" boomed my U.S. history professor. Each of us was invited in turn as part of a group of three or four others to his home for dinner and small talk. Many years later I would be invited actually required-to attend dinner at my graduate adviser's home. By then I understood that such gatherings served as a way to include people on the "team" and build a sense of community. My undergraduate professor was helping us understand the importance of this kind of behavior. Much of what is expected of you comes in informal learning situations. The jobs that are available, the grants being awarded, the committees most helpful for a person's advancement are issues that are not often discussed in the 'neutral" classroom environment. The real business and politics of school often take place among the "community," outside of the classroom.

TEACHERS WITH CULTURALLY RELEVANT PRACTICES SEE TEACHING AS AN ART AND THEMSELVES AS ARTISTS

These teachers do not ignore scientific principles of pedagogy. However, they do not view teaching as a technical skill that requires minimal training and they do not believe that as long as one follows a kind of recipe or prescription one can predict outcomes. On the contrary, teachers like Peggy Valentine exemplify the creative aspect of teaching.

Valentine , an African American woman in her mid-forties, is relatively new to the district, having come from the Midwest after her husband's company transferred him to the West Coast. She considers herself a strict teacher and she has a flair for the dramatic, waving her arms and rolling her eyes to get a point across. She attended a historically black college and identifies closely with the students because many of them are from single parent households and her own upbringing was in a single-parent home.

Valentine has taught in both inner-city and suburban schools. Her experiences with teaching more affluent white students has convinced her that African American students have special strengths that are rarely recognized in schools. She is very sensitive to what she perceives as slights made on the basis of race by the school administration. Her principal does not seem to like her personally but he does not hesitate to acknowledge her as one of the best teachers in the school.

Valentine enjoys teaching African American students because she says she identifies so closely with them:

When I look at my children I see myself. I grew up in a single-parent household. I know what it is not to have the things that other children have. I also know that being smart has nothing to do with skin color. I know that some of our kids are what is called "street smart." They have what black folks call "mother wit"-you know, the kind of sense that keeps you from getting hurt or even killed. When I taught those white kids in the suburbs, of course many seemed to know "book knowledge" but more often than not some of them don't have sense enough to come in out of the rain.

Valentine creatively engages her fourth-grade students in what could otherwise be a relatively boring lesson about adjectives. To encourage the students to use more descriptive, colorful language in their writing, she has developed an activity to get them to reach for unusual adjectives. This class is held in October and so she benefits from a Halloween atmosphere. She writes a noun on the chalkboard and asks the children to think of as many words as they can to describe it. The first noun is "witch." Tentatively at first, students begin to offer some modifiers. "Old witch," says one student. "Mean witch," says another. "Black witch," offers a third. All of a sudden, Peggy grasps her chest as if she were having a heart attack and rolls her eyes back in their sockets. "Black witch, old witch, mean witch-give me a break! You guys are kiuin' me! I need some great, fantastic, outstanding, stupendous, magnificent adjectives. I'll even take some compound adjectives. Can anybody save me?" After a few snickers, one boy ventures, "How about a green-faced, hook-nose, evil witch?" "Yes!" shouts Peggy Valentine. "Now you re cookin' with gas. Give me more, more! " The lesson proceeds with students shouting out a variety of compound and complex adjective phrases to revive the "dying" Valentine. The lesson goes on for almost forty minutes.

In our after-lesson briefing, Valentine tells me that she had not planned the dramatic part of the lesson. However, until that point she had not felt that the students were really engaged in the lesson.

They were just trying to get through it , and I know they weren't getting anything out of it. So I decided then and there to do something dramatic to get their attention. You have to be something of an actor to be a good teacher, and sometimes you have to overact. You're on stage all of the time. I knew when I went into my "dying" act it would cause some giggles but I also know that my children want to please me. They want to do things right because they want my approval. In order to help them develop some motivation, I capitalize on their strong feelings for me. In my acting role, I could be angry without actually scolding them. I really planned to go about twenty-five to thirty minute on this lesson, but once they got the hang of it and seemed to really enjoy it, I knew I couldn't cut them off. You just can't put a time limit on good teaching. You have to go with it and see where it comes out. That's why a good teacher's planing is always tentative. You can write all the behavioral objectives you want. When the dynamic of a good class gets rolling, you can't know where you're going to end up. You just have to trust that the teaming has been worth it and that the kids have gotten something out of it.

TEACHERS WITH CULTURALLY RELEVANT PRACTICES BELIEVE THAT ALL STUDENTS CAN SUCCEED

This notion that all students can succeed may seem trite because it is constantly repeated in the pedagogical literature. However, it is not until you see it in action that you know it can be more than a slogan.

In the classrooms of assimilationist teachers - those who seem satisfied with the status quo there is a belief that failure is inevitable for some students. Thus the teacher develops favorites, or pets," who are often alienated from their peers. Spindler's discussion of a teacher who operates in this way is very telling about the inability of some white middle-class teachers to recognize the idiosyncratic ways in which they interact with students of different backgrounds."

My Fourth-grade teacher, Mrs. Powell, sneezed out of Place in our largely African American school She was a middle-aged white woman who rarely smiled. I cannot remember her ever touching any of us. I do recall her saying that nobody could get an A in her class because an A would mean that we were as smart as she was. "What a bizarre notion, "I thought. I worked hard to earn the A's she did not intend to give. Despite my perfect spelling, reading, and math papers she only gave me B+. My another went to see her about the discrepancy between the papers I brought home and the grades on my report card. And from the second reporting period until the time I left her room, I received A's from Mrs. Powell. I don't think she thought I was particularly deserving of those A's, but I don't think she wanted to try to explain her unjust grading system to my Mother again. Unfortunately, I don't think my mother's ability to persuade Mrs. Powell to rethink her grading extended to my classmates. My mother was able to act as my advocate but she had little impact on the overall system.

Although all of the teachers in this study demonstrated the belief that all of their students could succeed, Gertrude Winston and Elizabeth Hards will be discussed here to illustrate this quality.

Winston is a teaching veteran of forty years. She attended normal school and began teaching in a one-room school in rural Michigan. After twelve years she decided to join the Peace Corps. She had her first contact with black people as a teacher in West Africa. From West Africa she began teaching in urban schools in Southern California and eventually moved to the San Francisco Bay Area for the final years of her teaching career. She describes her experience of teaching African and African American students as transformative. She believes she has received as much from the students as she has been able to give. She is quick to share things the students have taught her about responsibility and kinship relations. She says she has never married because she has been too busy enjoying her life as a teacher.

Walk into Winston's classroom and you walk into a model of order. The room is brightly painted and there are cubicles for each student's work. All kinds of folders have been prepared to help students keep their various papers organized. Because she has her students sit at large tables rather than at desks as most of the teachers do in her school, Winston's room seems larger. Less of the floor space is taken up by individual desks. The personal touches that she has given her room are indicative of the love and care she feels for her students. She presides over a room that shouts "success." Winston insists that she has never met an unsuccessful student.

You know, they're all successful at something. The problem is that school often doesn't deal with the kinds of things that they can and will be successful at. And those tests! Those are the worst things ever. They don't begin to test what the kids really know. That's why my class is a constant search for ways to be successful. That's why we do so many projects in my class. I figure if we do enough different kinds of things we'll hit on the kinds of things the kids can be successful with. There I look for ways to link that success with other tasks. For example, when I do my sewing bee, it's linked to my social studies unit but when a number of kids find out they're pretty good at sewing-and I mean boys as well as girls - I can get them interested in reading about sewing and other crafts and then in writing about it. But you know, the tests don't get at this big involved process of moving from a concrete experience to the level of abstraction that writing represents.

Alice Hall became my sixth-grade teacher after our original sixth-grade teacher, Mr. Moses, was promoted to assistant principal. Mr. Moses was a tall white man, one of the few male teachers at our school. While he was our teacher, he seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time chatting with Miss Plunkett, a pretty white teacher across the hall. He sat at his desk- a lot. From there be told us what pages to read in our textbooks. Whenever we finished our work we were allowed to draw. I did a lot of drawing while he was our teacher.

I was one of the few students excited about Mrs. Hall's move from fourth to sixth grade. I knew her from flute club and I knew she had many talents and interests. She was a magnificent knitter and she would teach that skill to anyone who was interested. She was a gifted musician and always taught her students to play the saxophone. One other strongest subject areas was mathematics and she helped students to delve deeply into its mysteries. Some of the students didn't like Mrs. Hall. Unlike Mr. Moses she required us to work-hard. Many students grumbled but everyone learned. Many years later I saw her at a commencement ceremony at a local college where she was a faculty member. She had become a mathematics professor.

Elizabeth Harris is a "fifty-something" African American woman who has lived in the community for more than twenty years. She is active in a local Pentecostal congregation and is accorded the respect of a "mother of the church." Students throughout the school are careful about the kind of language they use around her. She is very gentle and soft-spoken. I describe her approach to teaching as reflective and spiritual. Her religious conviction does not permit her to see her students as failures. She sees them all as creatures of God and, accordingly, "God doesn't make junk!"

Harris, Dupree, and Devereaux all teach in the same school. Although it is situated in a white community, the residents were successful in passing an initiative that allows them to send their children to a school in a neighboring white community. Thus African American, Latino, and Pacific Islander students make the short bus ride across the freeway to attend this school. The school's principal is relatively new to the district and is not seen as effective by either her staff or the community. Harris, Dupree, and Devereaux, with their independent spirits, are not among her favorite staff members. They do not deliberately antagonize her, but neither do they kowtow to her wishes, as some of the newer faculty do.

It is not an easy school in which to teach. The school yards, halls, and a number of the classrooms seem particularly noisy. Students talk loudly and sometimes rudely to one another and to the teachers and teachers' aides. Discipline seems to be a preoccupation for many teachers.

Harris, Dupree, and Devereaux have unusual classrooms for this school; all have a sense of order and student engagement. As you walk into Harris's room you are overcome with a feeling of calm and peace. Unlike Dupree's neat and orderly, no-nonsense classroom, or Devereaux's beehive of activity, Harris's classroom seems to be an oasis in a desert or a cairn place in the midst of a storm.

Harris starts her second-grade class each morning with a song. One of her children's favorites is "Peace is Flowing Like a River." She begins instruction by asking "What are we going to be our best at today?" Students start volunteering things, both instructional and noninstructional, at which they intend to excel. "I'm gonna to be good at my math," says one little boy. "I'm gonna be good at lining up for recess," shouts another. "I'm gonna be good at doin' my own work and minding my own business," says a little girl. As the students recite their goals and expectations for the day, Mrs. Harris encourages them with a smile or a comment, "Oh, you are? Well, that's very good!" or "I just know you can do that."

At the end of the day, Harris reconvenes her students to have them assess how well they met their goals. Each student is given an opportunity to describe what she or he did to be successful during the day. Students report on successes and reflect on ways they could have been even better at some things. Harris constantly tells them how good they are.

I'm not trying to tell the children that they're something that they're not. Even though they don't perform on grade level, we have to have a starting point for success. They need to identify for themselves what they know they can do and then do it. They also need to get credit for these accomplishments. I see a number of our children in church. They demonstrate that they are capable of all sorts of things there. They sing in the choir, they usher, they recite, and they make announcements. I know that if they have the discipline to accomplish these adult tasks, they can certainly do the things that schools ask of them. I think that children let too many people, like bad teachers, convince them that they are incapable of things. They give them baby work - tons and tons of silly worksheets-and never really challenge them. They need challenges. They can do it!

TEACHERS WITH CULTURALLY RELEVANT PRACTICES HELP STUDENTS MAKE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THEIR COMMUNITY, NATIONAL, AND GLOBAL IDENTITIES

This chapter began with a discussion of the ways in which some white teachers pretend not to see a child's color. But for teachers with culturally relevant practices, students' diverse cultural backgrounds are central.

Margaret Rossi is relatively new to the district. She is a former Catholic Nun who has taught in another urban district and at a white suburban Private school. She considers herself a "hard" teacher, and she cultivates that reputation throughout the school. She laughs at the fact that the children refer to her, behind her back, by her Surname, as if they were speaking of a drill sergeant.

Rossi says she "hated" teaching at the private school because she felt the children were "neglected": they were given material things but lacked sincere parental involvement. She describes African American children as the one group of children who "will be themselves no matter what" and who will tell you exactly how they feel. "They don't try to deceive you by pretending that something is all right when deep down inside they don't think it is." Her assessment of African American children's frankness is based on experiences in both African American and white school communities. Instead of regarding these perceived differences as deficits, Rossi has called upon them as strengths.

In Rossi's class, who students are and how they are connected to wider communities is very important. In the class's current-events lesson, Rossi insists that the students be able to make pertinent connections between the news items they select and themselves. As the tensions increased in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War, many students brought in articles that detailed the impending conflict.

"But what does that have to do with you?" asked Rossi. "We're sitting here in sunny California, thousands of miles away from Kuwait. Why should we care?"

"Because they can drop a bomb on us!" volunteered one of her sixth graders.

"No, they can't," countered another. "We have all kinds of radar and stuff, and if they tried to fly over here, we could shoot them out of the sky.' "Let's say Rashad is right, and no planes could get through the U.S. radar," said Rossi. "What other reasons can you offer as to why these news issues would be important to us here in this community?"The students sat silent for what seemed like a long time but was actually only about a minute and a half This waiting for an answer was characteristic of Rossi's teaching style. She was not uncomfortable with classroom silence, because she believed that when you posed substantive questions with students, you were obligated to give them time to think about an answer. Finally, Denisha, a small African American girl who",as a diligent student but rarely spoke up in class, raised her hand.

"Yes Denisha?"

In a soft and measured voice, Denisha said. "Well, I think it affects us because you have to have people to fight a war, and since they don't have no draft, the people who will volunteer will be the people who don't have any jobs, and a lot of people in our community need work, so they might be the first ones to go. "

Before Rossi could comment, an African American boy, Sean, chimed in. "Yeah, my dad said that's what happened in Vietnam, blacks and Mexicans were like the first ones to go."

"I'm not sure if they were the first to go," remarked Rossi, "but I can say that they were over represented." She writes these words on the board. "Do you know what 1 mean by this?"

None of the students volunteers a response, so Rossi proceeds with an example. "If African Americans are 12 percent of the total U.S. population, and Latinos are 8 percent of the total U.S. population, what percent of the armed services do you think they should be?"

"Twenty percent total," calls out James, beaming at his ability to do the arithmetic quickly. "Twelve percent should be black, and 8 percent should be Mexican." "Okay," says Rossi. "However, I would call that 8 percent Latino rather than Mexican, because we are also including Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, and other U.S. citizens who are from Latin America. But in Vietnam their numbers in the armed services far exceeded their numbers in the general population. Often they were among the first to volunteer to go. Does it seem as if Denisha's comments help us link up with this news item?"

A number of the students verbally concur, while others nod in assent. As the discussion continues, students talk about the impact of having young male in particular leave their community. Given the fact that the numbers of African American and Latino males in this community are decreasing due to incarceration and other institutionalization, the prospect of losing even more men to war does not seem appealing.

By the end of the lesson, students are working in cooperative groups and creating "causality charts" where they list a number of current events and their possible impacts on their community.

In Ann Lewis's class, who students are and how they are connected to wider communities is also very important. One Monday morning, Ann writes on the board "Mandela." She asks if anyone recognizes the name. Most of the students' hands go up. South African leader Nelson Mandela has just been released after decades of political imprisonment. "I know who Mandela is," says Jerry, a sixth-grade African American boy who has strong opinions and an impressive cumulative file of school transgressions.

Who is he, Jerry?" asks Lewis.

"Well, he's this man who was in jail a long, long time in South Africa and he was fighting' for the black people's rights."

"What does Nelson Mandela have to do with us?" asks Alin. Several hands go up. Ann calls on Sugar Ray, a handsome African American boy with a trendy haircut.

"Well, like . . . Nelson Mandela represents, like, black people everywhere, not just in Africa. You know, just like Martin Luther King was a symbol for black people not just here but all over the world."

The conversation continues as students talk about how proud they are of Nelson Mandela and how they hope his freedom will mean freedom and equality for black South Africans. Lewis suggests some books and films that students might consult to learn more about apartheid and the struggles of blacks in South Africa. Students talk animatedly about which of these they will choose to read or view. No student expresses an unwillingness to read. Even if they do not follow through with these commitments, it is clear that it is "okay" to read In this class. Reading is not seen as a "sissy" or effeminate activity. The students understand both reading and film as ways to get information about things that interest them.

TEACHERS WITH CULTURALLY RELEVANT PRACTICES SEE TEACHING AS "DIGGING KNOWLEDGE OUT" OF STUDENTS

One of the commonalities among this diverse group of teachers is an overriding belief that students come to school with knowledge and that knowledge must be explored and utilized in order for students to become achievers.

Patricia Hilliard is tn African American woman in her early fifties who came to teaching after spending several years at home raising her family. After attending the local state university, she began as a long-term substitute teacher in a large urban district. She has taught in African American private schools in urban areas. She describes herself as someone who loves school and learning. Evidence of this claim is the fact that she regularly enrolls in-service courses and workshops. She has served on statewide curriculum committees and university-funded projects on pedagogy. She sees her role in these activities as ensuring that African American children do not get shortchanged when resources are allocated and policy is decided. She came to this school district as a long-term substitute but quickly demonstrated her ability to be effective with the students. The district offered her a teaching contract at the end of her substitute assignment.

Hilliard uses various methods to discover the knowledge that the students bring with them to the classroom. First, she spends time talking with parents about ways that they have educated their children. Then she talks to students about their interests and the things at which they are "experts. "

I find that much of what we claim we want to teach kids they already know in some form. I want to know what they know so that we can make some natural and relevant connections to their lives. Sometimes my black children will have information about home remedies Or stories and folktale they've heard from their grandparents. We take those stories and remedies and write them up, compare notes, see how their knowledge compares with so-called traditional knowledge. I'm always amazed when students tell me things that I don't know. That happens a lot (the older I get). But it's not just about younger generation versus older generation. My students know about things like community Politics and police brutality. I can't feed them a steady diet of cute little stories and happy middle-class kids- Their experiences have to be a part of our curriculum, too.

Hilliard's statements reflect her respect for her students' experiences. Rather than treating them as if they do not know anything, their only purpose being to come to school to learn what she wants to teach, she understands teaching as a reciprocal process. By listening and learning from the students, she understands the need to rethink and re-envision the curriculum and what she should do with it.

In sum, a focus on the children's perceptions of self and others is especially important because teachers often express feelings of low self-esteem concerning their own work. These feelings are exacerbated when they work with low-income students and children of color. The pattern for some teachers is to endure a teaching assignment in an inner-city school until they can find a position in a more affluent district with fewer children of color. In contrast, several of the teachers in this study were offered teaching positions in other districts but refused them. Their conceptions of self, students, students' parents, and community are positive. They have made their work in the district their life's work because they love it and are good at it. In the next chapter I will describe how teachers' perceptions of themselves and others affects the ways that they structure their social relations.

From "Seeing Color, Seeing Culture" from The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children by Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Mary Catherine Bateson

Most of life's learning takes place outside and beyond the classroom, continuing through old age. Those of us who have spent our lives as educators often have found memories of our own schooling, yet even a career in higher education depends on informal as well as formal learning. We learn how to teach and navigate our careers, in large part, by imitation, or trail and error.

How often, though do we consider how formal and informal learning connect, both in our own lives and in those of our students? As with wines, we might ask whether formal education travels and ages well, whether it strengthens the capacity for self-initiated learning or weakens it. Does it inspire graduates to read widely in later life, or do years of focused assignments transform reading into a narrowly instrumental activity, replacing curiosity with conscientiousness? Do our students go on to observe and analyze experience and seek patterns in what they observe? Are their values re-examined and developed over time? Much of the substance of what we teach and test becomes irrelevant: habits of minds do not. Any life depends on continuous learning, but in most life stories you have to seek it between the lines. How do you construe your experience outside of the classroom in terms of learning, or who notice how much of even what they learn in school is outside of the curriculum.

Adapting to a new culture entails going consciously through a version of an early childhood process that is largely forgotten by those who are not uprooted. The children of immigrants have the double challenge of learning a culture in which their parents may not be fully competent and learning the culture from which their parents have distanced them. Both have to probe and struggle for understanding. The informal side of learning to believe; it is easier to emphasize with unfamiliar ways of interpreting experience if we follow another mind through the process of making meaning. Sometimes the shift in ideologies is religious. What kind of learning is involved when an adult accepts a totally new set of values and a new way of seeing the world?

One of the most common reasons for recounting a life story is didactic. I will tell you not what I believe, but how I cam to hold that belief, and bring you with me, along the same path of learning. I will tell you not who you ought to be, but how I became a particular kind of person, and perhaps you will emulate that process of becoming.

Lifelong learning is not optional. However our students decide to link experience and enlightenment and whether or not they write about it, the habit of reflection may be their most critical tool in life. Learning narratives offer telling examples of the wielding of that tool.

From: Chronicle of Higher Education July, 2003

Joel M. Sipress

DESPITE A RECENT SPATE of newspaper and magazine articles chronicling the malleability of racial identity, it may nonetheless surprise many Americans to learn that the biological sciences have come to reject race as a scientifically meaningful category. No longer do scientists speak of the "races of man." Biology has abandoned as fruitless the search for hereditary traits that are sufficient to distinguish distinct human types. The tripartite division of humankind into "Negroid," "Mongoloid," and "Caucasoid" occupies a position in the biological sciences roughly equivalent to that of the Ptolemaic model of the universe in astronomy.(FN2).

Historical scholarship has, in recent years, caught up with biological science. Since the publication of Barbara Fields' path-breaking 1982 essay, "Ideology and Race in American History," historians have to come to view racial identity as a social and cultural construction, rather than a biological fact. Historians generally understand that racial identity and racial categories are fluid and changeable. The study of racial identity and its evolution, in fact, has emerged as a major growth field for scholarship and publication.(FN3).

The contrast between the world of scholarship and that of undergraduate education is stark. In the undergraduate classroom, races remain fixed and self-evident categories. We find ourselves, even when we know better, employing the language of "black" and "white" uncritically, with little or no discussion of how these categories came to be in the first place, nor how they have evolved over the generations. Our textbooks fail to discuss the subtle historical processes by which racial identity is constructed. Instead, we are treated to a view of American history in which categories of "red," "white," "yellow," and "black" are taken as given.(FN4).

The discussion of race in our classrooms reflects attitudes and assumptions that are deeply rooted in the broader American culture. Students and professors alike carry with them a lifetime of experience that teaches us to see racial categories as self-evident and fixed. Before we can see race as a cultural construction, we must first undergo a paradigm shift. Our job, as instructors, is to facilitate this shift, both in ourselves and our students.

A paradigm shift cannot be taught as one teaches a body of material. Nor can it simply be presented as one presents a challenging new idea. To facilitate a paradigm shift, an instructor must guide students through the difficult process of shedding deeply-rooted preconceptions. The instructor must then help students develop the analytical tools needed to achieve a new and different understanding of the issue at hand.

In my own classroom, I have experimented with a variety of methods to help students make the leap into a new racial paradigm. On the basis of this experience, I would like to offer the following three-step strategy for facilitating this paradigm shift. The discussion that follows is intended to outline this strategy in general terms. The application, of course, depends upon the context of the particular course. The examples provided serve to illustrate the approach while suggesting materials and resources available for teaching race as a cultural construction.

STEP ONE: INTRODUCE DOUBTIn 1982, a Louisiana woman named Susie Phipps filed suit in state court to be declared legally white. Phipps appeared to be white and had always considered herself to be white. While applying for a passport, she was shocked to discover that her birth certificate designated her race as "colored." The Louisiana Bureau of Vital Statistics, the state agency charged with maintaining racial classification records, opposed Phipps' claim. The bureau revealed that Phipps' great-great-great-great grand-mother was an African slave whose owner's husband had taken her as a mistress. A number of her other ancestors were "mulattos," "quadroons," and "octoroons." Citing a 1970 state law that declared one thirty-second of "Negro blood" to be the legal definition of blackness in Louisiana, the court ruled Susie Phipps' to be legally black, much to the plaintiff's dismay.(FN5).

Most students, even those who believe themselves to be committed to racial equality, enter the classroom with little doubt that

humanity is composed of distinct racial sub-groups. Through discussion of examples such as the Phipps case, students come to see that racial identity is not always clear and self-evident. As doubt is introduced, students become open to alternative analyses of race that challenge their own common sense.

A powerful method to induce doubt is the "racial classification exercise." In such an exercise, students attempt to categorize

individuals according to race. They soon discover the difficulty of doing so in a rigorous and consistent fashion. In one class, I invited a Salvadoran colleague of mixed African, European, and American descent to serve as the subject. The students were asked to determine the subject's racial identity on the basis of responses to questions the students themselves posed. (Students were barred from asking the subject to directly reveal his racial identity or that of his parents.) After perhaps twenty minutes of intense scrutiny, the students grew exasperated. The subject simply did not fit into any of their preconceived racial categories. One clever student asked the subject which box he checked on forms that asked for racial identity. The subject answered "Hispanic." Another clever student asked whether the subject considered "Hispanics" to be a race. The subject responded no. By the end of the exercise, the self-evident nature of race was very much in doubt.(FN6).

Before beginning an exercise such as this, make sure to provide students with a clear definition of race. Race is a category of social classification based upon inherited physical traits. It is distinct from social categories, such as ethnicity, that are based upon culture. I ask students themselves to generate examples of racial categories and ask them to list the physical traits that characterize each race. This provides students with a list of "races" by which they can try to classify a subject.

The success of a racial classification exercise depends upon having a subject that defies commonly accepted racial categorization schemes. If an in-person subject is unavailable, photographs provide a workable alternative. A colleague of mine in the field of sociology presents students with a set of photographs taken from National Geographic. The photographic set, which includes such items as dark-skinned Australian aborigines and light-skinned Yemenites, confounds students who bring a set of preconceived notions concerning the geographic distribution of particular physical traits.

The goal of the racial classification exercise is simply to induce doubt. Such exercises provide powerful evidence of the fuzzy and arbitrary lines between the so-called "races." Even as they come to doubt the self-evident nature of racial identity, however, many students will still cling to their "common sense" understanding of race. Some may accept that "inter-mixing" makes the lines between races fuzzy, while holding fast to their belief in "pure" races that predate inter-mixing. Others may accept that race is arbitrary in a scientific sense, yet still view racial categories as universal and fixed. Racial classification exercises and other

doubt-inducing mechanisms simply begin the process of the paradigm shift.

STEP TWO: DEMONSTRATE THE HISTORICAL FLUIDITY OF RACIAL CATEGORIESIn 1894, a still relatively obscure Booker T. Washington aroused the ire of Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, a leading voice of American Reform Jewry. Washington certainly had no intention to offend. The affront, in fact, came in the course of a magazine article quite complimentary toward Jewish Americans. In the article, Washington related the story of a Jewish immigrant who, within four years of his arrival in the town of Tuskegee, Alabama, had risen from poverty to become a leading merchant of the community. The moral, according to Washington, was that "the blackest Negro in the United States" had the same opportunity to succeed in business as "a Jew or a white man.".

It was the phrase "a Jew or a white man" that outraged Rabbi Wise. "All Jewish Americans," the rabbi bristled, "are Caucasians." By implying otherwise, he wrote, Washington had committed a "scientific blunder." Washington was in need of "a lesson in primary ethnology."(FN7).

The indignation aroused by Washington's phrase "a Jew or a white man" is indicative of the price those considered "non-white" might pay in turn-of-the-century America. Yet, it also illustrates the degree to which racial categories that we take to be self-evident and fixed are in fact quite fluid. Booker T. Washington was by no means alone in making racial distinctions among those we today term "white." For turn-of-the-century Americans, the racial distinctions among Europeans were as real as the racial distinctions we make today.

For those clinging to the belief that racial categories are universal and fixed (even if arbitrary), an examination of past schemes of racial classification can be an eye-opening experience. Many students are especially astounded by the changing definition of

whiteness. Immigrant groups, such as Poles and Italians, that today are commonly accepted as white, were, at the turn of the

century, routinely considered racially distinct. After studying early twentieth-century racial discourse and its application to European immigrants, students are unlikely to again view racial identity as something fixed and self-evident.

The enormous wave of immigration that reached the shores of the United States between 1880 and 1920 troubled and disturbed many native-born Americans. Unlike earlier immigrant groups, the "new" immigrants mostly came from southern and eastern Europe. They arrived with few resources and tended to remain segregated in overcrowded ethnic slums. For many native-born Americans, the racial distinctions between themselves and the new immigrants were clear and obvious. Edward A. Ross, a prominent professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin, for example, spoke of the "narrow and sloping foreheads" of the new immigrants and of their "shortness and smallness of crania." To Ross' practiced eye, "the physiognomy of certain groups unmistakably proclaims inferiority of type." The moral superiority of "the races of northern Europe" over the "Mediterranean peoples" was, to Ross, "as certain as any social fact."(FN8).

The racialization of the new immigrants was by no means limited to xenophobes such as Ross. Even those sympathetic to the new arrivals from Eastern and Southern Europe spoke of them in racial terms. Jeremiah W. Jenks and W. Jett Lauck, relative liberals who authored a widely read study of the "immigration problem," identified fifty-six distinct races employed in American industry. Among those characterized by Jenks and Lauck as distinct "races" were Poles, Slovaks, South Italians, North Italians, Magyars, Lithuanians, Croatians, French-Canadians, Hebrews, Spanish, and "native-born White Americans." Lest one conclude that the pair did not intend for the term "race" to be taken in the strict biological sense, Jenks and Lauck devoted a portion of their study to "bodily form," including a brief analysis of the "shape of skull."(FN9).

Published primary sources that illustrate the racialization of the new immigrants in the early twentieth century are widely

available.(FN10) Such sources provide excellent lecture material, as well as fodder for in-class exercises.

In colonial history, the experience of South Carolina's Catawba Indians provides a useful example of the malleability of racial

categories. Historian James H. Merrell maintains that, prior to contact with Africans and Europeans, the Catawba viewed the world through cultural rather than racial lenses. The Catawba were intensely ethnocentric and judged all outsiders by the yardstick of Catawba culture. Foreigners, regardless of physical appearance, were disdained. Those who accepted Catawba ways were embraced. The Catawba, according to Merrell, did not initially make social distinctions between "black" and "white," as they assumed Africans and Europeans to be members of a single alien culture. The Catawba, as Merrell puts it, considered Africans to be "black white men."(FN11).

As the Catawba were gradually integrated into the racist society of the antebellum South, they became, in Merrell's words, "racially educated." Exposure to the institution of slavery taught the Catawba to recognize the social distinction between black and white. Already marginalized within southern society, the Catawba came to fear being classified as black themselves. Over time, they adopted a viciously racist worldview. The Catawba learned that hatred of blacks was one way to distinguish themselves from blacks.(FN12).

The "racial education" of the Catawba graphically illustrates the process through which racial identity is constructed. Racial identity is neither given nor self-evident. One is not born with it. Nor is it "learned" in the usual sense of the word. Racial identity is constructed over time through a social and cultural process.

STEP THREE: ANALYZE THE FACTORS THAT SHAPE RACIAL IDENTITYHaving come to accept that racial identity is neither fixed nor self-evident, some students are eager to simply cast race aside entirely as mere illusion. Racial identity, however, even if scientifically meaningless, is woven into the very fabric of our society, our culture, and even our day-to-day human interactions. A racial paradigm shift should not merely lead to the debunking of race, but rather to a better understanding of racial identity and the role it plays in our society. In order to gain such an understanding, students must not view racial identity as purely arbitrary or capricious. Students must see that the evolution of racial identity can be subjected to the same type of rational analysis as any other historical phenomenon.

Scholars have produced a wide range of models and theories to explain the formation of racial identity.(FN13) In the early stages of study, it is not necessary for students to grapple with these grand theories. It is more important for students to gain an appreciation for the types of factors that shape racial identity. Students can gain such an appreciation by working with a variety of case studies.

The racialization of slavery in colonial Virginia, for example, illustrates the ways in which the practical concerns of plantation

management and labor control contributed to the rise of the racial categories of "black" and "white." Although the first African slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619, racial identity emerged only gradually. Colonial law at first made no distinction between the legal status of African slaves and European servants. Both could own property and could enter into contracts. Servants and slaves ate together, worked together, slept together, and sometimes escaped together. In matters of crime and punishment, the law treated both alike. A slave was, in effect, a servant who served for life. The original justification for perpetual servitude was not the "blackness" of Africans, but rather their "heathenism." In the early years of the Virginia colony, a number of African slaves sued successfully for their freedom on the grounds that they had been baptized and had accepted Christianity.(FN14).

As Virginia's tobacco planters became increasingly dependent upon African labor, they began to elaborate a distinct legal status of "slave," as well as a racial ideology to justify it. Beginning in the 1660s, the Virginia colonial legislature passed a series of laws that stripped slaves of the rights, such as freedom of assembly, to which they had previously been entitled. Other laws enacted distinct forms of punishment for disobedient slaves, including the right of masters to beat recalcitrant slaves to the point of death. In 1705, the legislature declared slaves to be a form of "fee simple" property. As the legal status of slaves sank, the Virginia legislature began to write racial categories, such as "black" and "white," into law. In 1667, for example, legislators shifted the justification for slavery from religion to ancestry by declaring that all children born into slavery would remain slaves regardless of baptism.(FN15).

The Virginia slave laws provide the basis for an effective in-class exercise. Through careful reading and analysis of the statutes,

students can see race in the process of invention. Each statute responded to a practical problem faced by Virginia's planters.

Disobedient slaves, for example, could not be punished through the extension of their term of service, a form of punishment

commonly inflicted upon indentured servants. New and distinct forms of punishments therefore had to be developed. By analyzing and discussing the statutes, students gain insights into the ways in which the practical self-interest of planters contributed to the "racial education" of Virginians.(FN16).

The "whitening" of Irish-Americans provides an example of a marginal social group that embraced a racial identity to advance its own interests. The Irish, who began arriving in the United States in large numbers in the 1840s, found themselves in a society whose culture and politics were already characterized by a strict racial hierarchy. To native-born Americans, the racial status of the Irish, like that of the Poles and Italians who followed, was unclear. Antebellum ethnologists spoke derisively of the "Celtic" race. To political cartoonists, "Paddy" bore an uncanny resemblance to an ape.(FN17).

"Whiteness," according to historian David Roediger, served as a powerful weapon in the Irish struggle to carve out a place in a hostile American society. By asserting their whiteness, the Irish were able to claim the status of full-fledged Americans. The Irish wielded whiteness to assert control over jobs. White supremacist doctrine cemented the relationship between the Democratic Party, the party of slavery and Indian removal, and an Irish community desperately in need of political patrons. Although anti-Irish and anti-Catholic attitudes persisted, Irish-Americans were successful in their struggle to establish their identity as full-fledged white men and women.(FN18).

Roediger provides a clear and compelling analysis of the process by which a group with an ambiguous racial identity became white. His account of the Irish leads naturally into a discussion of the "whitening" of European immigrants generally. No longer does the transformation of "Jews" or "Slavs" into white people seem capricious and arbitrary. It is reflective of a political process through which these groups escaped their social marginality. Roediger's work provides students with the tools to subject this process to rational analysis.

The three-step strategy just outlined will not provide students with a grand model or theory with which to replace the discredited view of race as a natural and self-evident category. The initial paradigm shift is simply the beginning of the quest for a new and better understanding of racial identity and its role in American society. Some students may move on to grapple with the provocative scholarship of recent years. Others may not. Either way, students will leave the classroom leery of simplistic analyses of racial issues and skeptical of positions that flow from racial essentialism.

Teaching race as a cultural construction can be quite challenging. The rewards, however, are plentiful. Few subjects offer so rich an opportunity for students (and instructors) to re-examine their own assumptions about history, society, and their own identity.

From: The History Teacher v. 30 (Feb. 1997) p. 175-85.

FOOTNOTES

1. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1980).

2. For a discussion of how science came to reject race as a meaningful category, see Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific

Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1992). In February of 1995, the malleability of race hit the front cover of Newsweek magazine. Tom Morganthau, "What Color

Is Black?" Newsweek, 13 February 1995, pp.. 63-65.

3. Barbara J. Fields, "Ideology and Race in American History," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann

Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James M. McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 144. Recent works that

examine the construction of racial identity include David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and The Making of the

American Working Class (London: Verso, 1991); Marilyn Halter, Between Race and Ethnicity: Cape Verdean American Immigrants,

1860-1965 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993); Virginia R. Dominguez, White By Definition: Social Classification in Creole

Louisiana (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1986); Theordore W. Allen, The Invention of the White Race, Vol. 1, Racial

Oppression and Social Control (London, Verso, 1994); Ian F. Haney-Lopez, White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race (New

York University Press, 1996).

4. James D. Anderson, "How We Learn about Race through History," in Learning History in America: Schools, Culture, and Politics,

ed., Lloyd Kramer, Donald Reid, and William L. Barney (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994).

5. Ibid., pp. 87-88; Dominguez, White by Definition, pp. 1-2. For an excellent account of the Phipps case that is appropriate for

undergraduates at any level, see Calvin Trillin, "American Chronicles: Black or White," New Yorker, 14 April 1986, pp. 62-77. Prior to

the adoption of the 1970 law, the state of Louisiana considered any traceable African ancestry sufficient to classify an individual as

"colored." Operating under this "one-drop rule," the Louisiana Bureau of Vital Statistics had pursued an aggressive policy of

reclassifying those "misclassified" as white. In 1983, Louisiana joined all other states in adopting self-identification as the legal basis

for racial classification. Louisiana parents are now free to designate the race of their children as they wish. Dominguez, White by

Definition, pp. 45-46, 52-53.

6. In another class, an Iranian colleague of Turkish (or "Azerbaijani") ethnicity served as subject.

7. Louis R. Harlan, "Booker T. Washington's Discovery of Jews," in Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann

Woodward, ed. J. Morgan Kousser and James McPherson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 267-268.

8. Edward A. Ross, "Racial Consequences of Immigration," in Selected Articles on Immigration, ed. Edith M. Phelps (New York:

H.W. Wilson Company, 1920), pp. 121-122.

9. Jeremiah W. Jenks and W. Jett Lauck, The Immigration Problem: A Study of American Immigration Conditions and Needs, 6th ed.

(New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1926), pp. 147-152, 332-333.

10. In addition to the sources cited above, see also, for example, Edith Abbott, ed., Historical Aspects of the Immigration Problem:

Select Documents (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926).

11. James H. Merrell, "The Racial Education of the Catawba Indians," Journal of Southern History 50 (August 1984), pp. 365-366,

373.

12. Ibid., p. 382.

13. Contrast, for example, the approach of Barbara J. Fields (nuanced, yet traditionally Marxist) with the explicitly non-Marxist theory

of "racial formation" proposed by Michael Omi and Howard Winant. Fields, "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United State of

America," New Left Review 181 (May/June 1990), 95-118; Omi and Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to

the 1990s, 2d ed. (New York: Routledge, 1994).

14. Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975), pp.

154-157, 327, 331; Fields, "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America," pp. 104-105.

15. A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process, The Colonial Period (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1978), pp. 32-53.

16. For the verbatim text of the key statutes, see Higginbotham.

17. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness, pp. 133-134.

18. Ibid., pp. 140-150.

By RICHARD RODRIGUEZ

There is something unsettling about immigrants because ... well, because they chatter incomprehensibly, and they get in everyone's way. Immigrants seem to be bent on undoing America. Just when Americans think we know who we are -- we are Protestants, culled from Western Europe, are we not? -- then new immigrants appear from Southern Europe or from Eastern Europe. We -- we who are already here -- we don't know exactly what the latest comers will mean to our community. How will they fit in with us? Thus we -- we who were here first -- we begin to question our own identity.

After a generation or two, the grandchildren or the great-grandchildren of immigrants to the United States and the grandchildren of those who tried to keep immigrants out of the United States will romanticize the immigrant, will begin to see the immigrant as the figure who teaches us most about what it means to be an American. The immigrant, in mythic terms, travels from the outermost rind of America to the very center of American mythology. None of this, of course, can we admit to the Vietnamese immigrant who served us our breakfast at the hotel this morning. In another 40 years, we will be prepared to say to the Vietnamese immigrant that he, with his breakfast tray, with his intuition for travel, with his memory of tragedy, with his recognition of peerless freedoms, he fulfills the meaning of America.

In 1997, Gallup conducted a survey on race relations in America, but the poll was concerned only with white and black Americans. No question was put to the aforementioned Vietnamese man. There was certainly no question for the Chinese grocer, none for the Guatemalan barber, none for the tribe of Mexican Indians who reroofed your neighbor's house.

The American conversation about race has always been a black-and-white conversation, but the conversation has become as bloodless as badminton.

I have listened to the black-and-white conversation for most of my life. I was supposed to attach myself to one side or the other, without asking the obvious questions: What is this perpetual dialectic between Europe and Africa? Why does it admit so little reference to anyone else?

I am speaking to you in American English that was taught me by Irish nuns -- immigrant women. I wear an Indian face; I answer to a Spanish surname as well as this California first name, Richard. You might wonder about the complexity of historical factors, the collision of centuries, that creates Richard Rodriguez. My brownness is the illustration of that collision, or the bland memorial of it. I stand before you as an Impure-American, an Ambiguous-American.

In the 19th century, Texans used to say that the reason Mexicans were so easily defeated in battle was because we were so dilute, being neither pure Indian nor pure Spaniard. Yet, at the same time, Mexicans used to say that Mexico, the country of my ancestry, joined two worlds, two competing armies. José Vasconcelos, the Mexican educator and philosopher, famously described Mexicans as la raza cósmica, the cosmic race. In Mexico what one finds as early as the 18th century is a predominant population of mixed-race people. Also, once the slave had been freed in Mexico, the incidence of marriage between Indian and African people there was greater than in any other country in the Americas and has not been equaled since.

Race mixture has not been a point of pride in America. Americans speak more easily about "diversity" than we do about the fact that I might marry your daughter; you might become we; we might become us. America has so readily adopted the Canadian notion of multiculturalism because it preserves our preference for thinking ourselves separate -- our elbows need not touch, thank you. I would prefer that table. I can remain Mexican, whatever that means, in the United States of America.

I would propose that instead of adopting the Canadian model of multiculturalism, America might begin to imagine the Mexican alternative -- that of a mestizaje society.

Because of colonial Mexico, I am mestizo. But I was reinvented by President Richard Nixon. In the early 1970s, Nixon instructed the Office of Management and Budget to identify the major racial and ethnic groups in the United States. OMB came up with five major ethnic or racial groups. The groups are white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Eskimo, and Hispanic.

It's what I learned to do when I was in college: to call myself a Hispanic. At my university we even had separate cafeteria tables and "theme houses," where the children of Nixon could gather -- of a feather. Native Americans united. African-Americans. Casa Hispanic.

The interesting thing about Hispanics is that you will never meet us in Latin America. You may meet Chileans and Peruvians and Mexicans. You will not meet Hispanics. If you inquire in Lima or Bogotá about Hispanics, you will be referred to Dallas. For "Hispanic" is a gringo contrivance, a definition of the world according to European patterns of colonization. Such a definition suggests I have more in common with Argentine-Italians than with American Indians; that there is an ineffable union between the white Cuban and the mulatto Puerto Rican because of Spain. Nixon's conclusion has become the basis for the way we now organize and understand American society.

The Census Bureau foretold that by the year 2003, Hispanics would outnumber blacks to become the largest minority in the United States. And, indeed, the year 2003 has arrived and the proclamation of Hispanic ascendancy has been published far and wide. While I admit a competition has existed -- does exist -- in America between Hispanic and black people, I insist that the comparison of Hispanics with blacks will lead, ultimately, to complete nonsense. For there is no such thing as a Hispanic race. In Latin America, one sees every race of the world. One sees white Hispanics, one sees black Hispanics, one sees brown Hispanics who are Indians, many of whom do not speak Spanish because they resist Spain. One sees Asian-Hispanics. To compare blacks and Hispanics, therefore, is to construct a fallacious equation.

Some Hispanics have accepted the fiction. Some Hispanics have too easily accustomed themselves to impersonating a third race, a great new third race in America. But Hispanic is an ethnic term. It is a term denoting culture. So when the Census Bureau says by the year 2060 one-third of all Americans will identify themselves as Hispanic, the Census Bureau is not speculating in pigment or quantifying according to actual historical narratives, but rather is predicting how by the year 2060 one-third of all Americans will identify themselves culturally. For a country that traditionally has taken its understandings of community from blood and color, the new circumstance of so large a group of Americans identifying themselves by virtue of language or fashion or cuisine or literature is an extraordinary change, and a revolutionary one.

People ask me all the time if I envision another Quebec forming in the United States because of the large immigrant movement from the south. Do I see a Quebec forming in the Southwest, for example? No, I don't see that at all. But I do notice the Latin American immigrant population is as much as 10 years younger than the U.S. national population. I notice the Latin American immigrant population is more fertile than the U.S. national population. I see the movement of the immigrants from south to north as a movement of youth -- like approaching spring! -- into a country that is growing middle-aged. I notice immigrants are the archetypal Americans at a time when we -- U.S. citizens -- have become post-Americans, most concerned with subsidized medications.

I was at a small Apostolic Assembly in East Palo Alto a few years ago -- a mainly Spanish-speaking congregation in an area along the freeway, near the heart of the Silicon Valley. This area used to be black East Palo Alto, but it is quickly becoming an Asian and Hispanic Palo Alto neighborhood. There was a moment in the service when newcomers to the congregation were introduced. Newcomers brought letters of introduction from sister evangelical churches in Latin America. The minister read out the various letters and pronounced the names and places of origin to the community. The congregation applauded. And I thought to myself: It's over. The border is over. These people were not being asked whether they had green cards. They were not being asked whether they arrived here legally or illegally. They were being welcomed within a new community for reasons of culture. There is now a north-south line that is theological, a line that cannot be circumvented by the U.S. Border Patrol.

I was on a British Broadcasting Corporation interview show, and a woman introduced me as being "in favor" of assimilation. I am not in favor of assimilation any more than I am in favor of the Pacific Ocean or clement weather. If I had a bumper sticker on the subject, it might read something like ASSIMILATION HAPPENS. One doesn't get up in the morning, as an immigrant child in America, and think to oneself, "How much of an American shall I become today?" One doesn't walk down the street and decide to be 40 percent Mexican and 60 percent American. Culture is fluid. Culture is smoke. You breathe it. You eat it. You can't help hearing it -- Elvis Presley goes in your ear, and you cannot get Elvis Presley out of your mind.

I am in favor of assimilation. I am not in favor of assimilation. I recognize assimilation. A few years ago, I was in Merced, Calif. -- a town of about 75,000 people in the Central Valley where the two largest immigrant groups at that time (California is so fluid, I believe this is no longer the case) were Laotian Hmong and Mexicans. Laotians have never in the history of the world, as far as I know, lived next to Mexicans. But there they were in Merced, and living next to Mexicans. They don't like each other. I was talking to the Laotian kids about why they don't like the Mexican kids. They were telling me that the Mexicans do this and the Mexicans don't do that, when I suddenly realized that they were speaking English with a Spanish accent.

On his interview show, Bill Moyers once asked me how I thought of myself. As an American? Or Hispanic? I answered that I am Chinese, and that is because I live in a Chinese city and because I want to be Chinese. Well, why not? Some Chinese-American people in the Richmond and Sunset districts of San Francisco sometimes paint their houses (so many qualifiers!) in colors I would once have described as garish: lime greens, rose reds, pumpkin. But I have lived in a Chinese city for so long that my eye has taken on that palette, has come to prefer lime greens and rose reds and all the inventions of this Chinese Mediterranean. I see photographs in magazines or documentary footage of China, especially rural China, and I see what I recognize as home. Isn't that odd?

I do think distinctions exist. I'm not talking about an America tomorrow in which we're going to find that black and white are no longer the distinguishing marks of separateness. But many young people I meet tell me they feel like Victorians when they identify themselves as black or white. They don't think of themselves in those terms. And they're already moving into a world in which tattoo or ornament or movement or commune or sexuality or drug or rave or electronic bombast are the organizing principles of their identity. The notion that they are white or black simply doesn't occur.

And increasingly, of course, one meets children who really don't know how to say what they are. They simply are too many things. I met a young girl in San Diego at a convention of mixed-race children, among whom the common habit is to define one parent over the other -- black over white, for example. But this girl said that her mother was Mexican and her father was African. The girl said "Blaxican." By reinventing language, she is reinventing America.

America does not have a vocabulary like the vocabulary the Spanish empire evolved to describe the multiplicity of racial possibilities in the New World. The conversation, the interior monologue of America cannot rely on the old vocabulary -- black, white. We are no longer a black-white nation.

So, what myth do we tell ourselves? The person who got closest to it was Karl Marx. Marx predicted that the discovery of gold in California would be a more central event to the Americas than the discovery of the Americas by Columbus -- which was only the meeting of two tribes, essentially, the European and the Indian. But when gold was discovered in California in the 1840s, the entire world met. For the first time in human history, all of the known world gathered. The Malaysian stood in the gold fields alongside the African, alongside the Chinese, alongside the Australian, alongside the Yankee.

That was an event without parallel in world history and the beginning of modern California -- why California today provides the mythological structure for understanding how we might talk about the American experience: not as biracial, but as the re-creation of the known world in the New World.

Sometimes truly revolutionary things happen without regard. I mean, we may wake up one morning and there is no black race. There is no white race either. There are mythologies, and -- as I am in the business, insofar as I am in any business at all, of demythologizing such identities as black and white -- I come to you as a man of many cultures. I come to you as Chinese. Unless you understand that I am Chinese, then you have not understood anything I have said.

FROM: Section: Chronicle Review Volume 50, Issue 3, Page B10 September 12 2003

Comparative Education Review, vol. 42, no. 3 (August 1998): 309-337

Voucher's were first conceptualized by the economist Milton Friedman more than 40 years ago as a way to increase school quality, control public spending on education, and privatize the delivery of schooling. Only more recently, however, have they appealed to nations concerned simultaneously with educational quality and lowering government budgets. In Friedman's proposal, each child would receive an entitlement (voucher) from the government that could be used at any school, public or private, willing to accept. In Practice, however, such voucher-s appear to be public grants to participating schools, whether public or private, based on the number of pupils enrolled. Politically, vouches are appealing because they promise increased consumer/investor choice, and economically, proponents claim increased competition among private and public schools drives down the-cost without reducing quality. Public schools forced to compete with other educational options either become more cost-effective or lose pupils to more "efficient" alternatives.

Based partly on the strength -of these arguments, Chile in 1981 and Sweden in 1992 implemented national voucher plans that included private schooling as a publicly funded option. National voucher plans in the form of public grants to schools based on enrollment have long existed in some European countries (including Holland, e.g.), where Catholics and Protestants compromised politically by publicly funding private religious school choice as the primary form of state education. But in Chile and Sweden, political ideology played more of a role than religious contents vouchers were intended to increase economic well-being instead of settling differences in what should be taught.

Better schooling and greater choice also had important political meaning for these two governments. Voucher plans were presented to a politically (divided citizenry as a way to improve education under severe cost constraints and to decrease central bureaucracy by shifting financial and educational decision making to local governments and private households. The plans were meant to appeal to at least that part of the citizenry unhappy with centralized bureaucracy.

What effects did vouchers have on education in Chile and Sweden? Such national experiences should help clarify their effect on educational quality and economic welfare.

The Foundation of Voucher Claims

The argument underlying the Chilean and Swedish voucher plans rests on a foundation of five claims that bear careful scrutiny. The first is that school choice increases the total welfare of families who send their children to school. The second is that social costs, from increasing choice through privatizing public education, are minimal. The third is that privately managed education is inherently more effective and cost-effective in producing learning. The fourth is that public schools competing for pupils with private and other public schools will become more effective. And the fifth is that a privatized and competitive education system is more likely to improve social mobility for the children of low-income families.

Increased where from increased choice. Evidence indicates that parents who use vouchers to move their children from one school to another feel better off. For example, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin voucher plan for low income, inner-city elementary school pupils, students and parents who stuck with the program were generally satisfied with the switch from public to private education. In a survey of Scottish parents participating in the British public school choice plan, J Douglas Wilms and Frank Echols also concluded that a moderate sense of gain-and probably some actual pupil achievement gains-was felt by the small number of parents who sent their children to schools where aver-age achievement was higher. Nevertheless, relatively few parents exercise such choice even when given the opportunity, at least in high-income countries. In Milwaukee, the number of vouchers was restricted and participants were chosen by lot, so we lack an accurate measure of how many students might have participated had enrollment in private schools been open to all. But in diverse cases including Scotland, Sweden, and Richmond, California, choice produced relatively little movement out of neighborhood schools. There could be various explanations for this result, such as only the most dissatisfied parents may move, dissatisfaction with public schooling may not be great except in certain groups, hidden restrictions to movement may exist, information may not be widely disseminated about the possibility of choice, or the cost of movement may be high. Since Chile's voucher plan promoted a substantial shift from public to private schooling, that case may suggest why so little choice is typically exercised.

External dis-economies of choice and privatization. The evidence of increased satisfaction among parents who choose to move their children' to other schools could be seen as sufficient justification for choice and private school vouchers. As long as some families welfare is increased by choice, the standard argument goes, total welfare rises. That is, unless there is also evidence of social losses from vouchers or from privatization.

One such possible loss is increased inequality in choice opportunity. If the option to attend a private school or better public schools is not distributed, such opportunities might widen rather than narrow the urban-rural and lower-income/higher-income divide." Evidence from Europe's long experience with voucher and public choice plans suggests that lower-income pupils are less likely to access private educations. First, once choice or voucher plans are implemented, the distribution of

existing better public and private schools and new private ones is likely to be such that low-income, less-educated parents would have fewer choices than higher-income parents. Second, even if the distribution of alternative educational possibilities were equal, poor families would be less likely to exercise choice because of two other factors: the costs of transportation and information. Studies of choice plans in both education and health care suggests that location of alternatives is crucial to the decisions made, and that the Higher one's income, the more quality rather than location plays the key role. "Privatization proponents generally assume that less-educated parents just as likely to make informed choices. But empirical evidence suggests that the opposite is true. Because wealthier parents transport their children to a wider range of school locations, the same voucher for all means more restricted access for the poor. Similarly, less-educated families are less able to search out and use information on the quality of educational alternatives. While less-educated parents may generally recognize the quality of their children's education, particularly if it is especially poor or especially good, restricted access suggests that choice systems such as markets "require substantial information on alternatives in order to support effective decision making" and that "education is a complex service in which even those with more sophistication must rely heavily on word-of-mouth and interpretation of incomplete data on school quality."

Besides the possibility of producing a more unequal distribution of educational quality and quantity than under public provision, privatizing education through a voucher plan also could reduce pressure from the more politically powerful middle classes to allocate more resources to education. Although the middle class would allegedly still have an interest in raising the average amount of the voucher to offset the cost of or improve private education (as well as public), it also is possible that in a deregulated privatized system, private schools could simply raise their fees as the vouchers increased, thereby dampening the incentive to raise vouchers among those sending their children to private schools.

Further, inequality in choice opportunity could increase the satisfaction of parents able to move their children and reduce it for those unable to do so, even if no actual achievement gains or losses occurred. Private or "better" public schools might be associated with higher achievement for middle-class pupils, but such schools might gain this reputation by keeping out willing-to-move yet more difficult-to-teach pupils-not by providing better teaching. These more "difficult" pupils would then be concentrated in unfairly tagged "poor" public schools with fewer pupils able to move. The parents of the pupils in non-elite public schools would feel worse off than before choice.

Are private schools more effective and cost effective? Cross-section estimates of private-public school achievement differences suggests that private school students perform somewhat better. But such estimates are confounded by student "priors" including academic performance and the ability of families to pay. That makes test score differences questionable proxies for the likely effect of vouchers. For example, the perception that private education in the United States is more effective than public comes largely from James Colman and T. Hoffer's study comparing Catholic and public schools. Subsequent analysis of the same data showed not only that the initial, unadjusted differences were small but that correcting only for students socioeconomic background reduced the achievement differences by half, to a mere 0.05 standard deviations.

Longitudinal achievement data for private and public school serving similar populations are rare, and even more so for voucher plans. Milwaukee's choice plan therefore provided an unusual opportunity to test how a group of low-income students attending private schools would are compared to their public school counterparts. In that city, a number of nonreligious private schools could accept qualifying low-income voucher pupils, starting with a $2,500 voucher per student that had risen to $4,375 by-the 1995-96 school year. More qualified pupils applied than could attend, so acceptances were issued by lot. John Wighe, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, produced five annual reports for the state of Wisconsin that evaluated the academic performance of these voucher pupils compared to public schools students of the same socioeconomic background. Witte corrected for selection bias and found no significant difference in outcomes regardless of whether the choice students had been in private school for up to 4 years. The result is especially strong because the sample of those who remained in the private schools was increasingly self-selected. A number of students who had begun in the private schools in the program's first year had either moved or chosen to return to public schools (the attrition rate from private schools was 30%). In addition, several of the original private schools had closed, forcing students to return to public schools. As a result, only the most motivated students in the successful private school remained after 4 years.

Another recent study by Jay P. Greene, Paul Peterson, and Jiangtap Du estimates significantly higher test scores for third and fourth-year vouchers students compared to students who had applied to the voucher project but had not been accepted. But scores are significantly higher only socioeconomic background differences are not corrected for. They argue that unlike Witte's studies, which compared students in public and private schools, controlling for socioeconomic background and prior learning value added, theirs makes a true correction for selection bias since it compares only students who had qualified for and sought to enter the voucher programs. In his response, Witte argues that the Greene, Petersoii, and Du methodology is never fully specified and appears to be flawed, and that once socioeconomic status is controlled for, the differences in test scores are no longer significant.

Witte's analysis and this debate suggest two things. First, once socioeconomic background and/or prior learning are accounted for, the evidence(suggests no significant difference in test scores between students in private and public schools, no matter how many years they have attended private school, and hence there is no difference in effectiveness. Second, because the differences in effectiveness are small or negligible, it takes a sophisticated evaluation methodology to prove whether private education is more learning-effective than public education.

Even if private schools are not more effective in terms of measured achievement, we could redefine effectiveness to include the production of outputs other than measured learning and not in the public "charter." Privately run schools could produce such outputs, be more effective than public schools, and increase some families' private welfare but not necessarily the public good. In the United States and many other countries, for example, private schools can provide religious education not permitted for in public schools and desired by about 10 percent of families. Public funding of religious education in such societies could conflict with political principles shared by the majority of the national community, thus creating increased conflict over community goals.

At the same time, private schools could produce "non-measurable" school outputs that do increase both private and public good. A study comparing U.S. public and Catholic private schools uses a sample of 1980 high school seniors and shows that even where test scores are accounted for, low income graduates of Catholic secondary schools earn more in the labor market than those from public schools, suggesting that Catholic schools provide high yield dimensions of education not provided in public schools.

As valuable as Milwaukee's achievement data are in assessing the outcomes of a voucher plan, little as is typically the case-is available on the relative cost-effectiveness of the city's private and public schools. It appears that the participating private elementary schools initially provided instruction, on average, at lower cost than public schools. No truly comparable cost data exist, in part because tuition fees at the private schools do not reflect the real cost per pupil, and private schools are reluctant to provide accurate cost data to researchers. But since teachers in the private elementary schools are paid approximately one-third less than their public school counterparts in the program's first years and class size was approximately the same, it could be logical to estimate that the private schooling cost is about a third lower. Since test scores do not differ for comparable groups, effectiveness per unit cost was higher in private schools. Yet, as vouchers increased the revenue of private schools and the value of vouchers rose partly under pressure from participating schools to get the same amount per pupil as in public schools-teacher salaries in private schools went up more rapidly than in public schools. At today's $4,375 voucher, the Private schools are approximately equal to spending per pupil in- Milwaukee's public elementary schools, essentially equalizing cost-effectiveness ratios.

Privatization, competition, and the improvement of public schooling - One of the fundamental arguments of voucher advocates in Chile and Sweden was that a publicly monopolized education system restricts "good" schooling, that in practice, even under an "open enrollment system" of public school choice, more effective public schools declare themselves "full" and poor, schools continue to operate without threat of further competition. Extending voucher's to private schools thus would increase choice by expanding the number of good school places available. This assumes, however, that private schools are more cost-effective and that with more effective private schools to attract students, they would not declare themselves full or, seeing a chance to make profit, additional effective private schools would enter the market expanding the number of places available.

It is possible to envision expanding choice by including private schools in the voucher plan even with equally effective public and private schools with effectiveness defined by standard measures of learning). As described above that possibility occurs if private schools can produce outputs that public schools cannot, such as religious education, guaranteed entrance to university, a job in a particular company, or simply a better sense of self among students that results in higher income for the same achievement. Indeed, Byron Brown has argued that the methods and organization of private schools are no different than those of public school, essentially offering parents a different product mix - primarily the addition of religious education -rather more effective ways of producing learning.

No evidence from Europe or the United States suggests that competition from private schools or among public schools improves poorly performing public schools. Based on their Scottish data, Williams and Echols argued that "schools serving pupils in disadvantaged areas will be receiving incorrect signals; many of them will lose pupils to higher SES socio-economic status schools despite effective teaching practices. Some high SES schools will also receive incorrect signals, because many parents are choosing these schools even though their performance is mediocre or poor when compared with schools with similar social class intakes." Since vouchers in Chile and Sweden sought to improve public schooling through increased competition with private alternatives and among public schools, the two cases should provide data for testing whether vouchers have this effect.

Vouchers and social mobility for the poor - Voucher advocates also contend that a privatized educational system has even greater positive consequences for poor than for wealthier families (privatization would equalize the distribution of educational quality and educational outcomes among families with different incomes. However, the claim is often set in the context of' voucher plans limited to low-income families. Gary Becker, for example, has recently argued that "the best voucher system is limited to poor families" because the "bottom quarter or so of the population are most in need of better education, and the, poor are most likely to benefit from competition by private schools." Even if true, the objective of such a voucher system would necessarily be to alleviate poverty rather than to increase school choice or privatize schooling. In Wisconsin, the state legislature and governor would like to extend the Milwaukee choice plan statewide specifically because they do not regard vouchers as an anti-poverty policy. The national plans implemented in Chile and Sweden were always pushed as a mechanism to increase choice and educational quality not as a means to increase mobility for the poor or to reduce poverty. Politically, such a distinction is important. Chile a limited voucher plan would open alternative schools to dissatisfied low-income families, such a plan could divert attention from a greater problem: the much larger investment that societies need to make in low-income children if they hope to overcome the effects of poverty on learning. Since voucher Proponents place such great emphasis on the greater efficiency of private education for the poor, they generally claim that simply privatizing education without increasing resources would raise school performance in poor neighborhoods.

Lessons from Chile and Sweden

Evidence from Chile's Voucher Reform

The Chilean plan, implemented in 1981 under the Pinochet dictatorship as part of an overall "degovernmentalization" free-market package, decentralized decision making for public education to municipalities. It included fully subsidized, deregulated private schools competing for pupils with deregulated municipality-run public schools in all metropolitan neighborhoods, from middle-class areas to low-income barrios. At the same time, children attended only public schools in 90 largely rural municipalities in 1990, more than one-fourth of the total number of municipalities, as the highest concentration of private schools was and continues to be in the larger cities.

A key feature was privatizing teacher contracts and eliminating the national teachers unions as bargaining units. Teacher's were transferred from the civil service employee system to individual contracting with private schools and municipalities, so that by 1983 even public schools (those schools run by municipalities) could, in principal, fire teachers without regard to a union contract. In practice, teachers still held consider-able political power at the local level, so this rarely happened. Another feature was to release all schools from obligatory adherence to the national curriculum and from national standards, although most schools continued to use the national guidelines. What were the results of this reform? The first was a decrease in total real spending on education during the 1980s, even when parents contributions were included. In 1985, federal contributions were 80 percent of total educational spending, which was 5.3 percent of gross national product (GNP). Five years later, the federal portion was 68 percent of the total, and the total had fallen to 3.7 percent of GNP. Municipal and private spending rose but not quickly enough to offset an 18 percent drop in real federal contributions. Most of the decrease in federal subsidies came at the secondary and university levels, but spending cuts also had affected primary schools late 1980s. The real -value of the voucher fell substantially in the late 1980s Middle- and upper-income groups met the decline with their own resource in two ways. 'Wealthier municipalities were able to spend more than poor, ones on public schools, and private school parents in wealthier areas could supplement vouchers with higher add-on fees than could poorer parents.

The second result was a major shift of students from public municipal schools to subsidized private schools, especially in the period right after the voucher reform, until 1987. The shift continued at a slower pace until 1979 (see fig. 1). In 1979, 82 percent of basic school (grades 1-8) students attended public schools, and 14 percent attended private subsidized schools. In 1982, 1 year after the reform's implementation, 73.8 percent of all basic school students attended municipal public schools, 21.5 percent attended private subsidized schools, and 4.7 percent attended private fee-charging independent schools. Besides the increase in private school enrollment. students had also shifted from private tuition schools to private subsidized schools. By 1994, 57 percent of students were in municipal schools, 34.5 in private subsidized schools, and 8.5 in private tuition schools. Of the 25 percent drop in public school enrollment from 1979-94, more than two-thirds occurred in the first 6 years following reform.

Like other countries with voucher plans, such as Holland, the higher the income of Chilean families, the more likely they were to use the voucher in private schools. In 1990, 9 years after the Chilean reform was implemented, 72 percent of children from families in the lowest 40 percent of the income distribution attended municipal public schools. In the next highest 40 percent, 51 percent of families sent their children to public schools, with 43 percent in subsidized private schools. And in the top 20 percent of income, 25 percent had their children in public schools, 32 percent in subsidized private, and 43 percent in paid (non-voucher) private schools. The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted voucher proponents occurred, but only in the 1990s after a new democratically elected government had substantially increased spending per pupil and technical assistance to low-income schools. This may have had more to do with the rise in scores than privatization or increased competition.

Page 319 - Graph that does not scan.

The reporting and analysis of test scores varies from rapporteur to rapporteur, but if results are to be believed, average overall schools in Spanish and mathematics from two national standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders declined. Beyond these overall averages, results are also reported by the schools' "social class," which is a composite rating (A high [,, D low) of parents level of education, how much parents spend on education and whether the school has classes with mixed grades. No analysis on pupil performance by social class within school lis possible with the Chile data. Recognizing such limitations, the comparison of test scores across. school social class suggests that scores fell from 1982 to 1988 for the bulk of students in public schools (group C in municipal schools), more in Spanish than in math. Students in upper-middle-class schools (group B) had small increases in test scores whether they were in public or subsidized private schools (see tables I and 2).

One estimate of the means of the national test given to fourth graders in 1990 showed increases over 1988. But this still left scores about the same as in 1982. Another estimate shows test scores declining for all groups between 1988 and 1990-" Both Taryn Rounds Parry and Viola Espinola agree that pupils in middle and low-middle income schools (groups B and C) averaged higher scores in private schools than in public, but that pupils in the lowest class schools tended to do better in public schools (see tables I and 2). We might conclude that private schools are generally more effective than municipal schools (group C represents the largest group of pupils in municipal and subsidized private schools).

But recent studies based on interviews in Santiago basic schools (grades K-8) bear out the widely held suspicion that despite the Ministry of Education's prohibition of student selection in any voucher school, private subsidized schools tend to select the better pupils. In a 1992 survey, Rounds Parry found that 15 private subsidized schools (in a sample of 24) and four public schools (in a sample of 26) used "strong selection methods." She estimated that average test scores were higher by almost 6 percentage points in schools that selected even controlling for average socioeconomic background of students. Donald Winkler and Rounds Parry report further that Chilean parents select schools based mainly on the characteristics of it. Pupils that attend those schools: "Since the demand for Private school will, increases Kith socioeconomic status, private schools have a continuing advantage in terms of student background characteristics." Higher scores in subsidized upper-middle-class and even lower-middle income areas are successful in selecting more academically capable pupils. The way the data are collected makes correcting for selection bias difficult, but other data sets may allow corrections to be made.

Comparisons of a Santiago sample of "older" private subsidized schools- those open more than 10 years in 1990-with schools established after vouchers were introduced, show that average scores in the older schools are higher. One feature of the newer schools is that they tend to pay lower teacher salaries. All municipal and traditional, mostly older, private subsidized schools allocated 70-95 percent of government per- student subsidies for wages and salaries, the private subsidized schools created during the decentralization process spent about 67 percent on the average for teachers wages and salaries and 33 percent for operating costs and Profits. Teacher salaries in the late 1980s ran from eight times the student subsidy, in the new Profit making subsidized private schools, to 20 times, mostly in the municipal and older private subsidized schools. Moreover, teachers in the newer schools were pressured by their proprietors to increase enrollment, either through door-to-door recruitment or grade inflation in the fifth to eighth grades.

In 1990, the democratically elected government substantially increased spending on education and the value of the voucher, in addition to placing more emphasis on improving conditions in low-income schools through targeted spending and technical assistance. According to Ministry of Education figures, average test scores rose across social class groups in both public and private schools between 1990 and 1992 and leveled off over the next 2 Year's (figs. 2 and 3, tables I and 2). So after 13 years of a national voucher plan, achievement levels are probably higher than they were in the early 1980s and pupils in private schools tend to score higher than those in public schools. Th higher the social class of the school, the greater the advantage of the private subsidized schools over municipal ones in part because higher social class private subsidized schools tend to be the older traditional schools and are probably more selective. With no correction for selection bias, the higher scores for private schools do not constitute evidence that they are more effective.

Page 221-225 are graphs that do not show up in the scan.

Regarding cost-effectiveness, public schools in Chile cost more per pupil in Public funds than subsidized private schools, mainly because class sizes are larger in private schools. Based on public spending per pupil only, Winkler and Rounds Parry estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of public and private schools to be only a small advantage for private education. But subsidized private schools-particularly those in middle-class areas-regularly charge fees or request parent "contributions" in addition to vouchers, and all private schools require uniforms and other expenses not regularly demanded by municipal schools. Interviews with teachers and principals in Santiago confirm that subsidized private schools do charge fees in various forms, as well as requiring uniforms.," Estimates of these additional (private) costs are not available, but studies in other countries suggest they could account for up to one-third of total educational expenses, even at the primary level.

Data are mixed on whether competition from subsidized private schools improved the quality of municipal schools. Most municipal school students in 1982 and 1988 were in group C schools, and the average Spanish scores of those municipal schools fell substantially in the 6 years (see tables I and 2). The Spanish scores of social class private subsidized schools, approximately equal to group C municipal schools in 1982, also dropped slightly in the same period, suggesting a negative effect of competition on public schools. Although a minority of students attend group B municipal schools, their average scores rose slightly in 1982-88, about the same as the same social class group B private schools.

In 1988-90 Espinolas data (tables I and 2) suggest no change in either municipal or private subsidized school scores for either group B or- group C' Rounds Parry's data, which are undifferentiated by social class show increases in scores in 1988-90 for municipal and private subsidized schools, with the increase one point larger for municipal schools (tables 3 and 4). In 1990-94, Ministry of Education data also show a one point larger rise in municipal schools. Thus, after 1988, there appears to be no continued loss If ground by municipal schools relative to Private subsidized schools, and after 1990-with the large increase in per-pupil spending going into the lowest social class schools, most of which were municipal schools there might have been a slightly larger achievement gain in municipal schools than in private subsidized schools.

From these data, municipal schools appear to have initially done worse as a result of the large shift of students from public to private schools. After 1988, the situation stabilized, and the test scores show a gradual gain compared to private subsidized schools from 1990 to 1994, a period of increased cen tr-al government emphasis on helping lower socioeconomic level schools both technically and financially. Private subsidized schools continued to gain enrollment relative to municipal public schools into the 1990s. If the "creaming" claims are true, this suggests that public schools lost ground in the 1980s mainly because they lost a higher proportion of "better" students and kept a higher proportion of less-motivated students. In value added terms, then, public schools did not fall in performance as much as suggested by the relative drop in test scores from 1982-88. Public schools also may have made larger relative gains in terms of value added than suggested by the small declines in test score differences in the 1990s.

The observed decline in relative public school test scores followed by a leveling off and slight rise makes any conclusions regarding the effect of competition on the quality of public schooling highly speculative. By 1988, private subsidized schools scored higher than municipal schools of the same social class groupings (B and C) in which the two types of schools mainly compete. The difference in scores continues, keeping private subsidized education an attractive alternative for parents who believe that their children can gain simply from being with pupils who score higher. Perhaps more important, Chilean private schools offer symbolic prestige as an English name and school uniforms. If public schools took competition seriously, we would expect to observe them increasing the use of such symbols. Winkler and Rounds Parry cite an unpublished study that found that changing the school name to English and introducing school uniforms in public schools-techniques used by private subsidized schools recruiting pupils resulted in increased public school enrollments.

One potential problem with extending a voucher plan to all ' pupils, regardless of family income, is that higher-income pupils would be more likely to take advantage of more effective schools. Private subsidized schooling is available to lower-income families in urban municipalities but not in most smaller towns and rural areas. In urban areas, lower-income families are less likely to attend private schools. The data available cannot claim to show that Chile's private subsidized schools are more effective than the public school, since within the overall social class designation of each school nothing is known about social class composition in the school and corresponding pupil pretest and post-test scores. Rounds Parry points out that lower-income families could be rational in choosing public schools because the lower the social class associated with schools, the better public schools do on the Sistema de Medicion de Calidad de Education (SIMC) test compared to private. More likely, however, lower-income students typically attend public schools because private schools are more distant form their homes, lower-income families are unwilling or cannot pay fees and the costs of uniforms, or because these students are refused entry.

In addition to limits access to private subsidized schools, the test score data suggest that pupils from low-income families were more likely to attend schools in which test scores declined in the 1980s. Low-middle-income (group C) schools lost ground to high-middle-,'income (group B) schools, whether they were public or Private, and public schools, more concentrated in group C, lost ground to Private schools Of groups B and C (tables I and 2). After 1988, no increase in test Score inequality is observed, and, after -1990, some decrease in inequality may have occurred. In short, Chile's voucher plan appears to have had a negative effect on lower-income pupils, achievement in the 1980s without increasing the overall level bf academic achievement But after 1990, with increased central government intervention and a sharp rise in spending, the relative academic achievement of lower-income pupils seems to have risen as average achievement increased.

One possible conclusion we could draw from these data is that privatization during the 1980s in Chile reduced the public effort to improve schooling since it relied on the free market to increase achievement. The rise in achievement did not occur, and public schooling quality may have decline relative to private. It was only when the central government intervened after 1990 with is P-900 program with increased in-service training, new curriculum standards, and technical assistance to low-income schools that overall achievement levels appear to have increased and public schools may have begun to close the gap. The voucher plan itself left most low-income students worse off in the privatization/decentralization phase of reform (1982-88), a situation that only began to turn around in the 1990s with reintervention from the Ministry of Education.

THE SWEDISH VOUCHER REFORM

Sweden began decentralizing its educational system in the 1980s under a Social Democratic government with a series of reforms that gave municipalities increase flexibility in administering social services and more responsibility for distributing resources. In 1989, municipalities received the right to negotiate directly with school employees although in practice, the teachers unions continued to negotiate with most municipalities as a bloc - and in 1991, still under the Social Democrats, municipalities received smaller sums earmarked for each level of schooling. That same year, the Swedish Parliament passed legislation requiring municipalities to distribute resources to independent schools on the same basis as to municipal schools, that is, for instructional services provided.

When a center/right government was elected in 1991, it quickly moved to legislate a 'free choice revolution" including school vouchers for approved compulsory level independent schools. The reform required municipalities to distribute at least 85% of the average per-student cost in the municipal schools for each student enrolled in approved private schools. The 15% discount reflected the fact that private schools did not need to provide school health care, home language training, free meals and transportation. Municipal schools still had to accept all students within their borders. In 1993, similar reforms were made in upper-secondary schools and in schools for mentally retarded children. Universities were given more autonomy with parts of their funding linked to performance indicators. Other Conservative reforms included a new grading system and a new national curriculum giving students more flexibility in the subjects they chose to study and schools more freedom in deciding how to reach specified goals and how to distribute hours of instruction in each subject. Thus, the conservative government continued earlier Social Democratic initiatives to decentralize the administration, planning and resource allocation for elementary and secondary schooling to municipalities or schools themselves. It completed the shift of the central government's role form planning the inputs to evaluating how ell municipalities achieved centrally defined educational goals. But in addition, the Conservatives did everything possible to encourage private schools, which were neither regulated nor supervised and were permitted to charge " reasonable" fees.

What were the results of this reform? First, a majority of the Swedish public continues to support school choice, although few parents exercise it. Opinion polls in the late 1980s and early 1990s showed that the public generally favored choice and was somewhat supportive of private school inclusion in choice plans both before and after the 1991-1992 reforms. A survey at the end of 1992 and beginning of 1993 with private school vouchers already in place showed that 60^ of parents believed that choice was important and that competition among schools was good, and 50% believed that more independent schools was also a good thing. However, only 7 percent of parents questioned had actually applied to another municipal school or to an independent school.53 The national statistics for "exercised" choice support this relatively low figure. Only about 10 percent of Swedish pupils attend schools to which they were not assigned, and of this number, 80 percent attend another municipal school rather than a private alternative.

Second, despite the extremely favorable conditions granted private education under the 1992 voucher plan, the number of private schools remained a fraction of the total. Gary Miron reports that before the voucher reform, in the 1991-92 school year, there were 89 independent schools (1.9 percent of all schools) at the compulsory level, with more than 8,300 students (0.9 percent of all students; see fig. 4).54 Many of these schools were already subsidized by the government By 1995-96, the number had risen to 238 schools (4.8 percent) enrolling more than 20,000 students (2.1 percent). Much the same took place with upper secondary schools, which received vouchers in 1993. In 1991-92, there were 58 independent upper secondary schools (9.7 percent) enrolling 4,600 students (1.5 percent). In 1995-96, this had increased to 70 independent schools (10.9 percent) enrolling 7,200 students (2.3 percent)- According to Miron, the most common type of compulsory Level independent school in Sweden is one with a special Pedagogical approach, such as the Montessori or Waldorf schools (33 percent), followed by those that offer the same approach as the municipal schools (26 percent) and religious schools (17 percent). Montessori and religious schools increased their numbers the most in response to the voucher plan.

The amount of growth and the types of schools that increased their enrollment suggest that the voucher plan benefitted a tiny minority of parents with particular demands for their children's schooling and a larger, but still small, minority of parents dissatisfied with the municipal school to which their children were assigned. Even so, the possibility of school choice has high value among a majority of parents.

There is no reported evidence Of pupil performance in private and municipal schools, so we cannot make a comparison of school effectiveness. One estimate of per-pupil costs in compulsory level schools a year before the voucher plan suggests that independent schools cost 13 percent less per pupil taking into consideration voluntary contributions of time and money. This does not account for the fact, however, that municipal schools must provide services that private schools do not, such as special education, health care, and home-language instruction. Another study shows that municipal and independent schools had about the same annual per-pupil costs in 1994-95,just over U.S.$7,100.

Assessment of the effect of choice in Sweden points to an unequal distribution of benefits. Increases in private school enrollments occurred mainly in larger, richer cities, where most independent schools are located. More than a third of Sweden's municipalities have no private schools, and only a handful of private schools were established in rural areas-most by parents themselves. In these cases, school vouchers did benefit relatively low-income parents who could resist the closing of small village public schools that municipalities had deemed economically unviable. Many independent schools also still charge fees, an average of about $200 in 1994-95. Although these are not large and most of the newly established private schools do not charge fees on top of the voucher, the fees still might exclude some low-income families.

Data show that parents with a university education and living in urban areas were better informed about school choice and more likely to choose better school than the one assigned. In addition, ethnic sorting is sometimes intensified by choice in urban areas with a high concentration of immigrants and in areas with greater choice possibilities among municipalities.

One of the main purposes of the Swedish voucher reform was to increase competition among schools, raising their cost-effectiveness and making public more service oriented to students and their families. No data are reliable to test whether competition and increased local control have provided higher average achievement outcomes. Continued support of choice suggests that parents may consider schools to be more responsive of the reforms. But one result of increased demands for efficiently relevance by public schools and municipal authorized to cut services to "best" students, particularly those with disabilities or special learning needs. A report from the Stockholm School administration showed that with of all special education teachers in the Stockholm municipality that were eliminated by the reform and the number of hours devoted to therapy cut in half. Ennoblement in separate schools for students with special needs has grown in recent years, in part because of these cut in those schools. On group of parents of disabled children established it's independent school after concluding that public schools could not provided necessary services for their children. Since public finances were cut during this period, it is also difficult to say whether choice or more budget cutting led to the cuts in special educational services Cuts may have even without a Conservation educational reform.

It is difficult to say whether Swedish voucher reform, increased overall educational quality and cost-effectiveness or increased segregation among schools and shifted some resources from public to private schools - contributing to an otherwise- avoidable reduction of education services. The minuscule and largely particularistic increase in schools seems to have subsidized a small percentage of families and their demand for alternative education, both secular and religious. But the evidence that the limited enrollment increase in such school is most significant effect on the overall efficiency of the educational change, such more important for public schools were cuts in educational implemented as part of the devolution of financial control to the families. In this sense, Swedish reform resembles the first 8 years of the reform. In both cases, vouchers were part of a move to reduce the growth of spending or, public education while hoping for increases in quality from increased competition among schools and a sense of educational improvement from increased choice.

The Social Democrats returned to power in 1994, promising to eliminate national reforms. By the fall of 1996, with the support of the Greens and the Left Party, the Social Democrats did pass legislation ending vouchers for Private schools, although such schools can still receive public subsidies from the municipality, based on need. They cannot charge fees if they take public funds, however, and they must provide student health services and home-]an instruction for children of immigrant background and closely following national curriculum goals and values. Private schools also can be denied financing if this causes "substantial and tangible negative consequences" for the municipality providing funding.

Conclusion: Any Lessons?,

The Chilean and Swedish cases suggest that national voucher reforms fail to do what their proponents claim, even when the conditions demanded by the Purest voucher advocates are met, such as reducing teachers' collective bargaining power in Chile. Nor does the implementation of a voucher plan under more "normal," democratic conditions, as in Sweden, cause the catastrophic decline in public education claimed by its opponents. Public education's strong support was hard] touched by the voucher reform, mainly because of the strong ideologically ties Swedes have with the public sector in general. In Chile, however, where private schooling was regarded as better than public before reform, voucher-s did cause a flight from public education. In short, the effect on public education of a voucher plan depends on the position public education holds in a society.

There is no persuasive evidence from these or other voucher plans that private schooling is more effective than public, and there is mixed evidence on whether private schools are more cost-effective. Not every income group benefits from increased choice. Less educated, lower income parents have less physical access to private alternatives because private schools tend to locate in larger cities. Better educated parents also tend to move their children out of schools with significant enrollment of lower-income, lower academically per-forming pupils when choice exists. Even if satisfaction were raised in absolute terms through increasing choice, a loss in relative position or increased segregation by class or ethnicity could make lower-income groups feel worse off than before. Unlike income, the absolute level of education or even quality of education attained is probably less important in determining the economic returns to schooling than the relative amount and quality of education an individual or group attains.

In both Chile and Sweden, vouchers for private education were intimately connected with political agendas related to public services. Although both Conservatives and many Social Democrats in the two countries considered the national education system as too rigid and resistant to change, Conservatives viewed private education as a "solution" to these rigidities. Thus, they preferred to dismantle (Chile) or circumvent (Sweden) the public System by investing in private schooling outside existing public bureaucracies. In addition, both central governments tried to reduce their financial contribution to education, putting more responsibility on local jurisdictions.

As might be expected, higher-income groups appear to benefit from this political agenda while lower-income groups suffer negative consequences because of the greater likelihood that higher-income groups take advantage of private alternatives or choice among public schools and because of their ability to access schools where aver-age public achievement is higher. Even though these schools may not be more effective in value-added terms, parents' sense that their child is in a higher-achieving environment seems to have, value in and of itself. Lower-income children are more likely to stay in schools that, on average, fall behind. When poor parents do send their children to private schools, as many of Chile's lower-income families do in urban areas, they are more likely to attend lower-quality private schools.

Particularly in Chile during the 1980s, the political agenda also provided benefits for capital investors who run profit-making schools and negative consequences for teacher's, who suffered wage declines from the deunionization and deregulation that accompanied the voucher reforms. The main growth in private subsidized schools was in the for-profit sector, and based on voucher plan's failure to produce gains in student achievement, an argument could be made that one of its effects was to shift income from teachers to entrepreneurs.

In both Chile and Sweden, the original voucher plans were modified as political conditions changed. In Sweden, unregulated vouchers for private schools were exchanged for subsidies regulated by municipalities. Choice was maintained, but the agenda for privatizing education was reversed, even though it had little real effect on the educational system. In Chile, the reestablishment of a democratically elected government in 1990 did not undo the voucher reform but did restore greater central government presence through setting curriculum goals, providing additional financing and technical assistance to low - income schools and evaluating the outcomes of the reform. The central government also greatly increased spending on education, focusing on low-income students. All these measures were viewed as necessary because of what vouchers had or had not accomplished.

Nelly Stromquist

UrbanEd (2003) p. 16

While the world became "global" the moment Columbus discovered America, the current globalization phenomenon characterizes itself not only by an explosion of free trade but also by a revolution in communication and information technologies and by an ethos of strong competitiveness among and within countries. We have today a compression of time and space; we are at the same time seeing a compression of solidarity and respect for the "other."

The economic features of globalization have augmented income gaps. Using a World Bank definition of poor as someone who lives on less that $ 1 a day (a definition, by the way, that tends to underestimate the full dimensions of poverty), about one forth of the world is poor. And, if we take the indicator of living on less than $ 2 a day, about half of the world's population is poor.

Many of us uphold the principle of being rewarded for one's initiative, effort and inventiveness. But, something seems awry when economic statistics reveal that 50 million persons in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people in the rest of the world. The United States, the shiniest example of globalization, is found to be increasing its gap between whites and minorities. According to the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (January 2003), the gap between the highest 10% of the U.S. families and the lowest 20% grew by 70% between 1998 and 2001 alone.

Do the poor deserve to be poor? This is a question that has not been systematically explored, but many of those who are poor are neither lazy nor unintelligent. Some are caught in traditions of social and cultural constrains (the case of women in many of the poorest countries), some are caught by their lack of access to education, yet others by the protectionism of the leading "free-trade" countries that negatively impacts on the agricultural products that typify poor countries' exports and thus their potential revenues.

When economic conditions in a particular country are worse than in other countries, people tend to emigrate. With the ubiquitousness of communications and reductions in travel costs, migration is a very feasible alternative. Today, there are large flows of people moving to Europe, the US, and Canada and wealthy Middle East countries. According the US Census bureau, immigrants during the last decade (1990-2001) accounted for over half of the growth of the nation's labor force. While people of all levels of education immigrate, the majority of immigrants to the US occupy jobs in factories, textile mills, restaurants and other blue-collar industries. More than 22% of the new immigrants are in service occupations such as house-keeping, food service janitorial services, compared to 19% of the total foreign-born population and 13% of the native-born workers. So one could say that the American dream of social mobility is at work, perhaps not immediately but with successive generations.

In the US schools are becoming increasingly segregated by ethnicity, where the poor are caught in degrading forms of urban life. Officially, educational systems are still committed to the principle of diversity. But, if by diversity one means the participation of disadvantaged groups in institutions that afford either social mobility or access to economic and political power, then the concept has to shift from advocating a "color rainbow" while actually providing these groups with the means to contribute. The key objective of diversity then is not diversity for the sake of differentiation but for the purpose of social and economic inclusion

And it si here that diversity and globalization clash at present. Universities, one of the prime sites for social inclusion - given the subsequent impact of higher education on occupation, salary and political engagement - are now sadly trapped into "branding" themselves. Hence, every single research university is trying to become better than the others. Self-improvement is a noble goal, you might say. But, the impact of this mad rush on social inclusion can be nefarious. In the search for upping one's position in the US News and World Report ranking of universities, criteria are being used that would make democratic minds cringe. To have excellent students GRE scores receive primacy. Little matters if some minorities do not test well in standardized tests and if students from a country attain incredible GRE scores of nearly 1600 due to widespread cheating. To be considered a university with research programs with high caliber, several schools and departments are requiring that Ph.D. students be full-time and totally supported by infernal research funds. As a result, a number of disciplines are fading out and adult students who must fulfill parallel family and work obligations to doctoral study are being eliminated. Women with children, for example, will find it very difficult to gain access to these research universities. Higher education is not closed to these individuals, of course, but their access to the most prestigious universities an degrees is gradually and rapidly eroding. At the same time, a higher levels of decision-making, the federal government is questioning the wisdom of giving special consideration to minorities in university admissions. In the context of an increasingly selfish social climate, helping the disadvantaged is now construed as reverse discrimination.

Globalization could mean increased interdependence of people and the wider use of different talents and perspectives. Unfortunately, narrow notions of excellence and competition are squeezing out the social and political space for the emergence of just societies. WE need to ensure that education will help us move into the promised "knowledge society" without excluding the poor and the disadvantaged.

José Calderon (1997)

Diversity Web Information Providers sponsored by American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)

http://www.inform.umd.edu/diversityweb

There comes a moment - When there is the connection

Between what is academic - And what is exhilarating experience

The moment of light - Between the silence of expression - And the bursting of critical consciousness

A glimpse of institutionalization - Without the loss of values

A foundation of a movement - Still fighting Goliath

 the rain pattering on foreheads - Turning into a raging river

Taking everything in its way

The sound of shovels on concrete - Of saws on fallen trees - And branches

 Reaching everywhere - From the grave site

Of Cesar Chavez - To the streets of Delano - To the air waves

 To Claremont - And Connection

Alongside the tired hands - But living spirit of Abayani

With Brother Pete - And rose cuttings

Planted like ideas - To grow, To grow

 Alongside Magdaleno, Maria Elena, Arturo, Paul, Abe, Rebecca, Socorro,, Helen

and so many others

Whose lives - became a living piece - Of what was read

As history, as legend - As a moment in time

 Delano-La Paz

 Clouds on hilltops - Blanketed by green

With blue sky - Breaking through

 An idea of De Colores - Made a reality

With circles of song - And chains of hands, - Hears, Minds

 Never to be broken

 The wisdom of leaders - Men and Women

Of Generations - From the fields - Shared with young - Open minds

Absorbing like the ground - To raindrops

Little streams - Can make a sea

To the streets of Delano - A train passing by

Making the ground shake -Giving warning- -To those up ahead.

 Ths sun hides behind the clouds - But reappears - -

It is always there - If one seeks to find it

 The moment, I mean - - The connection, I mean - - - When what is academic

Becomes the lived experience - Outside the shadows of the classroom

To that moment of light - Between the silence of expression

And the bursting of critical consciousness

By ELIZABETH A. REYES

Even with increased awareness of diversity throughout our society, we academic professionals of color often find that our white counterparts treat us differently from the way they do other whites.

Not long ago, I was invited to give a guest lecture on working with diverse ethnic groups to students in a course on counseling psychology. As part of my job as multicultural coordinator at the university's counseling center, I train counseling supervisors and provide therapy, so the lecture topic obviously fit my areas of expertise. After my talk, the professor asked if I could share with the students something about the development of my ethnic identity as a Latina.

I felt that I was being asked to sum up what it was like to be Mexican. Because my presentation had not covered Latino psychology or working with the Latino population per se, I was caught off guard. I asked the professor to repeat the question, just to give myself time to think. Was I really supposed to share, on demand, personal experiences that had shaped me?

I found myself wondering whether one of my white colleagues would ever hear: "In the time we have left, I wonder if you could tell us a bit about when you came to grips with your white privilege or racism?"

My first thought was to observe that asking the question exemplified white privilege. But even as I searched for a more appropriate response, I knew that the question was a wake-up call about what I may expect as a professional of color. I realized that my continuing education of others did not end last year when I left graduate school -- another setting in which I was one of too few voices representing diversity. Moreover, the question alerted me once again to the deceptively benign nature of white privilege, even in academe.

Because my lecture had focused on the development of racial identity, rather than Latino values, I suspected that the professor was not asking me to talk about my culture as much as about my experience -- as a person of color -- of prejudice, shame, pain, and rage. Here was one of those cases in which members of minority groups are not treated the same as whites, who are seldom asked to bare their souls in the interest of educating people from a different ethnic group. Although I was taken aback by the question, my cultural upbringing (which emphasizes respect for my elders and authority figures) made it impossible for me to challenge the professor in front of the students.

I felt compelled to say something, and something that I hoped the professor would not find disrespectful. So I began with a lie, stating that of course I am happy to share information about myself. Then I explained that such sharing can be a double-edged sword: When only members of ethnic minorities are asked to share, it reinforces the notion that whites have no culture to share. Accordingly, I gently invited the professor to share some personal experiences with the class as well.

For my part, I began with the story of my family's migration to the United States, which bought me some time to think. Then I talked about how I had learned that no matter how hard my family tried, or how equal we looked from an economic standpoint, I would often be called a spic. I described a visit I made to a friend, two weeks after I earned my doctoral degree. When I neared the house, a stranger who was one of my friend's neighbors asked me if I was there to clean the house. "I am looking for someone to clean my house, too," she told me.

Clearly, I did not fit her model of the type of person who would live in or visit her exclusive, gated community. As a Mexican woman, I fit her idea of a housekeeper, not a houseguest.

I sometimes feel that racism can be like a car that zooms past and splashes you with water from the nearest puddle, leaving your clothes soiled. Although my racist experiences were not my fault, at the end of the day, I was the one walking around with the sullied spirit, wishing I could wipe away the stains. The perpetrator goes on his or her way, often not even aware of having offended anyone.

As I shared my stories, I couldn't help wondering how it would change the students' perception of me as a professional. Would they feel pity or embarrassment when they saw me again? Or would they quickly forget what I had said? Which would be worse? I understood the professor's hope that my remarks would be educational, but it seemed to me that whatever I said could diminish my credibility and status as a professional in the students' eyes.

I left the class feeling exposed; I was also confused about how to deal with that feeling. I knew that I felt vulnerable because of what I had revealed to the students. I told myself it was not the professor's fault -- I could have decided to share less about my past. But I had barely had time to think what to say. In addition I suspected that my reaction was another facet of white privilege: People of color often react to racism by blaming themselves for being too sensitive.

The experience made me wonder when in the future I will be asked to "share my story" with predominantly white audiences or students whom I might have to supervise. How would I seize the opportunity to educate, without making myself feel vulnerable or as if I needed to prove something?

I certainly would not want to discourage efforts to increase multicultural awareness, but we too often expect people of color to do all the educating about diversity. In dialogues on race relations, many whites say that they have no culture, or that they are simply "American." Too often we fail to challenge those assertions. Though we have a growing body of literature related to white ethnic identity and white privilege, too little of it is included in education about multicultural awareness. And beyond the literature, white students and professors need to explore their own identities. It is too easy to focus on the group that we see as the other instead of exploring ourselves.

Now I need to figure out how to prepare myself for future confrontations with white privilege. How can whites become more conscious of the impact that their actions, comments, and assumptions have on people of color? How can we make whites more aware of their blind spots?

Multicultural education can help enlighten professors and students by including white culture in racial dialogue: In this country, all culture and ethnicity exist within the context of white privilege. Remember the popular metaphor of looking out the window. We are so used to seeing what is outside that we don't notice how the window itself shapes our perception. Multicultural awareness means refocusing our eyes so that we see the window. Is there a windowpane? Does the glass have a crack? Is there a screen? How do those factors influence our view of what we think we see? In order to help students see the windows of their culture, we need to engage white students in a dialogue about their culture, worldview, and privilege.

It would be particularly helpful if white professors shared their own journey of self-awareness with students. That openness would make fellow professionals and students of color feel less vulnerable, and it would be a valuable example for white students -- especially if the professors described moments when they recognized their own prejudice.

In addition, graduate schools need to teach students of color how to handle racism -- both conscious and unconscious -- in academe, how to educate their future white colleagues and peers about white privilege, and how to serve as mentors for their own students of color.

I wish the professor had asked me before class if I would be comfortable talking about myself to the students. I continue to struggle with the question of how much to disclose in the future. Unfortunately, that was not on the curriculum in my graduate school.

FROM: Chronicle of Higher Educaiton: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i04/04b00501.htm

Volume 51, Issue 4, Page B5

Are American college professors unwittingly misleading their students by teaching widely accepted ideas about men and women that are scientifically unsubstantiated?

Why is the dominant narrative about the sexes one of difference, even though it receives little support from carefully designed peer-reviewed studies?

One reason is that findings from a handful of small studies with nonrepresentative samples have often reported wildly overgeneralized but headline-grabbing findings about gender differences. Those findings have then been picked up by the news media -- and found their way back into the academy, where they are taught as fact. At the same time, research that tends to debunk popular ideas is often ignored by the news media.

Even worse, many researchers have taken untested hypotheses at face value and used them to plan their studies. Many have also relied exclusively on statistical tests that are designed to find difference, without using tests that would show the degree of overlap between men and women. As a result, findings often suggest -- erroneously -- that the sexes are categorically different with respect to some specific variable or other.

Yet in the latest edition of its publications manual, the American Psychological Association explicitly asks researchers to consider and report the degree of overlap in statistical studies. For good reason: Even if the mean difference between groups being compared is statistically significant, it may be of trivial consequence if the distributions show a high degree of overlap. Indeed, most studies that do report the size of effects indicate that the differences between the sexes are trivial or slight on a host of personality traits and cognitive and social behaviors.

Because of such serious and pervasive problems, we believe that college students get a distorted picture about the sexes, one that overstates differences while minimizing the more accurate picture -- that of enormous overlap and similarity.

It is easy to understand why college professors might spread myths about gender differences. Many of the original studies on which such findings were based have been embraced by both the academy and the wider culture. As Martha T. Mednick, an emerita professor of psychology at Howard University, pointed out in an article some years ago, popular ideas that are intuitively appealing, even if inadequately documented, all too often take on lives of their own. They may have shaky research foundations; they may be largely disproved by later -- and better -- studies. But bandwagon concepts that have become unhitched from research moorings are rampant in academe, particularly in the classroom. For example:

Women are inherently more caring and more "relational" than men.

The chief architect of this essentialist idea is Carol Gilligan, the longtime Harvard University psychologist who is now at New York University. In the early 1980s, she laid out a new narrative for women's lives that theorized that women have a unique, caring nature not shared by men. Her ideas have revolutionized the psychology of women and revamped curricula to an unprecedented degree, some observers say. Certainly, almost every student in women's studies and the psychology of women is familiar with Gilligan. But how many are aware of the critics of her theories about women's moral development and the relational self?

Many scholarly reviews of Gilligan's research contend that it does not back up her claims, that she simply created an intriguing hypothesis that needs testing. But the relational self has become near-sacred writ, cited in textbooks, classrooms, and the news media.

Anne Alonso, a Harvard psychology professor and director of the Center for Psychoanalytic Studies at Massachusetts General Hospital, told us recently that she is dismayed by the lightning speed at which Gilligan's ideas, based on slender evidence, have been absorbed into psychotherapy. Usually new theories go through a long and rigorous process of publication in peer-reviewed journals before they are accepted by the field. "None of this work has been published in such journals. It's hard to take seriously a whole corpus of work that hasn't been peer-reviewed," Alonso said. The idea of a relational self, she charged, is simply an "idea du jour," one that she called "penis scorn."

Men don't value personal relations.

According to essentialist theorists, men are uncomfortable with any kind of communication that has to do with personal conflicts. They avoid talking about their problems. They avoid responding too deeply to other people's problems, instead giving advice, changing the subject, making a joke, or giving no response. Unlike women, they don't react to troubles talk by empathizing with others and expressing sympathy. These ideas are often cited in textbooks and in popular manuals, like those written by John Gray, a therapist, and Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, we are told. They just don't understand each other. But systematic research does not support those ideas.

An important article, "The Myth of Gender Cultures: Similarities Outweigh Differences in Men's and Women's Provision of and Responses to Supportive Communication," was published this year in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. Erina L. MacGeorge, of Purdue University, and her colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania find no support for the idea that women and men constitute different "communication cultures." Their article, based on three studies that used questionnaires and interviews, sampled 738 people -- 417 women and 321 men.

In fact, the authors find, the sexes are very much alike in the way they communicate: "Both men and women view the provision of support as a central element of close personal relationships; both value the supportive communication skills of their friends, lovers, and family members; both make similar judgments about what counts as sensitive, helpful support; and both respond quite similarly to various support efforts."

Yet, MacGeorge and her colleagues point out, we still read in textbooks that:

"Men's and women's communication styles are startlingly dissimilar" -- The Interpersonal Communication Reader, edited by Joseph A. DeVito (Allyn and Bacon, 2002).

"American men and women come from different sociolinguistic subcultures, having learned to do different things with words in a conversation" -- a chapter by Daniel N. Maltz and Ruth A. Borker in Language and Social Identity (Cambridge University Press, 1982), edited by John J. Gumperz.

"Husbands and wives, especially in Western societies, come from two different cultures with different learned behaviors and communication styles" -- a chapter by Carol J.S. Bruess and Judy C. Pearson in Gendered Relationships (Mayfield, 1996), edited by Julia T. Wood.

Gender differences in mate selection are pervasive and well established.

Evolutionary psychologists like David M. Buss, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, tell us in such books as The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (Basic Books, 1994) that men and women differ widely with respect to the traits they look for in a potential mate. Men, such writers claim, lust after pretty, young, presumably fertile women. Pop culture revels in this notion: Men want young and beautiful mates. There is, it is presumed, a universal female type beloved by men -- young, unlined, with features that are close to those of an infant -- that signals fertility. If there were a universal male preference for beautiful young women, it would have to be based on a strong correlation between beauty and reproductive success. Sure, Richard Gere chose Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman because of her beauty and youth. But would those qualities have assured enhanced fertility?

The answer, according to empirical research, seems to be no. Having a pretty face as a young adult has no relationship to the number of children a woman produces or to her health across the life span. Among married women, physical attractiveness is unrelated to the number of children they produce. If beauty has little to do with reproductive success, why would nature insist that men select for it? It seems more likely that having a young beauty on his arm indicates, instead, that a man is living up to certain cultural and social norms.

According to some who take what we call an ultra-Darwinist stance, there is no mystery about whom women prefer as a mate: The man with resources to feed and protect her future children. The combination of wealth, status, and power (which usually implies an older man) makes "an attractive package in the eyes of the average woman," as Robert Wright, a journalist and author of The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (Pantheon, 1994), sums up the argument.

But those who believe that gender roles are shaped at least as much by culture and environment as by biology point out that women's preference for older good providers fits perfectly with the rise of the industrial state. That system, which often called for a male breadwinner and a female working at home, arose in the United States in the 1830s, was dominant until the 1970s, and then declined.

If that is correct, then we should see a declining preference for older men who are good providers, particularly among women with resources. In fact, a study by Alice Eagly, a psychologist at Northwestern University, and Wendy Wood, of Duke University, suggests that as gender equality in society has increased, women have expressed less of a preference for older men with greater earning potential. The researchers have found that when women have access to their own resources, they do not look for age in mates, but prefer qualities like empathy, understanding, and the ability to bond with children. The desire for an older "provider" is evidently not in women's genes. Terri D. Fisher, a psychologist at Ohio State University, told a reporter last year that whenever she teaches her college students the ultra-Darwinian take on the power of youth and beauty, the young men smile and nod and the young women look appalled.

For girls, self-esteem plummets at early adolescence.

Girls face an inevitable crisis of self-esteem as they approach adolescence. They are in danger of losing their voices, drowning, and facing a devastating dip in self-regard that boys don't experience. This is the picture that Carol Gilligan presented on the basis of her research at the Emma Willard School, a private girls' school in Troy, N.Y. While Gilligan did not refer to genes in her analysis of girls' vulnerability, she did cite both the "wall of Western culture" and deep early childhood socialization as reasons.

Her theme was echoed in 1994 by the clinical psychologist Mary Pipher's surprise best seller, Reviving Ophelia (Putnam, 1994), which spent three years on The New York Times best-seller list. Drawing on case studies rather than systematic research, Pipher observed how naturally outgoing, confident girls get worn down by sexist cultural expectations. Gilligan's and Pipher's ideas have also been supported by a widely cited study in 1990 by the American Association of University Women. That report, published in 1991, claimed that teenage girls experience a "free-fall in self-esteem from which some will never recover."

The idea that girls have low self-esteem has by now become part of the academic canon as well as fodder for the popular media. But is it true? No.

Critics have found many faults with the influential AAUW study. When children were asked about their self-confidence and academic plans, the report said 60 percent of girls and 67 percent of boys in elementary school responded, "I am happy the way I am." But by high school, the percentage of girls happy with themselves fell to 29 percent. Could it be that 71 percent of the country's teenage girls were low in self-esteem? Not necessarily. The AAUW counted as happy only those girls who checked "always true" to the question about happiness. Girls who said they were "sometimes" happy with themselves or "sort of" happy with themselves were counted as unhappy.

A sophisticated look at the self-esteem data is far more reassuring than the headlines. A new analysis of all of the AAUW data, and a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies, done by Janet Hyde, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, showed no huge gap between boys and girls. Indeed, Hyde found that the self-esteem scores of boys and girls were virtually identical. In particular there was no plunge in scores for girls during the early teen years -- the supposed basis for the idea that girls "lost their voices" in that period. Parents, understandably concerned about noxious, hypersexual media images, may gaze in horror at those images while underestimating the resilience of their daughters, who are able to thrive in spite of them.

Boys have a mathematics gene, or at least a biological tendency to excel in math, that girls do not possess.

Do boys have a mathematics gene -- or at least a biological tendency to excel in math -- that girls lack, as a popular stereotype has it? Suffice it to say that, despite being discouraged from pursuing math at almost every level of school, girls and women today are managing to perform in math at high levels.

Do data support arguments for hard-wired gender differences? No. In 2001 Erin Leahey and Guang Guo, then a graduate student and an assistant professor of sociology, respectively, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looked at some 20,000 math scores of children ages 4 to 18 and found no differences of any magnitude, even in areas that are supposedly male domains, such as reasoning skills and geometry.

The bandwagon concepts that we have discussed here are strongly held and dangerous. Even though they have been seriously challenged, they continue to be taught by authority figures in the classroom. These ideas are embedded in the curricula of courses in child and adolescent development, moral development, education, moral philosophy, feminist pedagogy, evolutionary psychology, gender studies, and the psychology of women.

Few students have the ability to investigate the accuracy of the claims on their own. And since these ideas resonate with the cultural zeitgeist, students would have little reason to do so in any case. The essentialist perspective has so colored the dialogue about the sexes that there is scant room for any narrative other than difference.

Obviously the difference rhetoric can create harm for both men and women. Men are taught to believe that they are deficient in caring and empathy, while women are led to believe that they are inherently unsuited for competition, leadership, and technological professions. Given how little empirical support exists for essentialist ideas, it's crucial that professors broaden the dialogue, challenging the conventional wisdom and encouraging their students to do so as well.

Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i02/02b01101.htm

Vol. 51, Issue 2, Page B11

by Roslyn Arlin Mickelson — 2003

 In this article I seek to answer the question, "When are racial disparities in education the result of racial discrimination?" To answer it I synthesize the social science research on racially correlated disparities in education. My review draws from the sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, history, and education literatures. I organize explanations into six categories: biological determinism, social structure, school organization and opportunities to learn, family background, culture, and the state. I arrive at three answers. The first is a definition: Racial discrimination in education arises from actions of institutions or individual state actors, their attitudes and ideologies, or processes that systematically treat students from different racial/ethnic groups disparately or inequitably. The second answer is that while distinguishing racial discrimination from disparities may be an interesting intellectual, legal, and statistical challenge, the conclusion probably is less meaningful than social scientists and policy makers might hope. The third answer follows from the first two. I propose the following reformulation of the original question: "When are racial disparities in education not due to discrimination?" I argue that the reformulated question is more likely to bring solutions to the race gap than the original one. Even if we conclude that discrimination does not cause racial disparities in education, we should not conclude that schools have no role in addressing them. If public schools do not address educational disparities, then who or what institution will?

Globalization, immigration, and the post-Fordist information-based economy are transforming 21st century America. The hallmarks of globalization—the flow of capital, information, and people across political boundaries—are sure to enrich, challenge, and complicate contemporary society. Public education already is experiencing many of the challenges associated with these trends. Schools and communities more ethnically and racially diverse than ever before. Racial and ethnic disparities in educational are not new to America's schools. Recent demographic, political, and economic shifts have the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities. In addition, social class and gender divisions complicate the emerging racial gaps in educational outcomes.

Identifying when disparities are the result of discrimination is difficult. Historically, racial discrimination was integral to public education, the intentional result of discriminatory laws and practices. Jim Crow education was designed, implemented, and upheld by the state (Anderson, 1988; Kluger, 1977; Walker, 1999; Walters, 2001; Watkins, 2001).2 Since the middle of the last century, however, laws, court rulings, and policies of the state—along with many heroic efforts by private citizens—have eliminated the formal legal architecture of educational discrimination. During the past three decades legal segregation has been outlawed, although de facto resegregation is on the increase (Clodfelter, Ladd, & Vigor, 2002; Orfield & Gordon, 2001; Orfield & Yun, 1999; Yun & Reardon, 2002). Importantly, literacy and median years of schooling are comparable among blacks and whites, multicultural curricula are used widely; and overtly racist material has been eliminated. Gamoran (2001) points out that any comparison of American education today with that of 1901 reveals overt racial discrimination and disparities in school outcomes have been reduced dramatically. Nevertheless, racially correlated disparities continue.

This article has two tasks: first, to synthesize the extant social science research on racially correlated disparities in education to better understand their structural and cultural antecedents because doing so helps clarify when such disparities are the results of discrimination and, second, to identify the key points in students' educational trajectories at which discrimination is likely to occur. My review of the social science literature draws from the sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, history, and education literatures.3 Although I attend to student-level factors, I heed Coleman's (1994) admonition to scholars and make the explanatory focus of this article the social system, not the individual.

I begin by theorizing race and racial identity because they are central to any discussion of discrimination in education and are crucial to the social dynamics in racially plural societies like America. In the next section I catalog current racial disparities in education and propose how we might conceptualize when disparities are due to discrimination. In the third section I synthesize the substantive and theoretical social science literature accounting for racial disparities and discrimination in education. I conclude with a series of answers to the question suggested in the title, what constitutes racial discrimination in education? The final answer reconceptualizes the core problem itself: Rather than considering when disparities reflect discrimination, I propose that the more appropriate question is "When are racial disparities in education not discrimination?" I announce this reformulation now in the hope that it will guide the reading of this article.

CONSTRUCTING RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race and racial identity are central to this article, but these subjects are too immense to be fully theorized here. I consider race and ethnicity to be historically contingent social constructs intimately entwined with identity; they are meaningful and consequential in a sociopolitical and historical context (Waters, 1990). Recent theories of race and ethnicity, such as racial formation theory (Omi & Winant, 1986) and critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001) require us to consider the process-oriented and relational character of racial meanings and identities.

RACE AND ETHNICITY

Social scientists generally agree that races are socially constructed in loose relation to perceived phenotypical differences among humans. Ethnicity relates to national ancestry and signifies the cultural, linguistic, and historical differences among groups. Key aspects of ethnicity are the beliefs on the part of people who identify with an ethnic group that they descend from common ancestors, share a common culture with coethnics, and choose to identify with that ethnic group (Waters, 1990).

A group's history of contact with the United States, the conditions of its incorporation into American society, and the contemporary politics of an ethnic group's country of origin influence the way an ethnic group constructs its identity, the nature of the education historically provided, and the barriers or bridges to education currently afforded its children. For example, the U.S. government extends special educational privileges to most Cuban American children because of their status as political refugees from a communist state. Haitians, however, are defined as economic refugees and thus do not enjoy these privileges (Schmidt, 2001; Van Hook, 2002).

RACIAL IDENTITY

Racial self-identity has two complementary aspects: how others identify a person's race and how the person constructs her or his own racial identity, in part as a reaction to others' behavior. Both aspects are relevant to racial discrimination in education. A student's racial or ethnic self-identity need not be consistent with others' construction of that identity. On the other hand, racial dynamics in the United States are concerned less with how an individual constructs his or her racial identity than with how others perceive, construct, and label it (Fordham, 1996; McCarthy & Crichlow, 1993). To capture the dynamic interplay between culture, structure, and agency in producing discrimination in education, one must consider the contributions of all three to racial identity.

O'Connor (2001, p. 159) observes that, to make sense of the ways that culture, structure, and human agency affect achievement outcomes, we must understand how people are positioned differently in the social world and how in that world, individuals have multiple social identities. She observes that students experience their own structured and cultured social identity both by interpreting and performing their identities (reflection) and by registering and reacting to others' responses to them (refraction). To paraphrase Cousins (2002), racial identity is not simply about being black, biracial, white, Latino, Asian, or Native American in a white world but about being so in a white, media- and technology-saturated, capitalist- and information-driven globalizing world of relations between youths and adults, boys and girls, and men and women.

LABELS

To truly fulfill the article's mission, would require me to include comparative research on students who are Asian, Latino, biracial, and Native American (including American Indians, Inuits, Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders), as well as black and white. Even panethnic labels such as Asian or Latino mask important ethnic distinctions within these larger categories (Lopez & Espiritu, 1990). Any comprehensive treatment of discrimination in education would include issues of generation, language, and immigration status as well, but these topics are well beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, despite problematizing the concepts of race and ethnicity, and arguing for concepts that are socially constructed, historical, relational, and variable, I yield to the practicalities of space and mission and contradict key aspects of the above arguments. That is, I focus primarily on black-white racial disparities, and when I label students, I use the five static categories commonly employed by the federal government and most school systems: Asian Americans, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and whites.

RACIAL DISPARITIES AND DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION

During the 1970s and 1980s, the racial gap in educational outcomes narrowed (Grissmer, Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998). Today, however, racially correlated disparities in K–12 education are present in grades, test scores, retention and dropout rates, graduation rates, identification for special education and gifted programs, extracurricular and cocurricular involvement, and discipline rates. The task of determining when educational disparities are caused by racial discrimination is complicated by the close association of race with social class.4 Sorting out race effects from class effects is extremely difficult, both conceptually and methodologically. Reviews of recent large-scale studies suggest that at most, socioeconomic background explains 33% of the racial gap in education (Hedges & Nowell, 1998, 1999; Jencks & Phillips, 1998). This leaves a large portion of the variance in racial disparities in education that must be explained by factors other than social class differences among students of different races.

DISPARITIES

According to results obtained by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), white, black, and Latino students in all assessment years (ages 9, 13, 17) show gains in mathematics between the mid-1970s and the late 1990s. Whites and blacks show gains in science for 9 and 13 year old students, and Latino students show gains in science across all assessment years. Among blacks and Latinos, overall gains in reading appear at each age; for whites, reading gains are evident for 9- and 13-year-old students (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000; Hedges & Nowell, 1998, 1999). The gains, however, conceal an important story. According to Michael Nettles, minority children have mastered the basics but not higher level skills (Hoff, 2000).

NAEP results indicate that white students score higher in reading, mathematics, and science than do blacks and Latinos. According to Hedges and Nowell (1998, 1999) other national surveys indicate racial gaps comparable in size to the current differences found in NAEP: The black-white differences among 17-year olds range from 0.7 SD in reading to approximately 0.9 SD in mathematics. NAEP results suggest that racial gaps in test scores held steady among 9- and 17-year-old students but declined among 13-year-olds (Campbell et al., 2000). In short, across all three age cohorts in all three subjects, the smallest test gaps occurred in the 1980s; although the gaps of the 1990s were larger than in the previous decade, they were smaller than in the 1970s (Campbell et al., 2000; Gamoran, 2001; Hedges & Nowell, 1999).

SAT results reflect similar patterns. The College Board (2001) reports that SAT verbal scores are highest among whites (528) and lowest among blacks (434); SAT mathematics scores are highest among Asians (565, whites average 530) and lowest among blacks (426).

Other educational indicators show similar differences by race. Using Current Population Surveys, Hauser, Simmons, and Pager (2000) report that dropout rates are the lowest among whites and highest among Latinos. Since the 1970s, rates have declined among whites and blacks but not among Latinos. Blacks are more likely than whites to repeat a grade (Campbell et al. 2000) and to be placed in special education programs (Oswald, Coutinho, & Best, 2000), especially in school systems operating under court orders to desegregate (Eitle, 2002). Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans disproportionately are found in lower tracks (Hallinan, 1998; Lucas, 1999; Lucas & Berends, 2002; Mickelson, 2001; Oakes, 1985, 1994; Oakes, Muir, & Joseph, 2000; Welner, 2001) where curricula and instructional practices are weaker. Minorities attend schools where they have access to fewer advanced placement classes than whites (Pachón, Federman, & Castillo, in press). Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans are more likely to learn in schools with fewer material and teacher resources, a weaker academic press, and greater concentrations of poor, homeless, limited English-speaking, and immigrant students (Kahlenberg, 2001; Lee, Burkam, & LoGerfo, 2001; Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990; Van Hook, 2002).

IDENTIFYING WHEN DISPARITIES RESULT FROM DISCRIMINATION

As shown previously, the task of describing racial disparities is fairly straightforward. Determining when they are caused by racial discrimination is far more complex, however. We can all agree on simple instances of discrimination—a racist teacher or a dual school system—but it is more challenging to identify complex cases because they result from the cumulative effects of institutions' and people's actions conditioned by structure and culture and framed by history.

Under Jim Crow education, disparities in opportunities to learn and in outcomes were caused by official racial discrimination against blacks, Native Americans and (in some states) Asians and Latinos. Today, however, one can argue that racially correlated disparities may or may not be due to racial discrimination. For example, racial gaps in test scores are not necessarily evidence of discrimination—unless there are systematic racial differences in opportunities to learn (OTL) materials on the tests and in access to licensed, experienced educators. Similarly, not all racial disparities in track placement are necessarily discriminatory. Although decisions in track placement decisions lie primarily with educators, the students and their parents also are involved in the choices to varying degrees. Yet if comparably able students of different races are placed systematically in different tracks because educators teach, advise, or schedule blacks differently than whites, we may conclude that discrimination is involved. The existence of systematic racial disparities over time suggests the school system engages in institutional discriminatory practices.

HOW SOCIAL SCIENCE ACCOUNTS FOR THE RACIAL GAP IN EDUCATION

In this article I focus on the not-so-simple manifestations of racial discrimination and on the complex, often ambiguous processes that generate them. To successfully distinguish when the race gap is more than a disparity and is discrimination, it is necessary to survey the explanations offered by social scientists for the gap. I organize explanations for the race gap in educational outcomes into six major categories: biological determinism, social structure, school structures and opportunities to learn, family background, culture, and the state.

BEHAVIORAL GENETICS

Periodically during the 20th century, theories that the racial gap is due to inherited, fixed racial differences in cognitive abilities circulate in the popular and scientific press (Jensen, 1969; Terman, 1923). Herrnstein and Murray (1994) resurrected this argument with The Bell Curve, a book claiming that racial and social class differences in educational achievement, attainment, wealth, and poverty are the result of immutable genetic differences in cognitive ability. They recommended an end to what they regard as futile social welfare and educational programs designed to eliminate racial and class gaps in outcomes.

Decades ago, anthropologists established that the relationship between genetic diversity and racial/ethnic diversity is weak; diversity in the former does not map easily onto the latter because genetic variation within socially constructed racial groups is greater than between those groups (Marks, 2002b). Moreover, genetic variations among humans do not predict patterns of behavioral diversity (Marks, 2002c). The scholarship of biologists (Gould, 1981), molecular anthropologists (Marks, 2002a), cognitive psychologists (Gardner, 1993; Myerson, Frank, Rains, & Schnitzler, 1998) and sociologists (Fisher et al. 1996; Sorensen & Hallinan, 1986) has discredited the putative scientific basis of biological determinist explanations for racial differences in academic performance.

SOCIAL STRUCTURAL EXPLANATIONS

Enduring inequalities in outcomes tarnish the significant accomplishments of American educational institutions. The United States is not unique in this regard: Blossfeld and Shavit (1993) examined 13 industrialized nations and found that the relative likelihood of graduating from secondary school and entering higher education for people from different socioeconomic backgrounds has remained essentially the same over the past several decades despite an enormous expansion of educational capacity in all 13 nations. In the Netherlands and Sweden, where overall social inequality declined, so did the effects of social background on educational attainment. In view of the relationship between race and social class, it is therefore necessary to consider the connection between social stratification and the racial gap in educational outcomes.

During the past few decades, racial inequality in educational outcomes has declined. But can we anticipate that the race gap will eventually disappear? From a social stratification perspective, the answer is it depends, because approximately one third of the racial gap is estimated to be due to social class. Thus, even if racial discrimination in education were to be obliterated, a racial gap still would exist because blacks (and most other minorities) are poorer than whites.

Reproduction Theory

Social scientists offer a number of theories to explain the resilience and durability of class differences in educational outcomes. One of the most provocative is reproduction theory. Over 25 years ago, Bowles and Gintis (1976) argued that in a capitalist society, schools are designed to reproduce the class system by providing unequal education to children according to their class of origin. Because the social relations of school (and the home) correspond to the social relations of production, schools foster capitalist structures of production and reproduce class inequities. Reproduction theory has been criticized for undertheorizing race and gender, for failing to show explicitly how schooling reproduces class inequality, and as overdeterministic. Whatever its theoretical shortcomings, reproduction theory offers a powerful analysis of the differential opportunities to learn that exist along class lines.

Resistance Theory

Resistance theory (Giroux, 1981; MacFarland, 2000; MacLeod, 1986; Willis, 1977) incorporate human agency into the processes by which schools reproduce class inequality. Resistance theorists argue that youths respond to the disjuncture they see between (on the one hand) promises of mobility and social transformation through educational success and (on the other) a stratified political economy in which class inequalities are daily realities. Adolescents' partial understanding of this disjuncture results in conscious challenges to schooling. By rejecting educational credentials, however, resistant students foreclose any possibilities of upward mobility through education. Like reproduction theory, resistance theory undertheorizes the role of race and gender in social and educational inequality.

Maximally Maintained Inequality

Class inequality in education has not declined despite the increase in educational access during the last century because dominant social groups have preserved their advantaged positions. Once disadvantaged groups attain the educational credentials previously held by the dominant groups, the credential requirements for higher status jobs are raised. Social and educational inequalities are maintained because privileged groups are able to protect their advantages until all group members reach a given status (such as high school graduation or a BA degree). Then the credential requirements for status maintenance and mobility are ratcheted up to the next level, where the elites are better able to meet the new standards. Raftery and Hout (1993) theorize that these dynamics operate as a maximally maintained inequality (MMI) system.

Effectively Maintained Inequality

Lucas's (2001) theory of effectively maintained inequality (EMI) refines MMI. Lucas notes that the effects of social background operate in at least two ways: they influence who completes a given level of education if completion is not universal at that level, and they influence the kind of education people will receive within levels of education that are nearly universal (such as high school). Curricular tracking is a central mechanism through which EMI operates. For example, EMI is the key reason why more highly privileged parents vigorously fight tracking reforms (Wells & Serna, 1996). The social background factors that determine whether students will continue schooling also effect where in the stratified curriculum they will be schooled. As they make the transitions from elementary school through higher education, their location in the stratified curriculum at any given point has implications for their curricular trajectories during the remainder of their educational careers. In these ways, Lucas concludes, advantages of social background effectively maintain educational privilege for children of the advantaged (pp. 1678–1681).

All four models describe how social structure intersects with schooling to generate racial discrimination in educational outcomes. This is the case because social reproduction and mobility depend on not only the acquisition of educational credentials, both in terms of skills and certification, but also socialization into the relations of production. As I show in the following sections, discrimination influences racial differences in the opportunities to acquire these educational credentials.

SCHOOL STRUCTURE AND RACIALLY CORRELATED OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN

As Lee (2002) observes, we cannot hold schools responsible for the racial and class disparities in school readiness that are evident as soon as kindergartners walk through the classroom doors. The educational system is responsible, however, for the initial disparities by race that grow rather than diminish with each year children attend school.

American school systems (almost 16,000) are highly stratified on precisely the dimensions that are most related to student achievement. The ways schools are stratified is documented in numerous scientific and popular articles and books. School organization is a key contributing factor to educational stratification. Possibly the most powerful recent popular account of this inequality appears in Kozol's (1992) Savage Inequalities in which the author describes the breadth and depth of racial and class differences in schooling across the United States. In this section I focus on the relationship between the racial gap and three aspects of school organization: resources, racial composition, and tracking.

Resources

Whether money matters for school outcomes is a longstanding debate dating back at least to the Coleman Report's finding that funding is not closely related to achievement (Coleman et al., 1966). Although skeptics remain unconvinced (Hanushek, 1994, 1996, 1997), a growing body of research establishes that money does matter and that where and how the money is spent is also extremely important (Ferguson, 1998a, 1998b; Greenwald, Hedges, & Laineet, 1994; Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994a, 1994b; Weglinsky, 1997).5

Not only bricks and books but also human resources, such as high-quality, experienced, credentialed teachers instructing in their area of expertise in small classes (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ingersoll, 1999; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002), are directly related to money. Other resources are indirectly related to funding levels, such as stable peers, active involvement by parents, motivated peers who value achievement and who share knowledge with classmates, and a school climate imbued with high expectations. These are associated with the racial and SES composition of communities (Kahlenberg, 2001).6

Students who attend resource-poor schools are disproportionately members of minority groups (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Lee, Burkam, and LoGerfo 2001; Payne & Biddle, 1999). Given the system of public school financing, which depends largely on property taxes, and in view of the racial segregation in public and private housing markets (Powell, Kearney, & Kay, 2001), it is not surprising to find racial (and class) differences in school financial resources and in the opportunities to learn that they purchase.

The key here is that blacks and other minorities are less likely than whites to have equitable access to these critical resources both within and between school systems. The racial discriminatory practices that generate and allocate resources inequitably to schools contribute to the racial gap in outcomes.

State Racial Composition

The original social science rationale for school desegregation rests largely on claims that desegregation improves black youths' access to the higher-quality education more often provided to whites. Almost five decades after the epochal Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, there is little argument about the positive long-term effects of desegregation on minority students' status attainment, racial attitudes, and other life course indicators (Armor, 1995; Braddock & McPartland, 1988; Crain & Mahard, 1978; Hawley, 2002; Wells & Crain, 1994). Although the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966) showed that academic outcomes were better for blacks who attended desegregated schools, until recently questions remained about the positive short-term effects of desegregation on minority youths' achievement (Armor, 1995; Cook, 1984; St. John, 1975).

A growing body of recent research identifies the benefits of desegregation and the harms of segregation. Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, and Williamson (1994) concluded, on the basis of comparisons of NAEP scores over time, that the significant increases in academic achievement of black students in some states and not in others were due, in part, to desegregation during the 1970s and1980s. Hallinan's (1998) synthesis of the social science evidence identifies multiple positive effects of diversity on students' outcomes. A group of eminent social scientists filed an amicus curiae brief supporting desegregation in the 1992 Freeman v. Pitts case (School Desegregation: A Social Science Statement, 1991). These researchers argued that when schools employ practices that enhance equality of opportunity, including the elimination of tracking and ability grouping, desegregation produces clear (albeit modest) academic benefits for black students and does no harm to white students.

Other recent empirical research offers further evidence of the harm of segregation (Bankston & Caldas, 1996) and positive academic outcomes from desegregated schooling (Brown, 1999). My own survey research reveals that the longer blacks and whites learned in desegregated schools and classrooms, the better are their academic outcomes (Mickelson, 2001, 2002a). I also found that many of the potential gains of desegregation were subverted by resegregation through tracking, even in "desegregated" schools.

Hawley (2002) synthesized the extant empirical literature on the effects of diversity on educational quality for the U.S. Department of Justice. He concluded that "students who have the opportunities to learn in schools that are populated by students from different races and ethnicities can have an education that is superior to that of students who do not have this opportunity" (p. 1).

Even as America's schools resegregate (Orfield & Eaton, 1996; Orfield & Yun, 1999; Yun & Reardon, 2002), several recent federal court decisions have concluded that contemporary manifestations of school segregation are not evidence of dual systems (Board of Educ. of Oklahoma v. Dowell, 1991; Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 1999; Freeman v. Pitts, 1992). However, judicial standards of evidence are often quite different from social science standards of evidence (Ryan, 2002), and, in my view, racially discriminatory practices by the school boards generate de facto resegregation. These actions include drawing school boundaries in ways that maximize racial homogeneity in schools, siting of new schools in white suburbs rather than midway between black and white communities, permitting greater numbers of advanced placement courses to be offered in middle-class white schools, or allowing the better teachers unfettered freedom to move to schools with less challenging, middle-class students. Therefore any race differences in outcomes that can be traced to resegregation—differential access to better teachers, safer schools, more rigorous academic climates—are evidence of racial discrimination by a school system.

Tracking

As Hallinan and Sorensen (1977) observed, students cannot learn what they are not taught, no matter how highly motivated and how capable they are. Numerous studies indicates that student in higher tracks—even less academically able ones—learn more because they are exposed to broader curricula and better teaching (Braddock & Dawkins, 1993; Darity, Castellino, & Tyson, 2001; Finley, 1984; Gamoran & Mare, 1989; Hallinan, 2001; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996; Oakes et al., 2000; Slavin, 1990). Research also shows that a critical component of the racial gap in achievement is the relative absence of black students in higher-level courses and their disproportionate enrollment in lower-level ones (Oakes, 1993, 1994a; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lucas, 1999; Mickelson, 2001; Oakes, 1990, 1993, 1994a 1994b; Wheelock, 1992).7

Tracking and ability grouping begin very early in children's school careers (Alexander, Entwisle, & Lettgers, 1998; Kornhaber, 1997) and have consequences that follow students throughout the course of their education. The effects of ability grouping and tracking are cumulative: young students who possess similar social backgrounds and cognitive abilities but who learn in different tracks become more and more academically dissimilar each year they spend in school.

Central to tracking theory is the notion that track placement processes are objective, technical, and rational rather than subjective or arbitrary (Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1987). Any flaws in the execution of tracking are merely glitches in implementation, not system design (Hallinan, 1994). Pallas and Natriello (1999) investigated the process of tracking. They dispel any remaining assumptions we may hold that tracking decisions are systematically objective and rational. They show that arbitrary and idiosyncratic placement decisions are common, and can be related to seat availability in classes or students' ascribed characteristics. A growing body of research (Baker & Stevenson, 1986; Kornhaber, 1997; Lareau, 1987; Lareau & Horvat, 2001; Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1997; Lucas, 1999; Oakes, 1985; Useem, 1992; Wells & Serna, 1996) documents how privileged parents use their superior financial resources, knowledge, and social networks to ensure that their children are placed into the top academic trajectories. That schools and school personnel respond favorably to exercises of these race and class advantages is part of the problem.

The relationship between desegregation and tracking often is discussed in terms of first- and second-generation segregation (Meier, Stewert, & England, 1989; Welner & Oakes, 1996). First-generation segregation generally involves the racial composition of schools within a single district; second-generation segregation involves the racially correlated allocation of educational opportunities within schools, and typically is accomplished by tracking. Because tracking can undermine the potential benefits of policies such as busing which are designed to eliminate first- generation segregation, some courts have ruled since 1967 that it is unconstitutional for school districts to use tracking and ability grouping specifically to circumvent desegregation at the school level (Hobson v. Hansen, 1967; People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 1994). Even so, researchers find tracking is used to maintain an unofficial white track within a desegregated school (Kornhaber, 1997; Mickelson, 2001; Welner, 2001). For example, Eitle's (2002) nationwide study reports higher levels of racially identifiable tracking of blacks into special education in districts under a court-ordered desegregation plan than in districts not under such orders. Once again, in accord with my definition of discrimination, I conclude that racially correlated ability grouping and tracking practices result in racially discriminatory educational outcomes.

FAMILY BACKGROUND

Explanations for racial disparities in school outcomes that focus on family background fall into two broad categories. The first concerns characteristics of families, such as the number of children, the marriage status of parents, the number of adults in the household, wealth and income, and the adults' educational attainment. All of these indicators correlate with race. The second category concerns social class dynamics. These dynamics are deeply connected with the ways in which families interact with schools, how parents socialize their children for schooling, and how parents participate in their children's education.

Parents from different ethnic and social class backgrounds possess different levels and types of the resources critical for their children's education (Garcia, 2001; Guo & Van Wey, 1999; Hidalgo, McDowell, & Siddle, 1990; Irvine, 1990; Phillips et al., 1998; Roscigno, 1998, 2000; Suter, 2000; Yonazawa 1997). Many social scientists find it useful to consider families' resources as their human, financial, social, and cultural capital. In my view, differences in families' capital resources contribute to racially discriminatory outcomes because of the ways in which school practices and school employees fail grant privileges to elite families who have them and fail families who lack them.

Financial and Human Capital

Lee and her colleagues (Lee, Burkam, & LoGerfo, 2002) used a nationally representative early childhood data set to demonstrate the race and class inequalities in children's school readiness are evident when they first walk through the kindergarten classroom door. The association between family background and schooling was well known even when the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966) reaffirmed its importance. Families' financial capital influences how well children eat, their health, and what kinds of books, if any, are present in their homes. In addition to the necessities of life, money purchases access to the best developmental preschools, tutors, computers, psychologists who test for giftedness, and homes with quiet bedrooms for doing homework. If one parent earns enough to support the family, the other parent is free to volunteer in the child's school (this assumes a two parent family). Parents' own human capital influences student outcomes as well: for example, the more education parents have, the better able they are to help with their children's homework. When schools are neutral with regard to (or passively accept) students' differences in parental resources, parents' resources (or lack there of) interact with school organizational structures and practices in ways that contribute to discrimination in education.

Social Capital

Social capital refers to student and parental knowledge about how to ask and whom to ask in schools, networks of parents who share information on how to customize their children's educational careers, and shared confidence and trust in school personnel (Baker & Stevenson, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Carbonaro, 1998; de Graaf, 1986; Hilliard, 1989; Kerckhoff, 1996; Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Ma, 1999; Muller, 1998).8 Because of the ways in which public schools are organized, staffed, and operate, the social capital of educated middle-class white families is more conducive to school success than is the social capital of less highly educated ethnic minority and/or poorer families.9 Bryk, Lee, and Holland (1993) found that one reason for the success of Catholic schools is the social capital shared by the students' families. Catholic schools' sense of community, trust, common mission, and shared responsibility for all children contribute to every student's success.

CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS

Cultural Capital

Bourdieu's (1977) theory of cultural capital bridges cultural and structural dimensions of family background. It illuminates the (dis)continuity between the material and the symbolic elements of school and family cultures. Bourdieu viewed cultural capital as a mechanism for transferring class advantage from one generation to another. According to Lareau and Horvat (1999), Bourdieu's major insight into educational inequality is that, because schools embody dominant cultural forms (expressed in dialect, demeanor, tastes, sensibilities, stock of elite knowledge), students who possess more of the valued cultural capital fare better than do their otherwise comparable peers who possess less of this capital. A great deal of research demonstrates the relationships between possession of cultural capital and positive school outcomes (DiMaggio, 1982; Dumais, 2002; Farkas, 1996; Lamont & Lareau, 1988; Lareau, 1987; Lareau & Horvat, 1999).

Lareau and Horvat (1999) show that the value of cultural capital depends heavily on the particular social setting, on parents' and students' skill at activating their cultural capital resources, and on the reciprocal, negotiated process by which social actors in schools respond to the activation and accord it legitimacy. Lareau and Horvat argue that these factors create moments of inclusion or moments of exclusion for families. They show how the historical legacy of racial discrimination—in conjunction with school structures and operations—makes it more difficult for black parents, independent of their social class, to activate their cultural capital on behalf of their children.

Cultural Deprivation and Cultural Difference

Cultural deprivation theories (Lewis, 1966; Loury, 1985) propose that school failures stem from values and norms that are ill suited for school success (e.g., present verses future orientation). The insidious underlying assumption is that students from nonmainstream (and by implication, inferior) cultures are deprived. Policies based on cultural deprivation theory seek to change the culture of students and their families so that their behaviors better suit the demands of the school. Cultural deprivation theories form the basis for much of the original compensatory education movement but have been largely replaced with more benign theories of cultural difference (Valentine, 1969).

Without implying cultural superiority of mainstream culture, cultural difference theorists argue that racial variations in educational outcomes exist because cultural practices and values of certain racial and ethnic groups are more conducive to educational success (Bernstein, 1977; Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994; Delpit, 1996; Heath, 1983). For example, Caplan, Choy, and Whitmore (1991) identify a cohesive family and hard work as the "core" values that form the basis of Southeast Asian refugees' beliefs; these have enabled their youths to achieve well only a few years after their arrival in the United States. It is not clear, however, that core educational values of minorities who enjoy less success in school, such as blacks and Latinos, are essentially different from those of ethnic minorities who are more successful (for a somewhat different view, see Steinberg, Brown, & Dornbusch, 1992).

Cultural difference theorists also argue that school problems are linked to the failure of white-controlled educational institutions to incorporate nondominant cultures into school culture, curricula, pedagogy, or structures (Hallinan, 2001). Much of the multicultural education movement is a response to this critique (Banks, 2003).

Oppositional Cultural Framework

On the basis of ethnographic data he collected after conducting fieldwork in Stockton, California and elsewhere, Ogbu (1991) and Ogbu and Simons (1998) propose the existence of an oppositional cultural framework that influences minority achievement. They argued that many black students, as members of an involuntary minority group, often reject educational achievement as an avenue for success. They perceive labor market discrimination as a relatively permanent barrier that cannot be scaled through education, and they develop alternative frameworks for "making it." Cultural and language differences from whites become markers of a collective identity as an oppressed people. This perspective is expressed in black students' pointed disdain for the alleged link between education and opportunity. Based on their collective history of discrimination, and the perception that schools are majority-controlled institutions, activities associated with school success (speaking standard English, carrying books, doing homework, studying for tests) come to be viewed as compromises of black social identity and group solidarity. In this way, academic achievement comes to be associated with "acting white" (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

Ethnographic and survey research by other scholars both challenges and confirms the presence and effects of an oppositional cultural framework among blacks (Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey, 1998; Carter, 2002; Cook & Ludwig, 1998; Downey & Ainsworth-Darnell, 2002; Farkas, Lleras, & Maczuga, 2002; Ferguson, 1998a, 1998b, 2001; Mickelson, 2002b; Tyson, 2002). Whether or not black students—and other nonimmigrant minority youths—possess or reject oppositional cultural norms hostile to school success and embrace academic achievement remains a subject of intense debate.

Abstract and Concrete Attitudes

Cultural values are reflected in people's attitudes. In earlier research I demonstrate that attitudes toward education and the future take two forms (Mickelson, 1989, 1990). The first form, abstract attitudes, is based on the dominant American ideology that holds that education is the solution to most individual and social problems. All adolescents value education in the abstract, but these values do not predict differences in academic achievement. Achievement is affected by students' perceptions of the opportunity structure that awaits them. Concrete attitudes embody these perceptions which fluctuate according to the race, ethnicity, and social class forces that shape individuals' and groups' experiences in the American opportunity structure. Concrete, not abstract, attitudes predict achievement among all adolescents. By examining both abstract and concrete attitudes toward education in relation to high school achievement, I show how widespread consensus in educational values can exist across race and class lines while at the same time racial and class differences exist in actual school behavior and achievement.

A number of critics (Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey, 1998; Carter, 2002; Downey & Ainsworth-Darnell, 2002; Ferguson, 1998a, 1998b) incorrectly conflate concepts of abstract and concrete attitudes with Ogbu's (1991) notion of an oppositional cultural framework. Concrete attitudes operationalize a related but earlier construct advanced by Ogbu (1978), namely the job ceiling. In that earlier work he argued that children of castelike minorities (those who were incorporated into American society against their will) face barriers to job success despite possession of educational credentials. Children witness the labor market discrimination faced by their parents, siblings, and community members, and decide that putting effort into education may not pay off. My abstract and concrete attitude constructs test Ogbu's "job ceiling" hypothesis by examining how the effects of truncated opportunities associated with the racially stratified labor market shape minority adolescents' attitudes toward education and how those attitudes influence their achievement.

Stereotype Threat

Steele (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1998) examines how the cultural stereotype of black intellectual inferiority affects the academic performance of the most accomplished and most capable black students. He notes that this stereotype is widespread and has become part of every black child's stock of knowledge. Although awareness is not acceptance, Steele believes that the stereotype, nevertheless, impairs academic performance among the brightest and most academically motivated blacks. Using experimental data, he demonstrates that if academically able black students are cued about race before engaging in an intellectual task, their performance will be lower than that of comparable blacks who did not receive such a cue. Given the salience of achievement to high performers, the limited number of blacks in most university classrooms, and the pernicious cultural stereotype of black intellectual inferiority, Steele argues that "stereotype threat" inhibits blacks' academic performance because the most able black students are reluctant to engage fully in intellectual challenges lest they validate the stereotype through trying and failing. Instead their anxiety unconsciously leads them to disengage, and disengagement undermines performance. I return to subjects of stereotype threat, oppositional cultural frameworks, and racial discrimination in education later in the article.

THE STATE, SOCIAL POLICY, AND RACIAL GAPS IN SCHOOL OUTCOMES

As I have argued elsewhere (Mickelson, 2000), state actors make policy decisions that generate, perpetuate, or ameliorate conditions and structures responsible for racial disparities in education. Walters (2001, p. 35) argues that that throughout the United States, from the establishment of the common school in the 19th century until the present, racial inequality in educational opportunities has been an explicit policy of the state. She notes that not only do elites have greater access to the state, through which they influence policies, but also that certain policies continue to allow elites (primarily middle class whites) to activate their private resources so as to stave off the intended effects of contemporary equity-minded educational reforms. For example, reliance on local property taxes as the main source of school finance and the sanctity of local school district boundaries were critical to establishing inequality within and between communities, and to maintaining stratified schooling after certain educational policies shifted toward greater racial equality of educational opportunity in the 1950s.

According to Walters (2001), the social and political processes that produce racially segregated housing and a racially stratified labor market also generate racially segregated schools and racial inequality in the distribution of school resources. State policies of concentrating public housing for low-income, largely minority families in central cities (as opposed to scattered-site public housing or mixed income communities) affect the racial composition of schools. State policies of establishing or permitting resource inequalities within and between districts exacerbate educational disadvantages facing the minority and poor children who are concentrated in these resource-poor schools. Such policies compound neighborhood disadvantages with school disadvantages (Massey & Denton, 1993; Natriello et al., 1990; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995; Powell et al., 2001; Walters, 2001; Wilson, 1987).

State actors site schools and draw attendance zones that assist or hinder desegregation; they design and operate systems of ability grouping and tracking; they operate schools and school systems so as to permit middle class white parents to activate their race and class privileges. Outside the schools, state actors create and then sustain racially separate suburban residential neighborhoods, and their policies concentrate and isolate poor people of color in underserved public housing. State actors then employ residential proximity as the guiding principle for school attendance zones; they generate reforms—such as high-stakes testing—whose harsh accountability outcomes affect whites, blacks and Latinos disparately (cf. Haney, 2000; Heubert, 2000a, 2000b; McNeil, 2000; Valenzuela, 1998), in part because these state actors often fail to ensure equitable distribution of opportunities to learn the materials covered on the tests. Inequities in funding exist largely because state actors rely on property taxes to fund schools even though this method permits strikingly inequalities in resources, and hence, in opportunities to learn, based on race and class.

Choice

1. The policies and practices of school choice illustrate why the state shares responsible for creating and/or ameliorating racial gaps in achievement discussed previously. The state (members of legislatures, school boards, and other governing bodies) creates the enabling legislation, rules, and regulations that permit school choice—in all its manifestations. The literature on choice, race, and achievement is voluminous and contradictory (Fuller & Elmore, 1996; Godwin & Kermerer, 2002; Henig, 1994; Peterson & Hassell, 1998). According to advocates, the evidence shows that parental choice (vouchers, charters, and magnets) leads to greater gains for minority students; critics cite studies showing the opposite (Scott, in press). Aside from the unresolved issue regarding the effects of choice on individual students' outcomes, other important questions remain: What are the effects of choice on school systems? Does choice exacerbate or ameliorate racial inequalities in opportunities to learn within school systems? How does choice affect students whose parents do not actively choose a school or a program?

Choice theorists such as Chubb and Moe (1991) anticipate that choice will create positive consequences for schools and school systems. They hypothesize that good public schools ultimately will survive market forces unleashed by choice. To date, however, there is no consistent evidence that public or private school choice improves the achievement of students in choice schools, nor that it improves educational practice in schools not selected. Evidence from Chile (McEwan & Carnoy, 2000) and New Zealand (Fiske & Ladd, 2000) suggests that nationwide choice systems create disadvantages for students from ethnic minority and poor families. Perhaps market-based school reforms like choice will prove neutral with respect to the race gaps in school outcomes. Preliminary evidence does not sustain this position; rather, early evidence suggests the opposite (Fiske & Ladd, 2000; McEwan & Carnoy, 2000; Scott, in press).

THE LOCI OF DISCRIMIATION: JUNCTURES, TRANSITIONS, AND EDUCATIONAL CAREER TRAJECTORIES

Beyond obvious acts of overt individual racism and de jure institutional segregation, where does the responsibility of schools for racial discrimination begin? The previous review of social science explanations for the race gap suggests the loci of discrimination are in the junctures and transitions that contribute to students' educational career trajectories and the social dynamics that unfold at these points. How do we make sense of the organizational and institutional dynamics taking place at these loci? Lucas's (2001) model of effectively maintained inequality (EMI) regimes provides a useful guide for viewing the options, actions, structures, sequence, and dynamics where race discrimination occurs in education.

Students' own agency and racial identity are shaped by, and interact with, the culture and structure of the school. At each juncture and transition during K–12 education offers opportunities for students to take paths leading to very different educational trajectories. Students take different paths within each trajectory. The policies and practices by which students are sorted and selected for these paths, and the options students and their families perceive are critical to our understanding of how racial discrimination occurs and how its effects cumulate at each transition in students' educational careers.

Oakes (2002) suggests that we envision educational careers as processes taking place at the intersection of two axes. The x-axis consists of community forces and the school environment. The y-axis consists of the students' educational trajectories with their discrete junctures, at which critical transitions are made between and within schools; these are the conditions in which students are embedded and through which they move as they make critical transitions during their educational careers.

Community forces consist of the wealth and health of the neighborhood and the city, the suburb, or the rural area, its demographic composition, the collective educational history and culture of the community, and the nature of the family-school-community relationships. The school environment refers to the racial composition of the school, its material resources (e.g., funding) and human resources (e.g., access to qualified teachers), the academic press and other aspects of the school climate, and the organization of the school's opportunity structure (how the tracking and grouping practices operate).

Students' educational careers are conditioned by racial discrimination in housing and labor markets, and in public housing policies which result in isolated urban communities with high concentrations of low-income, poorly educated, minority families. Even though a majority of black and Hispanic students do not live in inner city ghettos and barrios, the majority of these students lives in urban areas and is increasingly likely to attend segregated minority public schools. At the same time, the suburbanization of middle class Americans, particularly whites—facilitated by tax and transportation policies—results in more privileged students attending newer, better resourced schools with few peers from low-income, poorly educated families.

Similarly, the decisions and choices students, families, and educators make are conditioned by the quality of the teaching staff, the material resources of the school, the racial composition of students and teachers in schools, staff and student attitudes and beliefs about race and ethnicity, the racial composition of ability groups and tracks, the academic press and the school culture, and whether the home-school relationship is inclusive and welcoming or exclusive and rebuffing.

In many respects, the trajectories of students' educational careers are launched with the critical transition from the home to kindergarten (or to preschool). At each subsequent juncture, discrimination can affect the next stage of the trajectory as racial disadvantage or racial privilege cumulate. Is safe, high quality, affordable childcare in a development preschool available in all communities? As the child moves from the home and preschool to kindergarten, is the public school one of high quality? How ready to learn is the child, and how does the school respond to this level of readiness? Which children are assigned to the certified teachers? Lee and Burkam (2002) and Lee et al. (2001) have shown that poorest, least prepared minority children systematically are assigned to the least prepared instructors in the poorest quality schools; this is one reason why the academic effects of developmental preschool, such as Head Start, do not endure throughout elementary school years (although results of High/Scope's Perry Preschool Project [Barnett, 1996, and Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993] suggest otherwise).

Once in elementary school, is the child identified as eligible for gifted or special education? Identification for either of these categories launches students onto paths that often become master statuses. Once a student enters a gifted track, the additional instruction and enriched curricula—not to mention the self-fulfilling dynamics of labels working through teachers' and parents' expectations—actually create a student who knows more and can do more than comparable students not in the gifted track. The opposite tends to be true for those in special education.

The gifted identification process is often racially discriminatory because of what schools do and do not do. Across the country, whites are more likely than blacks to be identified as gifted, and blacks are referred disproportionately to special education. This is true in part because schools permit savvy, privileged parents to deploy their resources on their child's behalf.10 In addition, schools selectively offer parents critical information about private testing options, or inform them that uncertified students still can take a gifted class. The schools continue to use identification procedures that do not capture the multiple forms of intelligence.

The transition to middle school is another critical junctures in students' educational careers. The academic tracks and courses into which students are placed exert a powerful effect on their present and future opportunities to learn. Middle school tracks determine the parameters of the formal curricula to which students are exposed, the stock of official knowledge they are likely to acquire, the peers with whom they interact, the test scores they will make, and the probable trajectory of their remaining education. Although parents may play an active role, the literature identifies how counselors, teachers, administrators have enormous influence over tracking, and how race and class forces influence the placement process. When we find that placements are correlated with race and social class, we should not be surprised.

Race and class forces also contribute to students' construction of their own social identities, including their identities as learners and as members of a particular race, gender, and class. The structure of opportunity in the school (are top tracks virtually all white while the lower ones are disproportionately black?) interacts with students' complex social identities. Among whites, the racial stratification of school structures signals their privilege; among minorities, it may cue oppositional attitudes or stereotype threat that contribute to racial discrimination in education. What and where students learn in a given year is reflected in part by their test scores and grades. A given year's academic performance then becomes part of the conditions for learning the following year. The effects of this dynamic cumulate during middle school careers and launch students onto disparate academic pathways in high school.

The transition from middle school to high school (or out of school) is another critical juncture. Again, the courses and tracks into which students are placed (a process in which counselors, teachers, and administrators continue to be influential) exert a powerful effect on opportunities to learn in high school. At this point in students' educational careers, stratified opportunities to learn within high school become gateways to the stratified outcomes that follow secondary school.

A CONCLUSION AND REFORMULATION

The core conceptual question guiding this article is "When are racial disparities in education the result of racial discrimination?" I have arrived at three answers. The first is a definition I derived from my review of the social science literature: racial discrimination in education arises from actions of individuals as state actors or institutions, attitudes and ideologies, or processes that systematically treat students from different racial/ethnic groups disparately and/or inequitably.

The second answer is that distinguishing racial discrimination from racial disparities is, in fact, an interesting intellectual, legal, and statistical challenge with possibly important policy implications. But in the everyday lives of black and white students (as well as Latino, Asian, Native American, and biracial youth), this distinction probably is less meaningful than social scientists and policy makers might hope. Distinguishing racial discrimination from racial disparities is akin to cleaning the air on one side of a screen door.11 In the end, the dirty air mingles with the clean, and harms respiration; in the case of education, the cumulative and interacting effects of racial disparities and racial discrimination ultimately harm children.

As the social science literature suggests, the racial gap is the result of complex, dynamic processes that cumulate over time. Most likely, racial disparities at T1 trigger racial discrimination at T2, and these phenomena generate further disparities, and so on. For example, because minority students tend to be concentrated in low performing schools, they are more likely than white students to spend larger portions of classroom time on "kill and drill" to raise their own and their school's standardized test scores. The corollary is true as well: They spend less time on broader and deeper curriculum coverage in social studies, science, and the arts, and in activities that develop higher order thinking skills. This is an unintended consequence of the intersection of high-stakes testing and school racial segregation: Minority students are more likely to receive fewer opportunities to develop higher order thinking skills or to be exposed to richer curricula. Imagine the racial differences in learning after a few years of "kill and drill" in lieu of the richer, deeper, and more engaging curriculum that test preparation displaces. Is it important whether this phenomenon is due to racial disparities or discrimination?

The third answer follows from the first two and is perhaps the most important because it attempts a conceptual leap. Recall, as I stated earlier, the central question I seek to answer is, "According to the social science literature, when are racial disparities in education the result of racial discrimination?" I propose the following reformulation of the question: "When are racial disparities in education not due to discrimination?"

To illustrate the value of this reformulation, let us consider two theories that have been advanced to explain the black-white race gap in educational outcomes: stereotype threat and oppositional cultural framework. Both theories make the agency of black students the core of black underperformance. I argue that racial discrimination in education, in fact, structures and conditions the exercise of that agency by black youths.

Under what historical conditions and contemporary circumstances do certain groups of people systematically disqualify themselves from educational achievement? Willis (1977) described very clearly how past and present came together in the working-class white British adolescent males' lived culture, a culture that penetrated the emptiness of a postindustrial society's promise of better economic prospects through schooling. The "lads" exercised their agency in rejecting school, but in doing so they precluded upward mobility based on educational credentials.

Black students make choices if they stifle academic achievement because they care whether their peers feel that doing well in school compromises their black identity. What leads some blacks to construct academic effort, the use of standard English, or earning good grades as threats to their social identity as black people? Individual black students exercise their agency when they silence themselves in an AP classroom or disidentify with academic achievement in response to a race cue before testing. What transforms spotlight anxiety into a fear that, given their full effort to achieve, anything less than a brilliant performance will validate the stereotype of black intellectual inferiority and smear The Race?

The answer is racial discrimination manifested in the collective historical experience of blacks in America since slavery including decades of lynchings, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and dual school systems; in contemporary racist stereotypes and representations such as those in The Bell Curve or the Senate's former majority leader's wistful yearning for the Dixiecrat Party's segregationist agenda; in racially discriminatory treatment of people of color by the judicial system, the electoral system, the health care system, the labor market, the housing market, even the supermarket, and—not least—in the isolation of the chilly, white top academic tracks of most high schools and flagship university campuses, an isolation which signals the "otherness" of blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans.

Let me return to the reformulated question: When are racial disparities in education not due to discrimination? Although polemical, this reformulation offers several advantages over the original. First, it reflects the weight of the historical and social scientific evidence and acknowledges that there is no impermeable membrane between schools and the larger society. As observed by Alexander (2001, p. 175), so long as race confers privileges outside schools, it is hard to imagine that it does not do the same within schools. Second, it removes the justification for waiting to ameliorate the race gap until we understand the precise mechanisms by which racial discrimination in education operates. And third, if our question seeks to distinguish when disparities are not the result of discrimination, we are more likely to develop answers that address more of the forces that create and sustain the racial gap in education.

Even if we conclude that discrimination does not cause racial disparities in education, a conclusion I do not support, we cannot and should not conclude that schools have no role in addressing the disparities. Public education is the only institution that can touch the lives of all students in this nation. If public schools do not address educational disparities, then who or what institution will?

Notes

1 An earlier version of this article was prepared for the Workshop on Measuring Racial Disparities (and Discrimination) in Elementary and Secondary Education, National Research Council Committee on National Statistics Center for Education, July 1, 2002, Washington, DC. The author is grateful to Valerie Lee, Samuel R. Lucas, and Stephen Samuel Smith for their incisive comments on earlier drafts.

2 A number of scholars and educators point out positive aspects of segregated black educational institutions under Jim Crow (Anderson, 1988; Walker, 1999; Watkins, 2001). It is important, however, both to acknowledge the genuine strengths while avoiding romanticizing segregated black schools. To do otherwise is to substitute an idealized conception of segregated education for the harsh realities of grossly inferior opportunities to learn that characterized racially isolated black schools in the past and today.

3 In the article's review of social science research on racial disparities and discrimination in education, I drew heavily from a 2001 special issue of Sociology of Education. I wish to acknowledge my debt to the many scholars whose work appears in that issue.

4 Gender further complicates the relationship between race, class, and educational disparities.

5 Another aspect of funding inequities is a consequence of the social class homogeneity typically found within elementary school boundaries. Schools typically raise additional money by sending students into their neighborhoods, churches, and extended families to sell candy, fruit, or wrapping paper. Schools use these funds to supplement instructional supplies and to support cocurricular activities. Some middle-class schools are able to raise enormous sums of money, whereas schools in poorer neighborhoods in the same school system raise a fraction of the funds available to more prosperous schools so that advantages accrue to students who already have them (Lucas, 1999). This dynamic is what Merton (1968) called the Matthew Effect after a passage in the New Testament, "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath" (Matthew 13:12, New King James Version).

6 The vast literature on teacher expectations indicates the importance of high expectations for academic performance and how race intervenes in teachers' expectations for particular students (cf. Ferguson, 1998b; Jussim & Eccles, 1992; Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996).

7 The literature is inconsistent as to whether blacks are less likely to be in higher level tracks, net of family background, effort, and ability. My findings from Charlotte are comparable to those of Oakes (1993) and Welner (2001) who also found that race affects academic track placement. One likely reason why Oakes, Welner, and I found significant effects of race on placement even after controlling for SES, effort, gender, prior achievement, and so on is that our studies used samples (or populations) from entire school districts. I suspect that the use of large national data sets, which sample only a few pupils from each of thousands of school districts, masks district-level effects that do not become clear until all students and all schools are included in analyses. My analyses consider track placement decisions in relation to their actual educational contexts.

8 According to a New York Times article, former Citigroup securities analyst Jack Grubman, sent an e-mail message suggesting he swapped a favorable stock rating for help (in the form of a $1 million donation from his boss, Sanford Weill) getting his 2-year-old twins into the exclusive 92nd Street Y Nursery School (Goldman, 2003, p. 22). The article explains that New York's top-tier nurseries can be feeders to the "right" kindergartens, and then Trinity and Dalton, and then Harvard. The top-tier nurseries provide superior education from on-staff child psychologists, movement and music specialists, artists in residence, custom-tailored programs and computers, small classes, highly educated teachers and administrators with degrees in education and early childhood education. Moreover, these Baby Ivies offer their young students the "right" social element.

9 Smith and Kulynych (2002) argue that applying the term social capital to a wide array of social and political relationships, processes, and phenomena obscures distinctions crucial to many political traditions. Moreover, this term carries heavy ideological baggage that obscures the causes of, and possible cures of urban decline; facilitates depoliticized political discourse; is inimical to efforts to develop deliberative democratic participation; and impedes efforts to consider social relations in terms other than those of capitalism and the market. Although I acknowledge the analytic and ideological baggage of the term social capital, I continue to use it as a bow to contemporary usage and to locate my work within a certain scholarly literature.

10 I am not proposing that schools ignore or hinder the efforts of parents to use their resources on behalf of their children. Instead, I am critiquing school policies and practices permitting privileged children to benefit from their parents' resources while ignoring the inequities these informal arrangements create vis-à-vis less privileged children.

11 This observation was inspired by Anyon's (1997) priceless metaphor about the futility of school reform without concomitant reforms of the political economies of the communities in which the schools exist.

Teachers College Record Volume 105 Number 6, 2003, p. 1052-1086

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 11548, Date Accessed: 3/9/2005 2:10:06 PM

Computers are getting cheaper and wireless Internet connections are seemingly ubiquitous, but some minority students are still puttering along in the breakdown lane of the information superhighway.

That the so-called "digital divide" is widening between black freshmen and students of other ethnic groups was one of the most surprising findings of the freshman survey this year, says Linda J. Sax, the chief author and an associate professor of education in residence at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Only 76.5 percent of black students reported using a personal computer frequently in 2004, compared with 86.7 percent of white students and 81.4 percent of Hispanic/Latino students. Asian-American students had the highest usage rates, at 91.2 percent.

In 1995 black students and Hispanic students had almost identical levels of frequent computer usage, at about 45 percent for each group. Yet the 2004 numbers indicate that black students are not keeping pace with other minority students, lagging five percentage points behind Hispanic students and 15 percentage points behind Asian-American students.

"There hasn't been much attention devoted to the fact that this is a problem," says Ms. Sax. "People assume the problem is fixing itself because there is more access overall, but the disparities are now greater."

One principle reason for the contrast in access is cost. Computer hardware has gone down in price, but high-speed Internet connections can be prohibitively expensive for poor and working-class families, especially in urban areas.

"Many lower-income communities are not considered primary markets for high-speed connectivity," says Neal Richman, director of UCLA's Center for Neighborhood Knowledge. Consequently, telecommunications companies do not build the infrastructure to support widespread access in those neighborhoods, making it more expensive for people in those areas to get faster access to the Web.

The UCLA survey also found that the differences in computer usage among students of different races were negligible at higher income levels but more pronounced at lower income levels.

Ingrained in College Culture

On campuses where class Web pages, online libraries, and virtual office hours are de rigueur, students' familiarity with computers and the Internet is taken for granted, according to Larry M. Gant, an associate professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

"No one at a university is going to say to a student, We'll stop using a computer until you're up to speed," says Mr. Gant. "It's really an ingrained part of the college culture and lifestyle, and if you don't know it, you're in a world of trouble."

Students who must make an extra effort to learn computer skills after matriculating are likely to experience long-term academic challenges, according to Mark J. Warschauer, an associate professor of education at the University of California at Irvine.

"In terms of using more sophisticated literacies to produce knowledge, those skills aren't so easy to catch up on," says Mr. Warschauer. "It's more challenging to master the skills required to use technology to find and critique information, and those skills are developed through long-term access to technology and very good education on how to use it."

A lack of familiarity with high-tech tools can also influence the courses students take and the majors they choose. "These decisions have important implications for their future," says Ms. Sax, the study's author.

"These students may be opting out of more lucrative careers because they don't think they have the technological savvy to succeed."

 http://chronicle.com

Volume 51, Issue 22, Page A32

Maureen T. Hallinan

The practice that has come to be known as "tracking" began as a response to the influx of immigrant children into America's schools during the early 20th century. To educate this newly diverse student population, school officials thought it necessary to sort children into different "tracks" based on their ability or past performance. As school reformer Ellwood P. Cubberley stated in 1909, "Our city schools will soon be forced to give up the exceedingly democratic idea that all are equal, and our society devoid of classes . . . and to begin a specialization of educational effort along many lines." The advent of the IQ test and standardized achievement tests accelerated this trend by making the sorting process more apparently scientific.

In the early days of tracking, junior-high and high-school students were assigned to academic, general, or vocational tracks. At one extreme students were being groomed for college, while at the other they prepared to enter trades such as plumbing or secretarial work. By midcentury, a majority of secondary schools used some form of tracking. The practice was especially prevalent in large comprehensive high schools.

Today this extreme form of tracking is relatively rare. In the early 1970s, policymakers and educators, fearing that America was in danger of losing its competitive edge, began insisting that all students have access to a rigorous academic curriculum. States passed minimum graduation standards that required students to take a certain number of courses in the core subjects of English, mathematics, social studies, and science. And the 1983 A Nation at Risk report recommended even tougher standards. In the ensuing two decades, the percentage of students taking four years of each core academic subject increased dramatically.

With the new emphasis on preparing every student for college, tracking in its modern form has come to mean grouping students by ability within subjects. In each subject, students are assigned to advanced, regular, or basic courses depending on their past performance. For instance, students in the advanced track might take pre-calculus as juniors in high school and calculus as seniors, while students in the basic track might go only as far as algebra II or geometry. The creation and growth of Advanced Placement courses is perhaps the best example of how tracking has become an institutionalized practice (see Figure 1).

AP Testing on the Rise (Figure 1)

Advanced Placement (AP) courses represent an increasingly popular form of ability tracking. Since 1980, the number of students sitting for AP exams has increased more than sevenfold. The College Board estimates that just one-third of all students enrolled in AP courses actually sit for the exam.

 NOTE: The number of exams given exceeds the number of individual test-takers because test-takers may take exams in more than one subject. Totals include a small percentage of non-U.S. students.

SOURCES: College Board; U.S. Department of Education

 The Backlash

Educators broadly support the practice of tracking in its modern form. Teachers find that tracking facilitates instruction by making it easier to gear lessons to the ability level of the whole class. Parents of high-performing students also favor tracking because research shows that students assigned to high-ability groups make greater gains in achievement. However, in studies published in 1986 and 1999, my colleagues and I found that students assigned to low-ability groups score lower on standardized tests than if they had been placed in mixed-ability or high-ability groups.

That finding lies at the core of a backlash against tracking that began in the 1980s. Critics argued that tracking, especially in practice, created greater learning opportunities for high-performing students at the expense of their lower-performing peers. Tracking's opponents alleged that students in lower tracks often had the weakest teachers in a school, an unchallenging curriculum, few academic role models, and low social status. Moreover, they argued, tracking enabled educators to claim that courses were academic or college preparatory in nature when, in fact, the content lacked even the semblance of rigor.

The movement picked up considerable momentum with the 1985 publication of Jeannie Oakes's deeply influential Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. Oakes provided empirical evidence of the disadvantages endured by students placed in lower tracks. In a similar vein, she revealed that some schools, under orders to desegregate, were promoting internal segregation by disproportionately assigning minority students to lower tracks. Overall, Oakes characterized tracking as an elitist practice that perpetuated the status quo by giving students from privileged families greater access to elite colleges and high-income careers. "Tracking is not in the best interests of most students," Oakes concluded. "It does not appear to be related to either increasing academic achievement or promoting positive attitudes and behaviors. Poor and minority students seem to have suffered most from tracking—and these are the very students on whom so many educational hopes are pinned."

At the height of the detracking movement, organizations including the National Governors Association, the National Education Association, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the California Department of Education came down in favor of detracking. Courts even mandated detracking reforms in some districts as part of efforts to desegregate the schools. For instance, in 1994 the San Jose Unified School District agreed to a consent decree that mandated detracking in grades K–9 and limited tracking in grades 10–12. But the response of school personnel was mixed. While many teachers favored detracking, a large number of parents, politicians, and other teachers resisted. As a result, while the schools became more integrated over time, and remedial classes were eliminated, detracking was never institutionalized as school practice.

Perhaps the most notorious episode in the detracking movement occurred in Massachusetts and California in the early 1990s. Officials in both states mandated that middle schools eliminate or reduce tracking. However, in The Tracking Wars: State Reform Meets School Policy, Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless demonstrated how schools, possessing a considerable degree of autonomy, were able to implement the new policy in ways that were consistent with local preferences. While neither state withdrew the mandate, the detracking movement could hardly claim victory.

Minor Inroads

To what extent has the detracking movement influenced the practices of schools and teachers? To date, no national longitudinal survey has provided solid information on the extensiveness of detracking and the manner in which it has been carried out. However, the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 asked a representative sample of teachers whether students were assigned to classes comprising students who were above average, average, below average, or ranging widely in achievement. Their responses suggested that, nationwide, 15 percent of 8th-grade students were heterogeneously grouped for English classes, 14 percent for mathematics, 12 percent for science, and 18 percent for social studies. The remaining large majority of students were in classes with students of roughly the same ability level.

A second study, the Survey of High School Curricular Options, sampled 912 secondary schools in 1993 to obtain information about curriculum differentiation. It reported that 86 percent of high schools offered courses in which students were tracked. The data revealed that 14 percent of 10th graders took math courses in groups in which students' abilities differed widely; the same was true for 28 percent of 10th graders in English.

A 2000 survey of all 174 public high schools in Maryland reported that two-thirds of the high schools used tracking in the four core subject areas, while 13 percent didn't track students in any of the core subjects (the survey's response rate was 79 percent). The remaining schools tracked in some but not all of the core areas. Interestingly, all of the 31 low-poverty, low-minority schools in the study used tracking, compared with only 36 percent of the 25 high-poverty, high-minority schools. In Maryland, at least, detracking is more likely in schools with a greater proportion of disadvantaged students. On the whole, however, the evidence suggests that the detracking movement has not transformed the way students are organized for instruction in America's schools.

What explains the resilience of tracking? For one thing, teaching in a detracked school is far more difficult than in a tracked school. Teachers who have been assigned to detracked classes often report that they must "teach to the middle" or omit some of the curriculum because they don't have time to instruct students at every different level within a class period. Moreover, detracking necessitates reallocating teachers and administrators, modifying the curriculum, and providing professional training. Schools may find these changes prohibitive for budgetary or logistical reasons. Finally, parents of high-ability students tend to prefer rigorous, homogeneous classes, while other parents are unconvinced that heterogeneous classes will benefit their children.

Subtle Influence

Despite widespread opposition to detracking and the failure of many efforts to institutionalize the policy, the detracking movement has had a major impact on school reform. While most schools still assign students to classes based on ability, the movement has heightened public awareness of the often inadequate resources and underwhelming curriculum provided to students in low-track classes.

Furthermore, the detracking movement has challenged widely held beliefs regarding the notion of "ability" and the role it plays in determining the kind of curriculum to which students will be exposed. More educators are now convinced that nearly all students are capable of mastering a challenging curriculum. New academic standards, state tests, and accountability requirements represent an effort to ensure that all students are given access to a rigorous curriculum. Detracking may never become widespread, but changes such as these are expected to improve the achievement of all students, particularly those who are ill served by the negative aspects of tracking as it is currently practiced.

Maureen T. Hallinan is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity at the University of Notre Dame.

Education Next : On-line Journal, Hoover Institution (2004)

Kurt J. Bauman (2005)

Question: The U.S. Department of Education estimated in July that about 1.1 million children are home schooled, or about 2 percent of the nation's 53 million children ages 6-18. The number is growing 10 times as fast as the general school-aged population, the department estimated. What is motivating this turn towards home schooling, and what is at stake when more and more of America's students are being home schooled?

Why hasn't the announcement of more than a million home-schooled children in the United States created more interest and excitement? Perhaps it's that homeschool advocacy organizations have spoiled things by claiming much higher numbers for years (Ray 2002, 2000). But I suspect the reason goes a bit deeper: None of us – not educators, not researchers, not the general public – know what to make of it. Our lack of knowledge and our lack of concern may be blinding us to one of the most important forces shaping education today, and it has come time to make sense of it.

Motivations for homeschooling

Current discussions of homeschooling are often premised on misunderstandings. The most glaring is the tendency to associate homeschooling with religious conservativism (e.g., Apple 2000), while. in fact, religion is cited as a primary motivation by only a minority of homeschool families (Princiotta, Bielick, and Chapman, 2004; Bielick, Chandler, and Broughman, 2001; Bauman 2002).[1] More subtle, but much more powerful, is the idea that homeschooling is "different" or out of the mainstream. The problem with this misconception is not so much that it is inaccurate but that, for those who want to ignore or dismiss the phenomenon, it is too comforting.

Statistically, homeschooling families don't look very different from others (Isenberg 2002; Bielick, et al. 2001).[2] While homeschooling parents are somewhat more likely to be well-educated and economically secure, homeschoolers are not at the extremes of education or income. They are more likely to be white than minority, but not overwhelmingly so. Moreover, the line between homeschoolers and regular school children is increasingly hard to draw, as the former are increasingly found within regular schools. A majority of homeschooled children are schooled at home for only one or two years. About one-half of homeschooling families with more than one child send some to regular school. Roughly one homeschooler in five attends school part-time or uses other resources made available in regular schools.

Why are so many seemingly typical families turning to a seemingly radical break with established educational practice? There have been few attempts to really tackle this problem. The immediate motivations often have to do with cultural or ideological differences with school, or specific problems experienced by individual children (Stevens, 2001). But we don't really know the broader forces at work.

Apple (2000) has argued that home schooling is encouraged by an attack on public schools and public institutions by conservative political forces. However, private elementary and secondary schools have not grown in the way homeschooling has – the percentage of children in private school has not changed appreciably since 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Homeschooling families themselves do not claim to be motivated by negative perceptions of schools (Bauman 2002). Welner (2002; 2000), in fact, has found that many have deep interest in supporting and improving public schools.[3]

I believe that the meteoric growth of homeschooling is an expression of parents' anxiety about changes in the broader world and the world of education. One parent starts homeschooling just as another might seek a better neighborhood, influence school policies, ask for "individual development plans" for children with mild learning problems, or pay money for tutoring, SAT preparation, and private schools.

While no definitive answer may yet exist to the question of parents' motivation, the phenomenon of homeschooling shows that current pressures on schools have some of their roots in broadly-felt discontent with the status quo. More than any of the other educational "reforms" that have been developed in recent years – be they charter schools, for-profit schools, voucher programs, changes to teacher qualifications or standards/high-stakes testing – the rise of homeschooling shows a true, grass-roots desire for change in our educational system. Underlining this point, the rise of homeschooling is not limited to the United States, but is evident in many countries around the world, including Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and others (Beck, 2004; New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2004; Vynnycky, 2003; Taylor and Petrie, 2000).

How American education will be affected

Homeschooling exists at the flashpoint of current educational policy. As it continues to grow, it will press against other trends and reshape them. It will provide opposition to the movements for standardized testing and teacher qualifications; it will entangle choice and voucher programs in unanticipated controversy; and it will create multiple challenges for public and private schools. How government and the educational community react to the homeschooling phenomenon will decide the future of American education. There is no other policy variable that comes close to its potential importance.

One reason for its importance is the political strength of homeschooling organizations. Homeschooling families have shown great political clout at local, state, and national levels (Morgan, 2003; Stevens, 2001), and as their numbers grow so will their power. Because they are actively involved in educational and other issues (Collom and Mitchell, 2004), they can be powerful allies or opponents in political battles. Schools and teachers that want the freedom to teach without the constraints imposed by performance standards and high-stakes testing will find potential allies in homeschooling parents. Schools and teachers that want to maintain public funding for schools will find homeschooling parents among those who care most deeply about these issues.

A second reason for the importance of homeschooling on the policy front is the potential growth of schools and institutions that serve homeschoolers. Some of these may be created by homeschoolers themselves (Hill, 2000). However, most are businesses and organizations lured by the expanding homeschool market. Homeschool families typically spend around $300 to $500 on curricular materials each year (Walsh, 2002). Huerta and Gonzales (2004) have discussed how organizations that take advantage of charter laws can be reimbursed up to $3,000 to $5,000 per pupil, or as much as ten times what parents spend on their own (Borja, 2004). This opening could potentially create a market worth many billions of dollars. If organizations are able to obtain large-scale profits from the homeschool charter operational model (a current point of contention), this market has the potential to vastly expand through publicity, advertising, and pressure for legislative accommodations by increasingly wealthy educational providers.

In the face of these powerful political and economic forces enveloping the homeschooling movement, choices must be made by policymakers. The most important of these focus on how homeschoolers will be treated in terms of testing, teacher qualifications, charters, vouchers, and participation in public schools.

Testing and teacher qualifications are the easiest issues to predict. It would be politically infeasible to require homeschooled students to meet all the testing and teacher qualification requirements imposed on others. Currently, homeschoolers have simply been exempted (Home School Legal Defense Association, 2002), and these exemptions are bound to continue.

Allowing homeschoolers to take full advantage of charter and voucher opportunities is a more complex situation. This step could provide the impetus for a boom in the number of schools and students involved. Parents with no current interest in homeschooling could be drawn into this sector by advertising and incentives not available from schools with higher costs. This development would obviously be opposed by advocates for public schools. On the other hand, excluding homeschoolers from charter schools and voucher programs puts a limit on the dreams of those who envision them as a model for a new predominant model of schooling, and separates some of the parents with the strongest desire for individual schooling choice from the movement that claims to speak for them. Homeschooling participation in charters and voucher programs is likely to be a continuing battleground.

Public schools face the choice of accommodating homeschoolers or forcing them to meet their needs for school services, such as specialized courses and school activities, in other ways. While many people object to allowing homeschool students to take what they want from the schools while not participating fully in their overall life, forcing homeschoolers to make their way without assistance from public schools has obvious pitfalls. These include loss of political support for public schools, competition from alternative schools, and pressure to provide charter and voucher opportunities for homeschoolers. In their own best interest, public schools will have to learn to live with homeschoolers.

Within schools, homeschoolers will again be at a flashpoint for policy conflict on testing and standards, graduation requirements, accommodation of students with special needs, curriculum choices, and other issues.[4] Federal, state and local policy makers will all have a role to play. Key decisions will be made about defining homeschooling, specifying the types of exemptions from emerging policy that will be granted them, and setting funding levels for homeschoolers participating in various regular school programs. It promises to be an interesting future, with homeschooling a central part of it all.

Notes

[] Research has not yet shown the extent to which religion may play an important unspoken role in establishing homeschooling as a practice. It is likely, however, that the perception that religion is involved comes from the success of religious conservatives in creating highly visible advocacy organizations (Stevens, 2001).

[2] Homeschooling families do stand out in one respect. Homeschoolers are more likely than children in regular school to be in two-parent families with only one spouse working (Isenberg, 2002; Bauman, 2002). This is a large population, and despite assumptions, not declining. Moreover, there are many homeschooling families that do not fit this profile, and as resources for homeschoolers grow, they may come to be found in families of all types.

[3] Several possible motivations have been offered by Stevens (2001), including the role of homeschooling leaders and thinkers, the growth of networks of supportive homeschool families, the increasing societal emphasis on self-actualization as a goal for raising children, and the search for a meaningful role for women who might otherwise be, as some described it, "just a housewife." Each of these ideas has its merits. However, none of these puts enough emphasis on what homeschooling tells us about education itself.

[4] Some examples of additional policy issues are as follows: Funding provided to public schools for accommodating homeschoolers will largely determine whether local schools are willing and able to provide services. Definitional problems will abound. For example, schools in which they participate will be under pressure to define poorly performing students as homeschoolers, and high-achievers as regular

References

Apple, M. (2000). The cultural politics of home schooling." Peabody Journal of Education. 75(1&2), 256-271.

Bauman, K. (2002). Home schooling in the United States: Trends and characteristics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(26). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n26.html

Beck, C.W. (2002). Home schooling and future education in Norway. European Education, 34(2), 26-36.

Bielick, S., Chandler, K., and Broughman, S.P. (2001). Homeschooling in the United States: 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Borja, R.R. (2004, December 8). New player in online school market pursues profits. Education Week, Vol. 24, Issue 15, p. 8 .

Collom, E., and Mitchell, D.E. (Forthcoming). Home schooling as a social movement: Identifying the determinants of homeschoolers' perceptions." Sociological Spectrum.

Hill, P.T. (2000). Home schooling and the future of public education. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 20-31.

Home School Legal Defense Association. (2002). Federal prohibition of state assessments on homeschool students. Purcellville, VA: Home School Legal Defense Association.

Huerta, L.A., and Gonzalez. M.. (2004). Cyber and home school charter schools: How states are defining new forms of public schooling. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Isenberg, E. (2002). Home-Schooling: School choice and women's time use. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teacher's College, Columbia University.

Morgan, R. (2003). A growing force: In fight for federal student aid, home-school lobby has powerful friends. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(19), A19.

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2004). Homeschooling in 2003. Retrieved January 3, 2005 from: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=index&indexid=6852&indexparentid=5611

Princiotta, D., Bielick, S., and Chapman, C. (2004). 1.1 million homeschooled students in the United States in 2003. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Ray, B.D. (2000). Homeschooling teaching strategies. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Ray, B.D. (2002). Facts on home schooling. Salem, OR: National Home Education Research Institute.

Stevens, M.L. (2001). Kingdom of children: Culture and controversy in the home-schooling movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Taylor, L.A., and Petrie, A.J. (2000). Home education regulations in Europe and recent U.K. research. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 49-70.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. School enrollment: Historical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Vynnycky, C.M. (2003). Home-based and 'out-of-school' education for the compulsory years in Sweden: Signs of reform? Stockholm, Sweden: Institute of International Education, Stockholm University.

Walsh, M. (2002, June 5). Home school enrollment surge fuels 'cottage' industry. Education Week, Vol 21, Issue 39, p. 8.

Welner, K.M. (2000). Private endeavors, public vision: Homeschoolers who support public schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Welner, K.M. (2002). Exploring the democratic tensions within parents' decisions to homeschool. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Teachers College Record, Date Published: February 16, 2005

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 11756, Date Accessed: 7/12/2005 10:55:41 AM

Hollyce C. Giles, Brooklyn College City University of New York.

232 ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

http://learn.glo.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=1199

Drawing on the concept of a narrative, this article describes three basic patterns underlying the roles and relationships between parents and educators in urban schools: the deficit, in loco parentis, and relational narratives. The author offers evidence for the narratives from the research literature and from her interviews and participant observation as a counselor, consultant, and researcher in urban school reform initiatives. The article concludes by identifying repertoires that counselors can use to foster relationships between parents and educators that enhance the academic achievement and social and emotional development of students.

An an op-ed piece written in The New York Times, Anika Rahman, a New York lawyer of Bangladeshi origin, described her thoughts in the wake of anti- Arab sentiment in the days after the attacks on the World Trade Center, I am so used to thinking about myself as a New Yorker that it took me a few days to begin to see myself as a stranger might: a Muslim woman, an outsider, perhaps an enemy of the city. Before last week, I had thought of myself as a lawyer, a feminist, a sister, a friend, a woman on the street. Now I begin to see myself as a brown woman who bears a vague resemblance to the images of terrorists we see on television and in the newspapers. . . . I feel myself losing the power to define myself. . . . (Rahman, 2001, p. A27)

Here, in a time of crisis and intense anxiety in New York City, Ms. Rahman wrote of the power of other's expectations over her own thinking, especially about herself. The pervasive stereotypic images of Arabs in the media challenged her own sense of her identity and, ultimately, her very power to define herself. Images from the media, as well as social cues that she received during everyday interactions, framed expectations about her identity, her actions, and her thoughts.

In this article, I want to suggest that in the social arena of relations in urban school reform initiatives in economically poor and working-class communities, a process similar to what Rahman experienced occurs between professional educators and parents. Whereas Rahman's sense of identity was reframed by the events following 9/11, so too, I suggest, are parents' identities reframed when they enter the educational arena to try to help to improve their children's schools. That is, a similar process occurs for parents in which social cues bear down upon, and potentially reframe, parents' sense of who they are and what their role ought to be as parents. In many cases, they receive the message that they may be called upon to help their children, but only in a limited, predefined capacity. This capacity is not defined by the parents themselves, but rather is defined for them by educators. These expectations

for urban, inner-city parents about their behavior and where they fit into the school picture are transmitted via social narratives and roles. The cues for

these roles may be subtle or direct, but their cumulative effect conveys powerful expectations to parents that potentially undercut their very notions about who they are, their capacity for imagining better schools for their children, and, hence, their ability to effectively transform those schools. The purpose of this article is to offer school counselors and other educators a conceptual framework for discerning the nature and quality of their relationships with parents in urban schools. To describe basic patterns of roles and relationships between educators and parents, the thrust of the article will be to outline three "narratives" of parent-educator relationships: the deficit narrative, the in loco parentis narrative, and the relational narrative. The first two narratives offer more limiting and passive roles for parents, whereas the third narrative, the relational narrative, contains more active, dynamic roles for them. Evidence for all three narratives comes from both the research literature and my participant observation as a counselor, consultant, and researcher in several urban school reform initiatives.

Three Narratives of Parent- Educator Relationships:Toward

Counselor Repertoires for Bridging the Urban Parent-School Divide

After discussing the three parent-educator narratives, the article will identify

repertoires, or sets of practices, that counselors can develop to change the narrative of relationships between parents and educators in their school, to a narrative that better supports the academic achievement and personal development of all of their students.

I also use the narratives as a lens through which to examine recent recommendations for school counselor approaches to use to develop relationships between parents and schools (Bemak & Cornely, 2002), and the parents' role in the conceptual framework of the Transforming School Counseling Initiative (Education Trust, 2003). My aim is that by drawing upon these narratives, counselors can determine the extent to which they and other educators may be participating in narratives of relationships with parents that limit and hence undermine theirs and the parents' contribution to the education of the children or youth in their school.

THREE NARRATIVES OF PARENTEDUCATOR RELATIONSHIPS: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A substantial body of research documents the contribution of strong, trusting relationships between professional educators and parents to the success of initiatives to improve urban schools and increase student achievement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002;

Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Studies also show that differences in race and social class between parents and educators, and the differential power of their institutional roles, pose significant barriers to developing such relationships (Abrams & Gibbs, 2002; Giles, 2002; Gold, Rhodes, Brown, Lytle, & Waff, 2001; Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2002; Lawson, 2003; Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, 2001). A recent group of studies, however, has found that although race, class, and power differences between parents and educators clearly have a strong impact on relationships, the local culture created by educators and parents in a school can minimize the potentially negative impact of these differences. By working to transform the traditional, bureaucratic culture typically found in urban schools into a more relational culture, educators and parents in several reform initiatives, often in collaboration with community organizing groups, have developed close and fruitful relationships with each other, across differences of race and social class (Gold, Simon, & Brown, 2002; Lewis & Forman, 2002; Shirley, 1997).

To identify and explore these different cultures and patterns of relationships between parents and educators, the work of scholars recently has converged upon the concept of roles. In describing a social process similar to that reflected in Rahman's (2001) experience after 9/11, researchers note that parents' perception of the appropriate role for them in a particular school appears to be a function of the way the school treats them. Roles, defined as the expectations that groups have for the behavior of particular members (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997), are informal and often implicit, evolve over time in the context of an organization, and influence individuals' ideas about how they should act and the nature of their relationships with people in other roles (Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, 2001). In their observations of the daily life of urban schools, scholars have identified a variety of roles, or sets of expectations,

that have emerged for parents—for example, client, consumer, collaborator (Gold et al., 2001; Lewis & Forman, 2002), comrades in struggle (Lewis & Forman), welfare parent, parent-in-recovery, bureaucrat, citizen (Giles, 2001), monitor, helper, advocate, decision-maker (Abrams & Gibbs, 2002), supporter, and fund-raiser (Smrekar &

Cohen-Vogel). Each is shaped through a gradual social process in one's everyday interactions with educators in schools.

In this article, I will expand upon the concept of roles and invoke the concept of narrative to describe different logics of relationships between parents and educators in urban schools. A narrative has the advantage of pointing to distinctive ways of "ordering experience," or "of constructing reality" (Bruner, 1986, p. 11), which underlie particular parent- school relationships, as opposed to simply identifying clusters of roles. In Kathleen Casey's (1995) review of narrative research in education, she identified one strand of narratives as falling within what Gramsci (1980) called the "collective subjective," in which "a distinctive definition of the self and its relationship to others is generated" (Casey, p. 222). In this article, excerpts from individual narratives by parents and educators, along with data from observations of schools, will be offered as evidence for three larger "meta-narratives," or collective subjectives, describing patterns of relationships between parents and educators in schools. As such, the larger narrative here is considered to be a basic story or plot that captures the essential logic underlying actors' ways of acting and interacting in a system or organization. Although the culture of a school typically is characterized by one dominant narrative between parents and educators, pockets of "counternarratives" or alternative narratives may be reflected in the language and behavior of some teachers and parents at the school.

A substantial body of research documents the contribution of strong, trusting relationships between professional educators and parents to the success of initiatives to improve urban schools and increase student achievement. The names of individuals and locations in my consulting and research are pseudonyms to preserve the anonymity of participants. In the following sections, the three narratives— deficit, in loco parentis, and relational—will be described, with examples of each from the research

literature and from my own work as a counselor, consultant, and researcher in urban schools involved in reform initiatives.

THE DEFICIT NARRATIVE

In this narrative, educators consider working-class and low-income parents to be deprived, deviant, or "at-risk" and have low expectations for their involvement in their children's education (Laosa, 1983; Lawson, 2003; Swadener, 1995). School professionals hold low expectations for educational achievement or personal growth and development for students and for their parents. Educators view the perceived

pathologies and problems of families as undermining their ability as educators to successfully teach their children.

Historical evidence of a deficit narrative goes back to the origins of the role of the school counselor. William Cutler (2000) wrote, "Between 1905 and 1930, visiting teachers, vocational counselors, and school nurses joined the professional team. It was up to them to save the American family, by dispelling maternal ignorance about the nature of childhood and the principles of homemaking" (p. 9). Cutler added that many of those teachers and mental health professionals "disdained the people they professed to be helping, failing to distinguish between the real and imagined deficiencies of African-American, immigrant, and working-class parents and children" (p. 10).

Abundant evidence can be found for a deficit narrative in contemporary educational contexts. Describing their conversations with the principal and other school staff as they prepared to set up interviews with parents in an elementary school in northern California, Smrekar and Cohen-Vogel (2001) wrote, These officials suggested that most of the parents in the school were lazy, irresponsible, and apathetic when it came to school involvement and that these attitudes were inextricably linked to the low performance of their children. . . . School officials warned that it was unsafe and unwise to enter the school neighborhood and conduct interviews at parents' homes. Teachers warned that we would be lucky to get one third of the initially contacted parents to participate. (p. 85) The authors went on to note that, contrary to the expectations of the school staff, all but one of the 15 parents they contacted were willing to participate in their interviews, and that parents "welcomed [them] warmly and politely into all the homes" and most "responded that, if asked, they would find ways to increase their involvement at home and at school" (Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, p. 85). One example of the deficit narrative that surfaces over and over again in educators' descriptions of their efforts to engage parents can be found in variations of the "we even offered them food and they didn't come" script. In Lawson's (2003) ethnographic study of teachers' and parents' perceptions of parent involvement, he described a representative example of this script in one of his interviews with a teacher. The teacher said, Unfortunately, we're frustrated because we're not seeing parents making that commitment. And, I think it's gotten to the point where the staff feels that we're bribing the parents to come in. "We're serving dinner." "If we serve food, they'll come." "If we give out prizes, then they'll come." (Lawson, p. 110) Lawson observed that teachers view these "bribery tactics as a signal of parental deficits" (p. 110). Referring to such "bribery tactics," another teacher in the same study concluded, "It's the only way that we can get them in here to show them what's good for them" (p. 120). Lawson's analysis of these and other teacher narratives in his study led him to conclude that in that school, teachers' theory of action (a concept similar to that of "narrative" as defined in this article) for parental change was "based on defining and then reluctantly meeting the needs of parents" (p. 121).

Another example of a deficit-based role became evident during a training activity for a community initiative to reform several urban schools in lowincome neighborhoods. A Latino father, José, told me of his experience when he approached the principal of his daughter's school. In an angry, indignant tone, José told me, I went to the principal to tell her that a group of us parents wanted to talk with her about some ideas about how to make the school better. She told me, "Look, I'll give you letters for welfare." I couldn't believe it! I told her that I had a job, I wasn't there for a handout. The principal projected an image of these parents, who perceived themselves as potential allies in improving the school, as dependent, needy, and trying to "work the system" to meet their welfare requirements. I labeled this role the welfare parent. Other roles identified in the research literature that may be located within the deficit narrative are those

In schools with families from mixed social classes, middle-class parents often contribute to strengthening the deficit narrative, reinforcing perceptions of working-class and poor parents as deficient. of parent-in-recovery (Giles, 2001) and client (Gold et al., 2001; Lewis & Forman, 2002). In schools with families from mixed social classes, middle-class parents often contribute to strengthening the deficit narrative, reinforcing perceptions of working-class and poor parents as deficient. Abrams and Gibbs (2002) gave an example of this dynamic in the narrative they shared from a white, middleclass

parent who was talking about parents' roles in the parent-teacher association (PTA) at school, If none of the White parents showed up, there just wouldn't be any fundraising, there would be no activities, there would be nothing. You can call it cultural, but I think for the most part White parents are fairly middle- to uppermiddle- class. They're used to being disciplined, being on time, sticking to the subject, and getting tasks done. I don't think that this is shared across cultures. (p. 398) This parent relied on a description of parents from other social classes as being deficient in the skills needed to run a productive meeting to explain the dominance of White, middle-class parents in the

PTA. As such, the deficit-based language and behaviors of middle-class educators and middle-class parents toward working-class and poor parents of children in a school can entrench the deficit narrative ever more firmly in the school's culture. While in this example the dominant parents are White, the dynamic also occurs with parents from a variety of social identity groups (e.g., different races, ages, and immigration statuses) identifying some "other" group of parents as deficient by comparison to themselves (R. Domanico, personal communication, February 2004).

THE IN LOCO PARENTIS NARRATIVE

The literal translation of the Latin phrase in loco parentis is "in the place of a parent," and it came into use in the United States in the late 1800s in court cases debating educators' right to discipline students in the place, or absence, of their parents. In American courts, the concept of educators assuming parents' rights and responsibilities toward their children has expanded to include questions of search and seizure and reasonable rules the school can set for students, such as whether they can eat lunch offcampus or their appropriate hair length (Zirkel & Reichner, 1986). In a related but broader sense, and in the meaning drawn upon in this article, in loco parentis refers to educators' beliefs and practices that assume that it is their responsibility to provide an academic, and often social and emotional, education in the place of students' parents, that is, with very limited or no participation by parents. This narrative shares the assumption of the deficit narrative that working-class and poor parents generally are not capable of contributing in significant positive ways to their children's education and development. However, the in loco parentis narrative differs from the deficit narrative in that it assumes that educators will be able to compensate for parents' deficits themselves, to help students achieve to high levels. Lewis and Forman (2002) captured the essence of this narrative in their observation, "Many urban schools have taken the posture of educating students in spite of their families, rather than in concert with them" (p. 82). Another way of characterizing the in loco parentis narrative is that educators have high expectations for students, but limited or low expectations for their parents.

Approaches to working with parents generated from this narrative tend to assume that educators are "the providers of knowledge and opportunity, and parents [are] the ‘receivers,'" and parents tend to feel "even in the context of parent-attracting policies and gimmicks, that their input and participation is not valued" (Smrekar & Cohen-Vogel, 2001, p. 97). Though parents may be called upon to play various roles that involve them in their children's education, such as those of supporter, fund-raiser, and helper, their help is sought for the priorities and issues identified and shaped by educators. Parents also may be called to play the role of consumer in this narrative,

with schools working to keep them "happy and at a distance" (Lewis & Forman, 2002, p. 82). Evidence of this narrative can be found in several recent reform initiatives, which exhort counselors and other educators to raise their expectations for the potential of their working-class and low-income students, and to work to narrow the achievement

gap among students of different classes and races, yet they do not articulate a significant role for parents in accomplishing these objectives. For example, in the description of the "scope of work" for counselors in the Transforming School Counseling

Initiative, parents are not mentioned in the "Leadership," "Advocacy," or "Teaming and

Collaboration" areas of work but are identified as recipients of resources under the "Counseling and Coordination" area (Education Trust, 2003). Though the role of parents may be evolving given the newness of the initiative, it would appear from the written materials that the narrative of relationships between parents and educators currently guiding the initiative is in loco parentis. Another example of in loco parentis can be found in the training for educators offered by several school districts around the country based on a book intended to help middle-class educators effectively teach economically poor children. Payne (1998) wrote that given that poverty is directly related to existing social relationships, those who want to escape it must sacrifice poverty-culture relationships, at least for awhile. This recommendation might be understood to mean that in order to develop middle- class values, and ways of thinking and acting, students must distance themselves from their families and communities. This kind of thinking about relationships between educators and parents suggests

an in loco parentis narrative. The danger of such thinking lies in the damage that it risks inflicting on students' relationships with their families and communities, as well as in further alienating parents from the process of educating their children.

An entirely different kind of dynamic occurs in contexts where educators and parents trust and respect each other and have similar values and similar cultures. In this kind of context, the teacher acting in the place of the parent is likely to contribute

positively to students' development and academic achievement. Immigrant parents from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean islands often tell of a more fluid relationship between home and school in which they expect the teacher to act in their place. A Mexican mother interviewed in Smrekar and Cohen-Vogel's (2001) study observed, I believe that school is better in Mexico. . . . In Mexico if the kids don't do their homework, the teachers can punish them, so the kids won't be disrespectful. . . . There the teachers are like parents and they can discipline the kids, because it's for their own good. The teacher is like the second parent. School is where their behavior is formed apart from the home. (pp. 89–90)

African-Americans who attended segregated schools in the South before Brown v. Board of Education described a similar dynamic (hooks, 1994). Unfortunately, educators in most urban schools do not have this kind of relationship of trust and respect with the parents in their community, and an in loco parentis narrative risks further alienating and distancing parents from the school and from their children.

THE RELATIONAL NARRATIVE

In the third narrative, the relational narrative, educators work with parents, rather than for them. The Iron Rule, a principle espoused by a community organizing group involved in urban school reform, exemplifies this narrative: Never do for another person

what he can do for himself (Cortes, 1996). Educators expect parents to bring knowledge and strengths to improving the school, and parents expect educators to do the same. They hold each other mutually responsible for their parts in educating students. They build strong, trusting relationships, often across differences of race and class, and together identify and address issues that interfere with the education of students in their school. In Lewis and Forman's (2002) study, they described an elementary school, Metro, in which a relational narrative appeared to guide interactions

between middle-class educators and low-income parents. A description of the parent conferences at the school gives a sense of the expectations for relationships between parents and educators: Parent conferences were not viewed as a time for teachers to report to parents about a child's academic progress, but as a way for the important adults in a child's life to share not only academic information, but also social and emotional information. Expert status was understood not as the sole purview of school

staff but as something shared with and encouraged in parents. (Lewis & Forman, pp. 77–78)

The authors went on to note: Parents were rarely called upon to be fundraisers,

bakers, or room moms. Instead, they were involved as members of a community, as

educational collaborators with important information about their children, and as comrades in struggles related to keeping the school functioning. (p. 78)

Parents' role as "comrades in struggles" with educators, taking action together to address the many issues that typically face urban schools in lowincome neighborhoods, is a central component of the relational narrative. Lewis and Forman (2002) concluded that Metro was able to develop these kinds of relationships because of the culture established by the school's principal and teachers, characterized by "no closed doors" of classrooms or offices to other educators or to parents, an openness of conflict, a valuing of the ideas and abilities of people in every role in the school, and frequent spaces for conversations among and between educators and parents, for example a weekly parent breakfast to solicit community input on different issues. Another

important finding of this study, noted by other studies as well, is that educators are more likely to develop open, collaborative relationships with parents if they themselves feel respected and powerful in their school context (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).

A narrative that envisions middle-class educators and working-class and low-income parents as partners in struggles to improve schools represents a major shift in the roles and relationships typical in urban schools (Lopez, 2003). A key moment or

"tipping point" of change in one school's narrative of parent-educator relationships illustrates one way that such change may come about. The story emerged in my interviews with the principal and assistant principal of an elementary school in a working- class, low-income community in a city in the Southwest about their efforts to improve the quality of education in the school (Giles, 2001). They told the story of how a group of parents in their school, with the coaching of the education coordinator of a local community organizing group, had persuaded the school district to get rid of an infestation of rats in the school in a period of 2 weeks, something that the administrators had tried to do without success for several years. The assistant principal described sharing the news of the parents' victory with teachers, The teachers weren't involved [in the effort to get rid of the rats], and the teachers wondered, "What's going on? Why are all these parents here so early? Are we in trouble? What did we do? Oh my gosh, it's a riot." And the next day at the faculty meeting, we told them and we shared the story with them, and they were clapping and they got all excited. It was

an example of these parents advocating for their kids, maybe not in the traditional educational way that we expect, but they are. (Giles, p. 142)

The administrators were intentional about communicating to the teachers that the parents could be powerful allies. As the assistant principal explained, These are the examples that we bring to the teachers. Making sure that the teachers know that these things are happening because they need to understand that these parents have a lot of power. And that we need to be working with them and inviting them in, in order that they can help us because there are things that we cannot do. (Giles, p. 142)

In this example of cultural change, the administrators presented images to teachers of parents as people who can be trusted and who have power that they can use to improve the school. The administrators had begun to create a culture that was open enough that they would let the parents know that there were rats in the school in the first place. In marked contrast, the norm in many struggling urban schools is to withhold negative information about the school from parents (Mediratta, Fruchter, &

Lewis, 2002).

Here, it is important to emphasize that any narrative of relationships between parents and educators emerges out of the particular power dynamics of a school. Given that the usual power arrangements in urban public schools exclude parents from knowledge about the school's functioning, and from agenda- setting and important decision-making, a first step in creating more collaborative relationships between educators and parents often has involved community groups joining with parents and community residents, and in some cases educators, to pressure schools to be more responsive to parents' concerns and priorities (Lopez, 2003). It is in this context of power relations that school counselors make decisions about the norms of relationships

among educators, parents, and community members that they will work to create.

TOWARD COUNSELOR REPERTOIRES FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EDUCATORS AND PARENTS

As tools for counselors and other educators to use to change the narratives of relationships in schools, this section describes repertoires, or sets of practices, they can draw upon to build more fruitful relationships among the adults in the school community. As noted earlier, the three narratives outlined in this article are intended as a lens through which counselors can look to discern the nature and quality of the relationships between parents and educators at their schools. However, before looking outward, at the school, it is critical for a counselor to begin by looking inward to consider which narrative is most prominent in his or her thinking about relationships with parents. Once counselors have some clarity about their own internal narratives, they can listen to the language and observe the relationships of educators and parents in their everyday interactions at the school to discern which narrative seems to be predominant.

Counselors can consider the following questions: What language do the principal and teachers use when they talk about parents? Does their language reflect high or low expectations? What kinds of implicit and explicit cues do educators give to parents

about their "proper" role in the school? Do they expect parents to be passive recipients of knowledge from them, as the experts? Or, do they expect parents to help to define the school's priorities and issues it needs to address to improve? What kinds of relationships do teachers have with each other? Are their classrooms open to each other? Are their classrooms open to parents? Are there times and places for conversations among teachers about their hopes and concerns for the school? Once counselors have a sense for the narrative of relationships that is most evident at their school, and

A narrative that envisions middleclass educators and working-class and low-income parents as partners in struggles to improve schools represents a major shift in the roles and relationships typical in urban schools. for the narrative driving their own relations with parents, they can decide whether and how they want to try to work toward changing the dominant narrative to a narrative that is more conducive to improving students' education. Changing a narrative takes time, persistence, and the collaboration of many people inside and outside of the school. However, counselors, by virtue of their role as liaison among parents, the community, and the school, and their training in listening skills and group and organizational dynamics, are in an excellent position to offer leadership in initiating such systemic change and to play the role of "midwife" to deepen and sustain it. One of the most basic and important steps to take toward creating a relational narrative is to develop space where parents and educators can share their hopes and concerns with each other about the school and identify issues that they would like to take action on together. These can be individual conversations that the counselor has with parents, or small groups of parents or educators, facilitated by the counselor or others identified as educational leaders in the school. In facilitating such conversations, it is important for the counselor to shed the role of expert, and simply be a good listener, as well as to share his or her own hopes and concerns for the school. Through these conversations, the counselor and others working with him or her can discover leaders among parents and other educators who can join as "comrades in struggles" to improve the school.

The counselor also can develop a collaborative relationship with a community organization that has strong ties to parents and others in the neighborhood, which will help him or her to reach out and initiate conversations and relationships with parents, and to build their capacity to take action to improve their children's education. Given counselors' large caseloads and multiple responsibilities, a community organization with knowledge of how to engage parents and train them in leadership skills can be a

crucial partner. Counselors can learn whether there is such a group in their community by contacting the Cross Cities Campaign for Urban School Reform at http://www.crosscity.org or the Institute for Education and Social Policy at http://www.nyu. edu/iesp.

To develop a deeper understanding of how other schools have developed a more relational culture between educators and parents of different social classes, counselors can read stories of reform initiatives in other urban schools. Good sources include books and reports by Gold et al. (2002), Hirota and Jacobs (2003), Mediratta et al. (2002), and Shirley (1997). In the school counseling literature, Bemak and Cornely (2002) recently proposed a model for ways that counselors can develop links between families and schools. Several of the authors' proposals reflect a relational narrative, particularly the recommendations for building bridges between schools and families

"so that education becomes a two-way street" (p. 325), "creating environments that welcome families," and "encouraging family advocacy programs" (p. 327). However, some of the language in their recommendations, including using the term "marginalized

families" to describe families whom they perceive to be "difficult to reach," suggests a lingering deficit narrative in their thinking. Though the authors noted that they did not intend to use the term pejoratively, the term highlights the deficits of some families, as compared to other families whom they labeled as "integrated families," those who

"feel comfortable at schools, and regularly participate in PTA and booster club activities" (Bemak & Cornely, p. 323). Affixing such labels to differentiate groups of parents, even if it they are only used "in-house," masks the strengths and potential contributions of some families and risks marginalizing them further.

It is important to note that working toward a more relational narrative in a school involves altering the dynamics of power among the adults in the school community and, therefore, is likely to encounter some resistance (Gold et al., 2001). As such, it will be important for the counselor to develop relationships with powerful allies inside and outside the school. The most important ally inside the school is likely to be the principal, as the person with the most formal power, though having the support of other educators and parents who are formal and informal leaders in the school is also essential.

Outside the school, a community group with experience in school reform can be a critical ally in creating strategies for overcoming educators' resistance to more collaborative relationships (Gold et al.). The likelihood that some parents will not have the time or the desire to collaborate with other parents and educators to improve their children's education should not deter a relational approach with other parents; a school with even 10% of its parents engaged as leaders is of great value in enhancing the

quality of education.

It will be important for the counselor to locate and coordinate training for educators and parents to take on their new roles in a relational narrative. As observed by Gold et al. (2001) regarding the Children Achieving reform initiative in Philadelphia,

part of the reason the reform did not succeed as fully as was hoped is that the district did not offer the professional development that "school principals and teachers needed to work collaboratively with parents and community members, including how to work through the inevitable tensions and conflict of changing roles and expectations" (p. 47). Outside the school, a community group with experience in school reform can be a critical ally in creating strategies for overcoming educators' resistance to more collaborative relationships.

CONCLUSION

The three narratives of parent-educator relationships described in this article—deficit, in loco parentis, and relational—offer a framework that can be used to observe and reflect upon the nature and quality of relationships between parents and educators in urban schools. Two of the narratives, deficit and in loco parentis, place parents in more limited and passive roles, whereas the relational narrative offers opportunities for both parents and educators to take on more active roles in which they can bring their knowledge and strengths to improving students' academic achievement and social and emotional development. Finally, the article identifies repertoires, or sets of practices, that counselors can use to "midwife" relationships among the adults in the school community that are more likely to bear fruit in students' intellectual and social lives. The repertoires needed for counselors and other educators to develop a relational narrative in their school require significant energy and commitment. However, it is helpful to keep in mind that change occurs gradually, and that the process of developing closer relationships among and between parents and educators who have been isolated and distant from each other can be a deeply gratifying, poignant experience that ultimately will benefit the children and youth in their care.

References

Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J.T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of homeschool relations: Parent involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Education, 37(3), 384–407.

Bemak, F., & Cornely, L. (2002).The SAFI model as a critical link between marginalized families and schools: A literature review and strategies for school counselors. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 80(3), 322–331.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Casey, K. (1995).The new narrative research in education. In M.Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education, 21 (pp. 211–253).Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association.

Cortes, E. (1996). Organizing communities and constituencies for change. In S. L. Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early care and education: A vision for a quality system (pp. 247–266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cutler,W. (2000). Parents and schools: The 150-year struggle for control in American education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Education Trust. (2003). Scope of work: Transforming School Counseling Initiative. Retrieved January 5, 2004, from http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/Transforming+

School+Counseling/

Giles, H. C. (1998). ERIC Digest: Parent engagement as a school reform strategy. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.

Giles, H. C. (2001). A word in hand: The scripted labeling of parents by schools. In G. M. Hudak & P. Kihn (Eds.), Labeling: Politics & pedagogy (pp. 130–159). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Giles, H. C. (2002).Transforming the deficit narrative: Race, class, and social capital in parent-school relations. In C. Korn & A. Bursztyn (Eds.), Rethinking multicultural education (pp. 127–146).Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Gold, E., Rhodes, A., Brown, S., Lytle, S., & Waff,D. (2001). Clients, consumers, or collaborators? Parents and their roles in school reform during Children Achieving, 1995-2000. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Gold, E., Simon, E., & Brown, C. (2002). Strong neighborhoods, strong schools: The indicators project on education organizing. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform & Research for Action.

Gramsci, A. (1980). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.

Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.Austin,TX: Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory.

Hirota, J. M., & Jacobs, L. E. (2003). Vital voices: Building constituencies for public school reform. New York: Academy for Educational Development and Chapin Hall Center for Children.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler, H.M. (1997).Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.

Horvat, E.M.,Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. L. (2002). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American

Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351.

Laosa, L. M. (1983). Parent education, cultural pluralism, and public policy: The uncertain connection. In R. Haskins & D. Adams (Eds.), Parent education and public policy (pp. 331–345). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77–133.

Lewis, A. E., & Forman,T. A. (2002). Contestation or collaboration? A comparative study of home-school relations. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 60–89.

Lopez, M. E. (2003). Transforming schools through community organizing: A research review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved May 9, 2004, from

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/research/lopez.html

Mediratta, K., Fruchter, N., & Lewis, A. C. (2002).Organizing for school reform: How communities are finding their voices and reclaiming their public schools. New York: New York University, Institute for Education and Social Policy.

Payne, R. (1998). Framework for understanding poverty. Highlands,TX: Aha! Press.

Rahman, A. (2001, September 19). Fear in the open city. The New York Times, p. A27.

Shirley,D. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform.Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2001).The voices of parents: Rethinking the intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75–100.

Swadener, B. B. (1995). Children and families "at promise": Deconstructing the discourse of risk. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Zirkel, P., & Reichner, H. F. (1986). Is the in loco parentis doctrine dead? Journal of Law and Education, 15(3), 271–283.

8:3 FEBRUARY 2005 | ASCA 235

April 6, 2006

Most American high schools phased out vocational education years ago, motivated by complaints that it was used as a tool to "track" African American and Latino students into low-paying careers.

But the idea of combining traditional academics with career training is making a comeback, and a poll released Wednesday suggests that it is popular among one particularly important group: struggling high school students.

The poll of California 9th- and 10th-graders, conducted for the James Irvine Foundation, found that six in 10 students didn't particularly like school and weren't motivated to succeed. But of those disaffected students, more than 90% said they would be more motivated if their school offered classes relevant to their future careers.

The poll was conducted to coincide with the launch of an Irvine Foundation center dedicated to encouraging the growth of career-oriented education in California. The foundation is spending $6 million on a new San Francisco-based center called ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career.

"Whether you're talking about dropout rates or the number of youth unprepared for college and career, the basic point is the same: High schools simply are not working for too many of California's young people," said Jim Canales, president and chief executive officer of the Irvine Foundation, a nonprofit founded by Orange County land baron James Irvine. "We need to promote programs of study that blend academic rigor and real-world learning if we hope to inspire more of our youth to stay and succeed in school."

Vocational education, a staple in American high schools for much of the 20th century, was widely discredited in the 1970s and '80s as a tool that, wittingly or not, perpetuated class divisions. Even as interest has increased recently in bringing back work-oriented classes, educators shun the term "vocational," instead referring to "career and technical education" or "multiple pathways to success."

By whatever name, the point is the same: To find material that catches the interest of at-risk students, keeps them motivated and stops them from dropping out. And any talk of career education now also comes with the assurance that it will be academically rigorous, leading students to some kind of postsecondary education.

"We want to help all students get to the same destination, and that is graduating from high school prepared and inspired to go on to both college and career — not one or the other," Gary Hoechlander, president of ConnectEd, said in a telephone news conference. "But we believe that we need to recognize that different students will reach that destination in different ways."

Hoechlander said ConnectEd would promote high school programs that "connect academics to challenging technical courses in such fields as business and finance, biomedical and health sciences, building and environmental design, engineering, advanced manufacturing, law and government, transportation, hospitality and tourism."

He insisted that the programs would not conflict with the state's push toward a more rigorous academic curriculum.

But Chris Walker, a lobbyist for several blue-collar trade groups in Sacramento, predicted that ConnectEd would confront barriers from the University of California and the California State University systems, which are loath to accept some vocational courses as college prep material. Increasingly, California school districts are adopting the entry requirements of the university systems as high school graduation requirements.

"More and more, this college pathway is edging career tech out," Walker said.

The poll commissioned by Irvine, which was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates among a representative sample of California high school students, found that only 39% of students said they liked going to school and that their school "does a good job of motivating me to work hard and do my best."

The remaining 61% who disagreed with that statement were selected for more in-depth interviews. Of those students, 88% said they probably would enroll in a career-oriented school if they had the chance.

There was virtually no difference among racial or ethnic groups, but in a departure from stereotype, girls were more likely than boys to say that they would benefit from hands-on learning.

The in-depth portion of the poll was conducted among 619 9th- and 10th-graders throughout California, and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points

Education Vital Signs : U.S. Schools in Facts and Figures 2006

American School Board Journal

http://www.asbj.com/current/research.html

Habla Español? Parlez-vous Français?

Habla Español? Parlez-vous Français?

By far, Spanish and French top the list of foreign languages taught in K-12 schools, followed by German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian. Only a few schools teach Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, Hindi, and other languages the federal government recently labeled "critical" for national defense and economic security. The U.S. Department of State says "deficits in foreign language learning and teaching" hamper security, diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, and cultural understanding. And the Committee for Economic Development, a policy group of business leaders and university presidents, warns that "strong foreign language programs at the elementary, high school, and college levels" are necessary to maintain competitiveness in global markets.

Money talks -- and might change the sound of foreign languages in your schools. At press time, the House Appropriations Committee was recommending $21.78 million in its pending appropriations bill to support competitive grants to school districts and states to increase foreign language instruction. This funding -- the same as the 2006 level -- is part of a recommended $105.8 million total for foreign language initiatives.

There's been talk of an additional fund for Chinese-language programs in public schools, but Capitol Hill watchers say that possibility seems remote in this budget cycle.

Pushed to the margins. Some school officials are worried about saving the foreign language programs they have now, much less having to add new programs.

In Indiana, for instance, several school leaders balked at the state's recent proposal to offer foreign languages in every middle school. Some told The Indianapolis Star they struggle as it is "to find enough Spanish teachers and the money to pay them."

Others say scheduling is their biggest problem. "I've squeezed Spanish into 12-week blocks in grades 6-8," a New York principal told me. "It's the only way I could fit in New York state's requirement for two years of foreign language by the end of ninth grade."

Another principal confided to me that she's cut back foreign language instruction to make time for more practice tests in reading and math. The National Association of State Boards of Education probably wouldn't be surprised to hear these comments. Facing pressure from NCLB and state tests, NASBE reports, many schools are "pushing foreign language to the margins."

Hit or miss

The United States lags behind many countries in making foreign language compulsory, says Ingrid Pufahl of the Center for Applied Linguistics. Some countries, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Netherlands, require that students study two foreign languages. Here, however, only Florida, Texas, and a handful of other states require any foreign language at all for high school graduation, according to the Council of Chief State School Officers. Some states require only college-bound students to study another language. But most states defer to local districts, giving them the option to require foreign language courses, make them optional, or leave them out.

These inconsistent requirements contribute to uneven and unequal access, gaps that are reflected in income and race. Only 25 percent of students in low-income and low-performing urban schools study a foreign language, compared to 65 percent of students in wealthy and private suburban schools, reports Myrian Met of the University of Maryland's National Foreign Language Center. And even in suburban schools, foreign language study can be hit or miss. Maryland's Montgomery County offers a "rich linguistic feast" of foreign languages to more than 44,000 students, says Washington Post education writer Jay Mathews. But language offerings "ebb and flow" according to supply and demand. For instance, Gaithersburg High School, also in suburban Maryland, offers just one Arabic class, and that, Mathews says, is "happenstance." When the school's only Arabic language teacher left last year, a special education teacher, an Israeli Arab who is a U.S. citizen, agreed to teach one early- morning class to 12 students. A senior in the class says his greatest difficulty is "the depth of the language," referring to Arabic's complex semantic structure. He worries that one year won't be enough to master the vocabulary and become a fluent speaker. He's right. Everette Jordan, a linguist with the Department of Defense, told a 2002 National Press Club briefing that it takes seven to nine years of intensive instruction -- four years in high school and college and three to five years of additional training -- to become adept at translation, conversation, interpretation, and negotiation in any foreign language. It takes even longer to produce experts in intelligence, defense, and international business who can "read between the lines" and discern language complexities such as irony, allusion, intention, and subtle threats, he said.

The cultural divide

Of course, learning a foreign language well involves more than memorizing words. Students cannot master a language, say Elizabeth Peterson and Bronwyn Coltrane of the Center for Applied Linguistics, until they've "mastered the cultural contexts in which the language occurs."

As the Massachusetts framework for foreign languages puts it, "Language learning is never just about words." And for that reason, the National Standards in Foreign Language, developed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages and other agencies, includes culture -- along with communication, connections, comparisons, and communities -- as a core curriculum component. But some teachers overlook opportunities to infuse culture into daily lessons. A lesson published by Georgetown University's National Capital Language Resource Center is designed to teach 4- to 7-year-olds new vocabulary using real or plastic fruit and laminated cards depicting apples, bananas, oranges, grapes, and peaches. But the lesson doesn't introduce the children to fruits such as apricots and figs, staples in many Arabic-speaking countries. And it veers off course when the teacher turns it into a competition, awarding a prize to the child with the most cards. Such lessons suggest it's time to rethink how U.S. schools teach foreign languages and cultures -- especially in light of a recent study by the National Geographic Education Foundation.

Half of U.S. 18- to 24-year-olds have dangerously low cultural understandings of world populations and world events, NGEF concluded. The study found that too many young Americans "are unprepared for an increasingly global future":

• 63 percent could not locate Iraq on a map, and 50 percent could not find New York.

• 60 percent do not speak a foreign language with fluency.

• 20 percent think Sudan is in Asia instead of Africa.

• 48 percent believe most people in India are Muslim instead of Hindu.

• 50 percent think it is "important but not absolutely necessary" to know where countries are located.

• 47 percent think it is "important but not absolutely necessary" to speak a foreign language, and 38 percent say it is "not too important."

Language for life

Language-learning is "long-term, serious, and difficult," says David Edwards, executive director of the Joint National Committee for Languages, who recently proposed beginning a "foreign language pipeline" in the elementary grades and continuing it through college. Starting foreign languages early is a good idea, according to the American Educational Research Association, because young children tend to speak new languages more fluently and often have better pronunciation than older students.

But an "earlier is better approach" doesn't guarantee spectacular results, AERA cautions in the Spring 2006 issue of Research Points -- Essential Information for Education Policy -- especially if programs do little more than teach kids how to pronounce piñata or sing a few rounds of "Frere Jacques."

It's more important to make language-learning "age-appropriate" than to begin with 5-year-olds, AERA researchers say. For young students, full-immersion programs that integrate language learning into other subjects work best for achieving mastery. For older students, lessons should emphasize explicit rules and grammar, plus conversations with classmates and native speakers that convey meaning and fully formed ideas. Mastering one foreign language makes it easier and faster to learn a second or even a third, says Myriam Met, of the University of Maryland's National Foreign Language Center. Met recommends "cross-training" students -- teaching similarities and differences between Arabic and Spanish, for instance -- so they'll be prepared to meet "unforeseen, acute needs for other languages as they arise."

Cross-training could be the best way to teach foreign languages, given the rapid pace of world affairs. As the Department of State's John Campbell once noted, "A year ago the Foreign Service needed Albanian speakers desperately; now they need Pashtun speakers."

From classroom to world stage

Some years ago I attended a Pentagon briefing where military officials showed the locations of battles, border disputes, insurgencies, and other conflicts on a world map. "The world is a very dangerous place," one officer remarked, pointing to emerging hot spots in places I had never heard of. Recently I checked with U.S. Navy Captain Edward Kane, who serves with the United States European Command. USEUCOM's "area of responsibility" covers 21 million square miles, stretching from Norway, through the Baltic and Mediterranean seas, across most of Europe and parts of the Middle East, to the tip of South Africa. It includes 23 percent of the world's population -- 1.4 billion people in 91 countries and territories -- who speak more than 40 foreign languages, from Azerbaijani to Swahili. Keeping surveillance over this vast territory requires highly trained foreign language experts who can interpret many languages and dialects and can "go much deeper" and analyze "what is being said and the context of its meaning," Kane said. If the foreign language pipeline works as planned, 5-year-olds may soon be learning Arabic and Chinese, but -- depending on world developments -- some could wind up speaking Afrikaans or Punjabi. One day, perhaps, those young language learners in your schools will help make the world a safer place.

GLSEN's 2005 National School Climate Survey Sheds New Light on Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Students : Apri 26, 2006

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1927.html

Washington, DC - April 26, 2006 - The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, today announced findings from the 2005 National School Climate Survey (NSCS), the only national survey to document the experiences of students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) in America's schools. The survey results were released today at the National Press Club in conjunction with GLSEN's 10th national Day of Silence.

"The 2005 National School Climate Survey reveals that anti-LGBT bullying and harassment remain commonplace in America's schools," said GLSEN Founder and Executive Director Kevin Jennings. "On the positive side, it also makes clear that inclusive policies, supportive school staff and student clubs, like Gay-Straight Alliances, all relate to reduced harassment and higher achieving students."

Key Findings of the 2005 National School Climate Survey include:

The Scope of the Problem:

75. 4% of students heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten (89.2%) reported hearing "that's so gay" or "you're so gay" - meaning stupid or worthless- frequently or often.

Over a third (37.8%) of students experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and more than a quarter (26.1%) on the basis of their gender expression. Nearly one-fifth (17.6%) of students had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth (11.8%) because of their gender expression.

Academic Engagement, Aspirations and Achievement:

LGBT students were five times more likely to report having skipped school in the last month because of safety concerns than the general population of students.

LGBT students who experience more frequent physical harassment were more likely to report they did not plan to go to college. Overall, LGBT students were twice as likely as the general population of students to report they were not planning to pursue any post-secondary education. The average GPA for LGBT students who were frequently physically harassed was half a grade lower than that of LGBT students experiencing less harassment (2.6 versus 3.1).

Positive Interventions and Support:

The presence of supportive staff contributed to a range of positive indicators including greater sense of safety, fewer reports of missing days of school, and a higher incidence of planning to attend college.

Students in schools with a GSA were less likely to feel unsafe, less likely to miss school, and more likely to feel like they belonged at their school than students in schools with no such clubs.

Having a comprehensive policy was related to a lower incidence of hearing homophobic remarks and to lower rates of verbal harassment. Students at schools with inclusive policies also reported higher rates of intervention by school staff when homophobic remarks were made.

Only nine states and the District of Columbia have comprehensive anti-bullying laws that specifically address bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation and only three of these laws mention gender identity. Nine other states have "generic" anti-bullying laws that do not specifically define "bullying" or enumerate categories of protected classes such as sexual orientation or gender identity. The remaining 32 states have no laws at all. The NSCS found that both states with "generic" anti-bullying laws and states with no law at all had equally high rates of verbal harassment. States with inclusive policies that specifically enumerate categories including sexual orientation and gender identity, however, have significantly lower rates of verbal harassment (31.6% vs. 40.8%).

"These reports from LGBT students echo recent reports from the larger population of students in the United States," said Joseph Kosciw, PhD, Research Director for GLSEN. "In a recent national study conducted by GLSEN and Harris Interactive, 62.5% of secondary school students reported that other students were called names or harassed at their school on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, which was very similar to the 64.1% of LGBT students in the NSCS who reported experiencing such harassment."

he National School Climate Survey is being released in coordination with GLSEN's 10th national Day of Silence(r) (www.dayofsilence.org ) where nearly 500,000 students from 4,000 secondary schools and colleges are expected to take part in activities to address the serious problems of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment, while advocating for solutions - like inclusive policies, GSAs and educator trainings - to ensure safe schools for ALL students.

GLSEN's National School Climate Survey is the only national survey to document the experiences of students who identify as LGBT in America's secondary schools and has been conducted biennially since 1999. This year's survey includes responses from 1,732 LGBT students between the ages of 13 and 20 from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data collection was conducted through community based groups and service organizations, from April to July 2005, and online from April to August 2005. The complete survey and additional information about methodology and demographics may be obtained by calling GLSEN's Communications Department at 212-727-0135 or by visiting www.glsen.org

About GLSEN

GLSEN, or the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is the leading national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all students. Established nationally in 1995, GLSEN envisions a world in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. For more information on our educator resources, research, public policy agenda, student organizing programs or development initiatives, visit www.glsen.org.

By FRANK H.T. RHODES

Winston Churchill, it is reported, would openly weep whenever he heard "Forty Years On," the song of his old school, Harrow. The 40th anniversary of the founding of The Chronicle of Higher Education is a cause not for weeping but for celebration. It is difficult now to imagine the world of higher education without it.

But what of higher education itself over the course of those 40 years, weeping or celebration? That's a more complex question.

Consider, first, the context in which The Chronicle began publication on November 23, 1966. On that day, The New York Times reported that Joe Frazier had knocked out Eddie Machen, that the Soviet Union's emphasis on civil defense reflected concern over China's growing nuclear capacity, that Dick Gregory would travel to North Vietnam, that President Lyndon B. Johnson aimed to reduce federal programs by $3-billion, that the Syrian government and the Iraqi Petroleum Company faced a "crisis," and that the D'Oyly Carte Company opened a run of Ruddigore at the City Center and "delivered it to the avid audience with a sparkling air of wicked innocence."

In that year, Medicare was introduced, the FDA declared "the Pill" safe, a first-class stamp cost 5 cents, and the Oscar for the best movie was awarded to The Sound of Music. Like the present, the country was engaged in a widely unpopular war, but, unlike the present, there was also a student draft. To those who lived through them, the 1960s will always be remembered not only as a time of educational change, but also as the great age of campus disruption. Protests convulsed the campuses.

It is easy to forget just how tumultuous those days were. Led by Berkeley, Columbia, and Harvard, campuses across the nation erupted in strikes, protests, and building takeovers. "Nonnegotiable demands" were presented on an almost daily basis. In 1969-70, at the height of student protests, there were, according to research by Helen Horowitz, a professor of history at Smith College, "9,408 outbreaks; 731 of them led to the intervention of police and arrests; 410 of which involved damage to property; and 230, physical violence." What a time to create a newspaper devoted to the coverage of higher education.

The scene in 2006 is vastly different. In retrospect, it seems remarkable that the nation's colleges and universities emerged relatively intact from those contentious days. But institutions have changed, and it is worth noting some of those changes.

Colleges and universities have continued to multiply to accommodate the nation's expanding population. In 1966 the total U.S. population was 196,560,338; this fall it hit 300 million. In about the same time, the number of colleges and universities rose from 2,329 to well over 4,000, including branch campuses. Each category of institution has seen a growth in newly created campuses.

The net addition of more than 900 four-year campuses and more than 900 two-year campuses represents a remarkable national commitment to higher education. That increase in overall numbers of campuses involved the closure of some existing institutions, as well as the creation of new ones. Some 583 colleges and universities closed their doors during this period, 48 of them public and 535 of them private. Natural selection, it seems, exists in higher education no less than in nature.

For-profit institutions have gained prominence. They now account for about 8 percent of student enrollment in colleges eligible for financial aid. That has been one of the biggest changes in the educational landscape. In 1966 such institutions were largely unknown. Today there are some 908, and the largest, the University of Phoenix, has an online enrollment of almost 116,000 students.

The proportions of students enrolled in public and private institutions have shifted. The percentage of students at private institutions has dropped from about 32 percent in 1966 to 25 percent — a trend that has persisted since the end of World War II.

The demographics of the student body have changed, and access has improved. Female enrollment has increased almost four times as rapidly as male, and the representation of women and underrepresented minority groups continues to increase, especially in fields in which they had earlier been seriously underrepresented.

For example, female degree recipients now outnumber men at every level except the doctorate, but even there women now earn 48 percent of the new Ph.D.'s, compared with 12 percent in 1966. Indeed, the growth in the proportion of women in both graduate and professional schools has been especially marked. In 1966 women earned just over 4 percent of all first professional degrees awarded; this year it is estimated they will receive almost 52 percent.

Minority groups have also made significant gains. African-American students have grown from 5 percent of the freshman class at four-year colleges 40 years ago to more than 11 percent today. We have no adequate data from 1966 for Latino students in the freshman class, but they now make up 7 percent. Asian-American students make up 8 percent, compared with 0.7 percent; American Indian students 1.7 percent, compared with 0.6 percent.

Colleges and universities are becoming increasingly international. More than 500,000 international students — about a quarter of all international students worldwide — were enrolled in American institutions in 2004, although other countries now outpace the United States in growth in that market. The number of American students studying abroad has exploded from fewer than 25,000 in 1965-66 to nearly 206,000 in 2004-5. American institutions offer degree programs in at least 42 other countries.

An increasingly well-educated population has arisen from those changes in enrollment patterns. Between 1960 and 2000, the percentage of the population age 25 and older with a bachelor's degree or higher more than tripled to almost one-fourth. By 2005 more than 18 percent of American adults held bachelor's degrees, and about 10 percent held graduate or professional degrees.

Developments in information technology have transformed colleges and universities. The rise of computers has had a huge and largely beneficial impact on instruction and learning, research, student life, and countless other aspects of higher education. The world and all its knowledge are now literally at the fingertips of today's undergraduates. The relationship between such computerization and the quality of learning is not easily quantified, and the impact on college costs continues to be a matter of debate. Distance learning, however, is here to stay and will only continue to influence our institutions in the future.

Student backgrounds and attitudes have shifted. The survey of freshman students at four-year institutions conducted each fall since 1966 by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles depicts in strong relief the gains that women have made in higher education. The percentage of freshmen whose mothers had college degrees grew from just over 20 percent to more than 52 percent, and the percentage with mothers with graduate degrees increased more than fivefold to 18 percent. Such trends have been accompanied by a striking decline, from 35 percent to less than 10 percent, over the last 30 years in the percentage of students who listed their mother's occupation as homemaker.

Similarly, the aspiration of freshman women to pursue graduate and professional work shows a fourfold increase between 1966 and 2005 in the percentage of women aspiring to law degrees, an almost fivefold increase in interest in medical and dental degrees, and an almost threefold increase in doctoral degrees.

Student attitudes show striking changes over the past 30 years, with declining support for laws prohibiting homosexual relationships and for those who believe the activities of married women are best confined to home and family. Today's students appear to have more intellectual and social self-confidence and a greater belief in their abilities in many areas, including leadership and motivation. Fewer expect to be satisfied with college, but more expect to graduate with honors and more expect to work to support themselves in college.

The numbers of students applying for admission to three or more colleges has more than doubled since the mid-60s. Meanwhile, the reasons for deciding to go to college have changed in emphasis, with many more students attending because they are following their parents' wishes or hope to make more money.

The percentage of students expressing enthusiasm for cleaning up the environment has waned by half since the early 1970s, to 20 percent, while the percentage of those saying they desire to develop a meaningful philosophy of life has plummeted from 86 percent to 45 percent, and of those wishing to keep up with political affairs has fallen from 60 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile "being very well off financially" has become far more important (75 percent of students compared with 42 percent in 1966). In terms of political views, somewhat fewer of today's students than their predecessors in the early 1970s characterize themselves as liberal (27 percent compared with 36 percent) and rather more as conservative (23 percent compared with 17 percent).

Few data are available that allow us to compare the broader cultural landscape in higher education over a span of 40 years. There are, no doubt, marked differences between various types of colleges and universities, and even perhaps within them. But a number of continuing trends seem to raise general concerns.

The public universities — especially the flagships — have suffered from a prolonged period of shrinking state support as a portion of their revenues. The University of Michigan, for example, now receives only about 8 percent of its total annual revenue from the state, and the University of California at Los Angeles only 15 percent. Although the situation has somewhat improved recently, the long-term tightening of state budgets has led increasingly to what several writers have called the privatization of public universities. But that "privatization" is one-sided: The universities have been required to raise more of their support from private sources, including tuition, but are still not allowed much freedom to manage their own affairs. The fate of the flagships should be a matter of public concern because their contributions to higher education — graduate and professional, as well as undergraduate — are major. It is time for the states to give them the freedom they need to develop their programs and to then hold them accountable for reaching specific goals.

Collegiality within academe seems to be a vanishing trait. Instead "the university community" has become a euphemism for an assemblage of conflicting interests. Perhaps "community," like youth, is never what it was, but the practical effects of the loss of meaningful dialogue and collegiality are serious. In education, the increasing departmentalization and fragmentation of the curriculum represent a growing threat to the quality of the undergraduate experience. Meanwhile, the great overarching challenges of our time — climate change, energy supplies, sustainability, poverty, hunger, conflict and war, health and disease — sprawl across the boundaries of the disciplines. With faculty appointments and awards jealously preserved within the confines of traditional departments, the academy is ill equipped to bring the full weight of its expertise to bear on such vital issues.

Faculty members' allegiances to their institutions have eroded. Such loyalty has been replaced by a greater commitment to the invisible scholarly guild: the professional associations, scholarly societies, and online scholarly conclaves. Some will argue that this change is an inevitable reflection of the scholarly fragmentation I have just described and of the relative reduction in the proportion of tenured or tenure-track faculty members, which has slipped from 57 percent to 35 percent of the academic work force over the last 30 years. Perhaps. Others will claim that it is less of a problem in liberal-arts colleges than in research universities. I hope that is so. But if I am right, both our institutions and our students are the poorer for the change.

Structural reform remains elusive in the academic culture. The structural imbalance between goals, tasks, and resources seems to have shown little improvement since 1966. The rigidity of departmental structures of faculty appointments continues to limit the ability of colleges to adapt and respond to new circumstances. Any change tends to be laboriously incremental, with a significant time lag between the decision to make it and the ability of the institution to carry it out.

***

Respice, prospice. Surveying the landscape over the past 40 years, we can find much to celebrate, much to praise. But looking forward, our celebration must be calibrated against both the situation within our own society and the achievements of the rest of the world. Against that background, recent commentators have found little about which to cheer.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, commenting on the report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, for example, has declared:

"Our universities are known as the best in the world. And a lot of people will tell you things are going just fine. But when 90 percent of the fastest-growing jobs require postsecondary education, are we satisfied with 'just' fine? Is it 'fine' that college tuition has outpaced inflation, family income, even doubling the cost of health care? Is it 'fine' that only half of our students graduate on time? Is it 'fine' that students often graduate so saddled with debt they can't buy a home or start a family? None of this seems 'fine' to me. Not as a policy maker, not as a taxpayer, and certainly not as the mother of a college sophomore.

"The commission drew a similar conclusion. In their words, 'Higher education has become at times self-satisfied and unduly expensive.' In fact, times have changed. Nearly two-thirds of all high-growth, high-wage jobs created in the next decade will require a college degree, a degree only one-third of Americans have. Where we once were leaders, now other nations educate more of their young adults to more-advanced levels than we do."

The four major issues raised by the Spellings commission — accessibility, affordability, accountability, and quality — have all increased in significance since 1966. They will never be "solved" but must continually be confronted if colleges and universities are to play their fullest role, continue to enjoy the public trust, and retain their independence. Although there will be federal and state efforts in each of these four areas, real change, if it is to come, must come from within institutions.

Distinctively American Aid

Do past events encourage hope for such change? Consider, for example, the closely linked concerns of affordability and access. Looked at over a 40-year time span, America's higher-education institutions are now as accessible as any in the world to all students, providing they can afford the tuition charges and demonstrate their competency to perform the work required. Virtually all our colleges charge for their services and require certain minimal standards of academic preparation, in contrast to countries with free tuition and open admission. Over the past four decades, that has produced a pragmatic and distinctively American pattern of financial aid, with a mixture of grant aid and student self-help in the form of loans and work.

Tuition and fees have been steadily rising, which is scarcely cause for surprise. What is a matter of public concern is that they have risen so sharply. Over the last quarter-century, average tuition and fees have increased more rapidly than rates of inflation, per-capita personal income, consumer prices, prescription health care, and health insurance. And that has a direct bearing on access. The unmet financial need of students from the lowest family income group (less than $34,000) has grown by 80 percent since the early 90s.

Colleges are quick to respond that higher education is labor intensive, that at public institutions those sharp increases reflect substantial losses in the proportion of state support, that at private institutions the fastest-growing expense has been financial aid. All that is true. But there is also nagging public concern, forcefully expressed in the Spellings commission report, about what seems to be declining teaching loads, a growing emphasis on buying bright students with merit awards, and an increase in the proportion of students taking more than four years to graduate.

We in higher education would be unwise to ignore such concerns. We shall see a steady increase in the number of high-school graduates over most of the next decade, but the changing geographic distribution; age range; racial, ethnic, and economic characteristics of those students; as well as their level of preparation, will place substantial new demands on higher education. We should respect warnings and complaints from colleges about ill-advised demands for increases in efficiency and productivity, but the problem of costs is real and will not go away.

Closely related to the issue of access is the academic preparation that students need to enter college and succeed there. If that is to improve, the states, the federal government, businesses, and colleges must all play a role. We can argue forever about who is responsible for failing schools, and there is enough blame to cover all of the players. But the urgent task facing the nation is to improve school performance. Better teacher education, partnerships with elementary and secondary schools, cooperation in curriculum planning, distance learning, remedial programs, and advanced placement will all enhance academic preparation. And improving that will, in turn, improve all levels of work in the schools.

Accountability is the other big "A." The Spellings commission urged institutions to make graduation rates, time to degree, and other performance measures available to the public. There will be legitimate debate as to the wisdom and effectiveness of using various assessment instruments, but the call for greater academic "transparency" is not one that colleges should neglect.

What about quality, the fourth issue the commission raised? Although no simple test can compare the achievements of the graduates of our 4,216 colleges, there are troubling signs. In surveys employers have raised questions about the critical abilities of recent graduates, and whatever surveys of student ability that do exist are also cause for concern. America has some of the world's best colleges: The sweep of the "scholarly" Nobel prizes this fall by our nation's faculty members confirms that. But we need to take seriously the call for quality and accountability. If we in higher education do not find some way to demonstrate the effectiveness of our programs and represent the abilities and skills of our graduates, others — for instance, the federal and state governments — may determine to do it for us.

Finally, we are constantly reminded that we live in a global economy, in which science, technology, invention, and innovation are the keys to survival and success. Thirty-five to 45 years ago, we led the world in the proportion of our adult population holding both high-school diplomas and college degrees. No more. We now rank seventh internationally in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds holding college degrees.

Of special concern is the lack of a significant increase in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology graduates. According to The Economist, India graduates 400,000 engineers and 200,000 IT professionals each year, and the cost to employ an Indian graduate is about 12 percent that of an American one. Talent, as it has been remarked, is now the world's most sought-after commodity. Ranking in international educational comparisons may well indicate future rankings in national economic success.

Even as we celebrate the achievements of higher education since The Chronicle's founding in 1966, we should also confront the issues the Spellings report has raised. Our national interest and our people's well-being, our growing population and its rapidly changing demography, our depleted planet and its changing climate, all create an added sense of urgency.

"The task of a university," Alfred North Whitehead once declared, "is the creation of the future, so far as rational thought, and civilized modes of appreciation, can affect the issue." Forty years on, we should welcome, embrace, and reaffirm that high calling.

Frank H.T. Rhodes is president emeritus of Cornell University.

http://chronicle.com

Section: Special Report

Volume 53, Issue 14, Page A18

by Vivian Louie — 2007

Background/Context:

In the last several decades, a college education, in particular the bachelor's degree, has become the key to higher earnings, and overall, to a middle-class lifestyle in the United States. In an increasingly globalized economy, privileging information and communication technologies, it is more than likely that this emphasis on higher education in the American labor market will continue in the future. While we know much about the increasing link between a college education and social mobility, writ large, we know considerably less about who actually makes the transition to college, how this occurs, and why. Despite the strides made, large numbers of individuals are not making the transition to college. Among those who are, there are important differences in the kinds of postsecondary institutions they are attending, and in completion rates, with attendant implications for social mobility.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study:

This article has two purposes: (1) to synthesize the key facets of our knowledge base of how to expand the college pipeline and relatedly, to outline particular areas that have been under-examined across the disciplines; (2) to provide future directions that will allow us to better address this important inquiry along substantive and methodological lines.

Research Design:

This article draws on disciplinary papers commissioned by the Social Science Research Council's Transitions to College Committee. The discussion of preparation is framed around the contributions from the fields of anthropology, and political science; access vis-à-vis history, sociology, and demography; paying for college vis-à-vis economics; and completion vis-à-vis the field of higher education.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

The article calls for an overall integrative model, e.g., K-16 and interdisciplinary, improved coverage in large-scale datasets, and a more refined mixed methods approach to attend to notable gaps in our understandings of the transition to college. Across disciplines, a key substantive gap is variation along the lines of race, ethnicity, immigrant status, gender, and age across domains, which needs to be illuminated.

Never in American history has the transition to college been as significant as it is today. In the last 30 years, a college education, in particular the bachelor's degree, has become the key to higher earnings, and overall, to a middle-class lifestyle in the United States. In an increasingly globalized economy, privileging information and communication technologies, it is more than likely that this emphasis on higher education in the American labor market will continue in the future.

While we know much about the increasing link between a college education and social mobility, writ large, we know considerably less about who actually makes the transition to college, how this occurs, and why. The American system of education, both K-12 and postsecondary—as I will show, the two are closely aligned in under-examined ways, with the pipeline to higher education substantially grounded in the K-12 system—is large, complex, and serves increasingly diverse populations. Yet, large numbers of individuals are not making the transition to college. Among those who are, there are important differences in the kinds of postsecondary institutions they are attending, and in completion rates, with attendant implications for social mobility.

The existing research has clearly shown that ascriptive individual-level characteristics such as race and socioeconomic status combined with institutional factors, including the quality and social climate of K-12 and postsecondary schooling, are the answer. It is how that occurs, specifically, how the individual negotiates and is received by the educational system, to become prepared for, get access to, obtain financing for, and complete college, that remains unanswered. In short, we need a more complex framework to understand how inequalities in these processes have been and continue to be created. The goal of this special issue is to engage in this process, not to provide definitive answers, but to provide a roadmap towards developing a more useful framework.

None of this denies the strides that have been made in higher education. In fact, the idea that we should have universal higher education has only been with us since the 1960s, when the Civil Rights movement and related social movements ushered in equality of opportunity (see Gelber, this volume). The last 30 years have seen a measure of success in this regard, as evidenced by a dramatic rise in the number of institutions, along with enrollments, particularly among minorities, women, low-income students, and immigrants and their children, and in the availability of financial aid. Nonetheless, despite our popular conceptions surrounding higher education, and the policies enacted to promote access and completion, the pipeline to college continues to be blocked at critical junctures.

Even as the American educational system, from K-12 through higher education, is arguably more inclusive than it has ever been, marginalization and exclusion continue to exist. A student, who is by definition included in the K-12 system by virtue of attending high school, can still experience marginalization within that context. Such a process of inclusion/marginalization, the focus of much anthropological education inquiry, as Jill Koyama (this volume) cogently demonstrates, influences preparation for college. Further, as so many of the authors in this volume richly discuss, we have continued to build exclusionary practices around preparation for, access to, paying for, and finishing college.

Consequently, those individuals who have the greatest need of the returns to higher education today are often the ones who have the fewest opportunities to tap into them. The goal of this chapter is to synthesize the many insights of this volume's disciplinary-based reviews to map out what is known about the transition to college, what is not covered in the extant literature, and where we need to be headed to increase our understanding of who makes the transition to college in the United States.

I will argue that the key to capturing the full complexities of this story is developing better analytical tools—conceptually and methodologically—to answer the four questions that have framed our understanding of the college pipeline. Each of the questions is crucial, and each builds on the other.

•

Who gets prepared for postsecondary schooling, and why?

•

Who gets access to what form of postsecondary schooling, and why?

•

How do we pay for higher education?

•

What contributes to two-year and four-year degree completion?

If we do not act to find more nuanced answers to these questions, we risk fundamental social and economic costs at several levels. Forty years after the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, a historic initiative designed to reduce differences in the quality of education and the schooling outcomes of Black and White children, the achievement gap, as measured in types of schools attended and test scores, for example, continues to persist along the lines of race and class. Moreover, researchers are still trying to chart the educational trajectories of post-1965 immigrants and their children. The last 40 years have seen the resumption of large-scale immigration to the United States, incorporating individuals from diverse national, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. It remains unclear how this contemporary story of immigration will complicate existing inequalities around the transition to college. Short of new policies, however, it is clear that only a fraction of our population will gain the education and skills needed to join the middle class.

Such a scenario leads to the second domain, namely, the potentially grim consequences for our national economic well-being. Without a highly skilled, technologically sophisticated, and educated workforce, the United States faces losing its competitive edge in the global arena at a time when knowledge has become a determining factor in the wealth of nations. So far, the immigration of the highly skilled and highly educated1 to the United States, for example, the brain drain, has helped us avoid this fate. International students, however, are no longer exclusively flocking to the United States, and among those who do study here, an increasing number are deciding to return to their countries of origin rather than permanently settling here. Without the import of highly skilled talent, the economic well-being of the United States will instead be tightly linked to the development of its own domestic talent, a shift that makes matters relating to college preparation, access, financing, and success ever more important (Grissmer, 2005).

Finally, there are potentially important consequences to our national self-identity. The United States has historically prided itself as a nation in which social mobility is uniquely possible, as compared to other nations; hence, the term, the American Dream (Hochschild, 1995; Newman, 1999; Scott & Leonhardt, 2005). However, if inequalities around the transition to college increasingly serve as an important lever of stratification, as seems likely, then there is potential for a fault line in how we think about and believe in the American Dream. It is conceivable that a blocked opportunity structure might eventually be seen as normalized in the United States, rather than as an exception to the rule. Put another way, we risk alienation from the American Dream as something to even hope to translate into reality. In sum, research and policy on who makes the transition to college in the United States map the future course of our nation in very important ways: namely, group-level differences in who is achieving mobility, and who is not; what this means for our national well-being on the global stage; and what this means for how we think about ourselves as a nation, and the role of equality therein.

In this essay, I have two goals. My first goal is to synthesize the key facets of our knowledge base of how to expand the college pipeline. This charting of the knowledge base is both a discussion of social processes as well as outcomes, as the two are inextricably linked. Drawing on the insights of reports prepared for the Social Science Research Council's Transitions to College Committee, some of them included in this volume, I argue that our existing research paradigms, while useful, are limited in speaking to why these gaps exist, how they are experienced, and what we can do to reduce them. This speaks to my second goal, which is to provide future directions that will allow us to better address this important inquiry along substantive and methodological lines. That said, I should note that the individual contributors provide fine discussions of the lacunae in coverage within their individual disciplines. My purpose is more to synthesize central areas that have been under-examined across the disciplines.

This chapter is thus structured accordingly: In the first section, I discuss preparation, vis-à-vis anthropological research; access vis-à-vis history, sociology, and demography; paying for college vis-à-vis economics; and completion vis-à-vis the field of higher education. In my discussion of each of the four areas of the college pipeline, I will close with some thoughts on policy implications. Two points should be noted: First, I focus on how each essay relates to the particular domain in which I have situated them (e.g., preparation), although each touches upon all four areas. Second, the ordering of the disciplines is not meant to privilege one or one subset over the other, but rather, serves as more of a heuristic device. As I will demonstrate, each discipline brings a particular and valuable set of lenses to bear on the subject. In the second section, I set forth an overall theoretical frame for future inquiry, for example, an integrative model that bridges domains and disciplines to tap into the multiple complexities in the transition to college that have so far gone uncaptured. I conclude with a look at the range of methodologies that have been employed to examine who makes the transition to college, what they tell us, and what we need to be thinking about as we proceed further.

WHO GETS PREPARED FOR POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLING, AND WHY?

In this section, I will focus on the question of who gets prepared for postsecondary schooling. This is a question that necessarily involves discussion of the processes that influence academic preparation in K-12 for a successful transition to college, and the role of relevant stakeholders, namely, the school, family, community, and peer contexts.

Anthropological perspectives: Culture, identification and belonging in schools

Anthropologists of education have brought to the foreground how students experience K-12 schools, and in particular, the relationships therein to become prepared for postsecondary schooling. As Jill Koyama (this volume) identifies, a central concern for most anthropological accounts, which focus on various units of analysis ranging from classroom interactions, a cohort of students, to a single school or community, is how students are situated and situate themselves in schools. The two processes are not necessarily the same, especially for those students who are disadvantaged due to class, race, or gender. This is because schools are themselves sites of contradiction: they offer promise of social mobility for students, but nonetheless often end up reproducing existing social inequalities.

Given the roots of anthropology, such inquiries have to do with matters of culture, namely, cultural capital (knowledge of how the U.S. educational system functions) and social capital (access to social networks that allow individuals to successfully negotiate the system). A limitation of previous studies was their focus on why low-income and/or minority parents did not interact with schools in the ways that middle-class White parents did. In the last two decades, the inquiry has shifted more to how disadvantages related to language fluency in English, culture, and social class can be bridged to facilitate more effective relations between families and schools around children's education.

Another key shift in anthropological research on education has been the turning away from the "culture of poverty" argument that framed a mismatch between schooling institutions and low-income children, who were thought to suffer deficits in their home lives, towards a more nuanced exploration of institutions and systems as sites of capital to which children have unequal access. In these analyses, processes of marginalization, identification, and belonging within schools become central to preparation for the transition to college. In short, students that are engaged with the school they are attending are more likely to stay in school, do better academically, and consider college as an option. Conversely, students at the margins of school "are far more likely to disengage academically, to ‘resist' schooling, and to forgo college attendance." This sense of belonging occurs in what Koyama describes as "capital-rich settings": for example, through connections made with teachers, college counselors, and staff (Valenzuela, 1999), through bridge programs, which are designed to bridge the gaps among the students' existing knowledge base of how to get to college (and to finish), and through students in peer organizations, such as a migrant student club comprised of Mexican-descent high school students (Gibson, Bejínez, Hidalgo & Rolón, 2004), or in more informal peer groups (Brittain, 2002). Within these literal and symbolic spaces, students can find the necessary support to gain agency and thus, to promote engagement and achievement for one another.

It is important, however, not to associate agency exclusively with positive outcomes. Numerous studies have documented how students develop ideologies of resistance that culturally reproduce the class structure, and their place within it. Students already labeled by gatekeeping agents as disengaged or unlikely to achieve, can actively live up to those labels, rather than breaking free of them. Eckert's (1989) analysis, for example, demonstrates how the "jocks" were socialized into thinking of themselves as integrated within the high school while the "burnouts" were socialized into viewing themselves as marginalized. Similarly, anthropological studies have shown that the labeling of students as "at risk" or "limited English-proficient" sets in motion a script not of the students own making, but one which they follow to the logical conclusion of academic underachievement.

Policy implications

In sum, while anthropologists emphasize macro considerations in preparation for college such as a sense of belonging within schools, they also acknowledge that one policy or theme might not fit all cases, and that further attention should be paid to particular school environments, and particular populations. There is also a need to focus more on the relationships between the individual student and family and institutions. Further research needs to investigate matters such as the informational blockages among the various stakeholders in K-12 schooling, which travel in multiple directions: teachers and administrators, who often do not know much about the family and neighborhood backgrounds of their students, and thus cannot tailor instruction or when necessary, intervention; and families, who lack knowledge of what their children are doing in school, and the relevant steps to completing K-12 and getting to college, and the consequences of missing out on those steps. There is a need to develop policies to foster a broader dialogue about the purposes and structure of schooling, the role of teachers and parents, and the very nature of appropriate discourse on these matters. As Lareau (1987; 2000), Lareau & Horvat (1999) and others have shown us, there is not a single uniform picture in these dimensions, either. What might be taken as common-sense understanding that "schools do this," or "teachers do that," may actually vary among parents according to social class, race, ethnicity, and immigrant status in important ways.

WHO GETS ACCESS TO WHAT FORM OF POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLING, AND WHY?

In this section, I will address the issue of stratification as it relates to the question of who gets access to postsecondary schooling, to which form, and at what point in the life course.

History: Postsecondary school stratification, past and present

As Gelber (this volume) maps out so well, historians look to the past to understand how "prior discrimination has shaped current inequalities in educational access and achievement." The strength of the historiography of access has been the attention paid to the rise of postsecondary institutional stratification, and who is attending the various tiered schools, especially with regards to women, working-class individuals and immigrants, White ethnics, African-Americans, Latino/as, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans. While Gelber provides a fine overview of preparation, access, financing, and retention and outcomes, dating back to the nineteenth century, in this essay, I focus on access and the post-World War II period.

Ironically, the rise in enrollments and institutional expansion that have characterized the last 30 or so years has also been accompanied by a "prestige gap," occurring at multiple levels: between four-year schools and two-year community colleges, between public and private four-year institutions, and among public and private four-year institutions. While greater numbers of individuals, including those from previously excluded groups, have entered the ranks of higher education, the system of higher education itself has been transformed to include differential tracks. In some cases, this prestige gap built on previous patterns. For example, as Gelber (this volume) notes, starting in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Columbia University assumed the status of the elite institution in the New York City area, relying on New York University and City University of New York to provide access to the larger masses of students, particularly those from working-class backgrounds; while graduates of the latter two schools received excellent educations, they did not have the chance to partake of the social and possibly economic rewards that came from attending Colombia. According to Gelber, at least two shifts contributed to the contemporary stratification of four-year institutions. The availability of government funding for higher education may have led institutions to increase their undergraduate selectivity in the hopes of increasing their competitive edge. Further, competition among four-year institutions for a shrinking population of young adults, a demographic shift accompanied by the end of the baby boom, may have led to increased selectivity as a marketing tool.

A central if relatively under-examined line of stratification is the role of community colleges, which have become the starting point for many working-class students, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities. Debates have centered on the mission of community colleges, namely, whether community colleges serve as a stepping stone to the four-year degree, or serve to warehouse students into vocational training, who in the process become unlikely to move further up the postsecondary ladder (Dougherty, 1987; Brint & Karabel, 1989). As Gelber (this volume) notes, the extant literature on community colleges has not yet presented a fuller picture of how working-class students choose to attend community college, and how much these decisions are grounded in matters pertaining to individual preference for vocational higher education, financial constraints, or public policy.

In terms of racial groups traditionally excluded from higher education, we know the most from historiography about the experiences of African-Americans. As Gelber (this volume) points out, civil rights legislation, namely the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Equal Opportunity Program (EOP), opened the doors of predominately White institutions of higher education to African-Americans. The process was slow and uneven across regions. As a way of increasing enrollments in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a large number of schools adopted new policies designed to address issues of preparation (postsecondary remedial education programs), access (recruitment at largely Black high schools and revising of admissions criteria), and financing (increased financial aid).

The open admissions policy has been another method for public systems of higher education to promote racial, ethnic, and class diversity. This has played an especially visible role at the City University of New York (CUNY), which maintained the policy from 1970 to the late 1990s, granting admission to all high school graduates who met a minimum threshold of academic standards. Debates soon followed in the public and scholarly domains about the use of academic standards in higher education. Some criticized CUNY on the basis that with open admissions, higher education actually became remedial education. Others, however, demonstrated that open admissions provided crucial opportunities for students of diverse groups, including Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, to have access to college, and subsequently to achieve mobility across generations. There were two important caveats—minority students had lower levels of completing a degree relative to Whites, largely due to lack of high school preparation and the need to work at paid employment while taking classes. And over time, the possible effects of open admissions narrowed in scope, as more selective admissions criteria were put into place, tuitions rose, and remedial classes became a requirement for some. The result was a decline in access and success, especially among minority students (Lavin & Hyllegard, 1996).

Overall, an opportunity was missed, as such programs, regardless of content, did not focus on the important and underlying issues involved with access to higher education among African-American students. As Reuben (2001) astutely analyzes, the measures to draw greater numbers of African-American students continued to use the traditional language of merit without taking the opportunity to broaden the concept of merit, or to probe deeper into the academic pipeline to address the inequalities in K-12 schooling en route to postsecondary education. The choice to maintain the traditional rhetoric around merit put these programs on shaky ground, and by the 1990s, admissions to public and private universities of varying levels of prestige were increasingly based on traditional measures of test scores and grades, with commensurate declines in the college enrollment of African-Americans, particularly at selective institutions. Overall, the result has been that middle-class African-American students have tended to benefit from the opening up of higher education (Gelber, this volume).

Sociology: Who applies, where, and why

As Deil-Amen and Lopez Turley (this volume) fluidly document, sociologists have been concerned with how individual-level characteristics such as "socioeconomic status, family structure, gender, race and ethnicity, aspirations and expectations" matter in the ways students are received into K-12 schools and learn about and get access to a complex and stratified system of postsecondary schooling. A dominant model in the literature on individual characteristics and college access has been the Wisconsin Model of Status Attainment, initiated by William Sewell (1971), and furthered by Sewell and Robert Hauser (1975) and their collaborators in the early 1970s. Simply put, the Wisconsin Model, which initially focused on men, posits that family socioeconomic background, as defined by parental income, education, and occupation, has a powerful effect on an individual's measured ability, educational attainment, occupation, and earnings. Subsequent studies have included women and individuals across race and ethnicity in a look at the role of socioeconomic status in their access to college with mixed results as to whether and how it has declined or alternatively, persisted. In terms of college attended, however, sociologists have continued to find strong effects of socioeconomic status in whether individuals enroll in a community college versus a four-year institution. Another influence of family characteristics, not directly tied to socioeconomic status, include family structure, for example, two-parent v. single-parent households, and the number, spacing, and sex composition of siblings, which all bear upon educational achievement and attainment in terms of the resources families can accord to children (Powell & Steelman, 1989; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994).

In attempts to complicate the Wisconsin Model, sociologists have also become concerned about the differences and similarities between aspirations and expectations, and the role of socioeconomic status therein. Aspirations signal an ideal, or a hoped for result; expectations, on the other hand, are accompanied by a focused and realistic educational roadmap of specific steps to be taken, to translate the aspiration into outcome (Morgan, 1996). Schneider and Stevenson's seminal work (1999) has shown the upward evolution of aspirations over time, with teenagers in the 1990s aspiring to be professionals, as compared to service and administrative workers as was the case among 1950s teenagers. As Schneider and Stevenson and others have pointed out, high aspirations do not necessarily translate into expectations and finally, outcomes, particularly for students who are disadvantaged by the confluence of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. In the work on how college aspirations are formed, their influence along with expectations on access, researchers have found that parents are important, specifically, the cultural and social capital used by parents in conjunction with K-12 schools to provide the roadmap to college.

High schools and colleges themselves, as institutional contexts, are crucial to access in that they respectively influence the decision-making processes of both students, as they think about where to apply and where to go, and the admissions committees, who grant entry. As McDonough (1997) has argued, within high schools, students are given different impressions of where they might fit in the college status hierarchy, and these often vary according to the students' class backgrounds. Building on Bourdieu's concept of the habitus, she calls for high schools to provide an institutional environment that will allow students from disadvantaged groups the structural and cultural advantages available to their peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds both at home and within the school. There are also differences between high schools and what they can provide to their students in terms of college access. At the high end of the spectrum, elite preparatory schools, like the ones studied by Persell and Cookson (1985), have deep institutional linkages to officials at elite colleges, a relationship that affords their students an advantage in the competitive admissions process to highly selective schools. As Karen (1991) has shown in the case of Harvard, the colleges themselves are embedded in complex organizational fields shaped by institutional competitors, corporations, graduate/professional schools, alumni, foundations, and the federal government as they make admissions decisions. This broader context in which postsecondary institutions find themselves is crucial to understanding how the admissions process actually works and how academic merit is but one criteria of evaluation.

Demography: Age, timing, and the life course

Demographers highlight the importance of age, timing, and the overall life course in access to college. Maralani (this volume) documents that while K-12 schooling is highly tied to age at earlier stages, for example, from early childhood through high school, there are substantially different processes for postsecondary schooling in the contemporary United States. The typical college student is no longer someone aged 18–22; instead, one quarter of our nation's undergraduates are aged 30 and older. It is likely that this trend will continue, given the increasing number of students who complete high school through the General Educational Developmental Test (GED) rather than through graduation, and the relatively few age restrictions in higher education, with second and indeed, later chances to complete one's postsecondary schooling.

The result is that the sequencing of the high school to college transition is no longer disconnected from marriage, parenthood, and employment as has traditionally been the case in the United States. Rather, a significant percentage of our college students must negotiate parts—if not all— of their postsecondary schooling, alongside marriage/cohabitation, parenthood, and employment. This has implications for matters related to access, as nontraditional college students might factor in issues of child care, family housing, and flexible class hours as they consider a return to school. Thus, in addition to the important variables of human capital, fertility (at what age individuals decide to have children), and family structure (growing up in a two-parent v. single-parent household arrangement), it is crucial to consider the role of age, timing, and the life cycle in who gets to pursue and relatedly, who gets to complete postsecondary education. Such an approach could help us explain intra- and intergroup differences in educational attainment, for example, the pathways that more "resilient" individuals from groups under-represented in higher education employ to return to school and get a postsecondary degree.

A good example is the work of Maralani (2004) on college entry among traditional high school graduates and GED recipients. Comparisons of the two groups reveal that measures such as social background and cognitive skills do not account for the differences in college entry. Rather, the fact that GED recipients are older, for example, in their mid and late 20s, and thus negotiating the other pressures of adulthood contributes to lesser rates of college entry as compared to their high school graduate counterparts. The inclusion of differences in age and timing increases and complements the explanatory power of factors like social background and cognitive skills.

Policy implications vis-à-vis access

How can we increase access to college among individuals from disadvantaged populations? As I discussed earlier, historiography has charted the positive effects of school-based policies during the late 1960s and early 1970s to increase representation of African-American students, including postsecondary remedial education programs, recruitment at largely Black high schools and revising of admissions criteria, increased financial aid, and open admissions. While the existing research demonstrates the key role affirmative action has played in college enrollment among Blacks and Latinos (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Karabel, 1999; Allen, Teranishi, Dinwiddie, & Gonzalez, 2000), such policies failed to broaden the concept of merit, making them vulnerable to opposition (Reuben, 2001). In California, for example, voters passed Proposition 209 in the mid-1990s, which prohibited the use of race in public higher education, and Black and Latino enrollments subsequently declined dramatically with professional school enrolments returning to the levels of the late 1960s. Other states like Texas have turned to percentage plans, an admissions policy that admits the top percentage of high school students by academic performance into public universities. Percentage plans, unlike affirmative action and class-based policies, do not explicitly use race or socioeconomic criteria. However, it has been shown that percentage plans do not maintain racial diversity and rather magnifies the effects of racial segregation in Texas high schools (Tienda, Leicht, Sullivan, Maltese, & Lloyd, 2003; Tienda & Niu, 2004).

Nationally, the controversy surrounding affirmative action culminated in the 2003 Supreme Court decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. Both cases involved the admission processes at the University of Michigan, in the college for the former and in the law school for the latter. In the undergraduate case, the Court emphasized the importance of individualized review to assess all of the qualities each applicant might contribute to the diversity of the entering class, rather than a point system that assigned a certain number of points based on race. In the law school case, the Court ruled that some attention to numbers without a rigid quota was permissible for the law school to create a racially diverse student body that would presumably foster "cross-racial understanding" and the breaking down of racial stereotypes.

Further policy issues to keep in mind around access is the role of academic criteria in how Black and low-income students are evaluated in the admissions process and non-academic factors in how older adults decide to return to school. According to Deil-Amen and Lopez Turley (this volume), sociologists have found that the quality of high school and the grades earned have more predictive power than SAT scores and, hence, have argued that they should be accorded more weight in the admissions process. It has been posited that market-driven forces around ETS and the College Board have instead kept the SAT as a key admissions criteria, placing Black and low-income students, who score lower on the SAT on average, at a disadvantage in access to college. Further, the demographic implications for our growing population of older college students means school officials need to take into account how child care, housing, and class scheduling can serve as a deterrent to such students, who are typically juggling multiple life-course demands.

HOW DO WE PAY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION?

The third key question in the college pipeline has to do with money. In this section, I address the issue of the cost of higher education, and what we know about its role in influencing access.

Economics: The cost of college and how it affects access

Students that are academically ready for college with a firm grasp of how to get access to college, face the crucial hurdle of how to pay for it. Given the rising costs of college tuition, the affordability of which is typically determined through a comparison of the median income of American families, the stakes here are substantial. As Long (this volume) demonstrates, researchers in economics and related fields have been interested in determining whether cost actually deters students of disadvantaged populations from considering college as a viable option, thus leading to self-selection out of the college pipeline; among those considering various colleges, the question is whether cost becomes a factor in choice of institution.

There exists a complex web of stakeholders in today's financial aid system, and I defer to Long's fine discussion to focus here on a brief schematic of the federal and state levels, what they provide, and recent shifts that have increased the burden on low-income individuals. At the federal level, the traditional direct financial aid programs include the Pell Grant, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, and Stafford Loans. In 1997, in recognition of the increasing costs of college tuitions and fees, the federal government put into place the Hope and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits, which were given to students and families financing their children's education. However, because the tax credits are based on income criteria, this policy tends to privilege middle- and upper-income families. States, meanwhile, provide both direct and indirect aid to students. An example of the former is that the list price of tuition at public colleges and universities for in-state residents has already been subsidized by the state. Other more direct state strategies of financial aid include grants to students. States, however, have increasingly shifted from need-based to merit-based grants. Finally, loans, with required repayment schedules, are available from the federal and state governments. Consistent with the overall trends away from need-based assistance, loans are increasingly replacing grants in financial aid packages.

The key question, then, is how does this complex matrix of financing matter in terms of college access, and how can we do a better job? As Long posits, data and methodological limitations have made it difficult for economists to make causal claims, as opposed to correlative ones, and much more work needs to be done in several domains, including how effects vary by race, ethnicity, and gender as well as income. Nonetheless, several key trends have emerged. In the research on how students choose which college to attend, the focus has been on the individual's decision to apply rather than the decision of the colleges to admit. Manski and Wise (1983) and others have found that individuals self-select themselves out of applying for certain colleges based upon an assessment of whether they will get in and the projected return. Within this literature, it has been shown that financial aid is thus likely to affect who goes to which college. Price, for example, makes a difference. Studies have paid attention to costs and the decision to attend a community college versus a four-year college (Rouse, 1994; Alexander, Pallas, & Holupka, 1987; Hilmer, 1998). Long (forthcoming) analyzes the role of price along with distance and quality in the process of choosing to attend four-year colleges among several cohorts. She finds that while the effect of price has changed over time, price remains significant for low-income students. Both Long (2004) and Ganderton (1992) have found that financial aid plays a role in students choosing to attend a lower-ranked public college as opposed to a higher-ranked private counterpart. Loans might also prove a deterrent for individuals with low debt thresholds. As another example, while the returns to college play a strong role in the decisions of high-achieving students over which college to attend, there is still an effect of loans (Avery & Hoxby, 2004). Overall, the theme raised by Kane (1999) and others is that the existing financial system does have some effect on inequalities around college access.

Policy implications vis-à-vis paying for higher education

In her chapter, Long points toward two broad policy questions surrounding the question of paying for college. The first is a more philosophical one that effectively maps out the terrain of stakeholders, namely, who should pay for college? The answer is not as straightforward as one might think. Depending on whom you speak with, the answer can be any one or combination of the following, that is, the federal government, states, taxpayers, philanthropists, and individuals and their families. Some have argued, for example, that we should think of college schooling as a public good much as we do the K-12 years; the policy implications of this perspective is certainly different from one that emphasizes the role of individuals saving enough to meet the costs of college. Thus, the answer to this question leads to different conversations about whom should assume what percentage of the cost, and then how this can be achieved. For example, discussions of family contributions need to be situated in the context of the rise in single-parent households, and the trend towards granting aid based on merit rather than need (Johnstone, 2003; Baum, 2003).

The second, inter-related question has to do with the potential and actual effects of financial aid as a lever for increasing access. While we know that in the present system of financing, cost leads to particular decisions about whether to attend college, and which kinds, we still need to learn more about this important process to develop policy initiatives. Relatedly, there has been much debate about whether access to information about how to pay for college functions as a barrier to application and enrollment among low-income students. Due to methodological concerns, which I elaborate on later, economists are uncertain if information about college costs and financial aid has a causal—as opposed to correlative—effect on college access (O'Brien, 1992). If the answer is that financial aid information serves as the primary route for increasing college access, then clearly policy-makers need to address informational conduits. However, should financial aid play a supporting role, mediated by other variables related to conditions of disadvantage, such as academic preparation, then non-financial aid policy derivations need to be taken into account.

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO TWO-YEAR AND FOUR-YEAR DEGREE COMPLETION?

The final piece of the puzzle around the transition to college is the route to completion of the degree. In this section, I discuss the complexities that surround this portion of the college pipeline.

Higher education: Pathways, persistence, and completion

What kinds of pathways do students take in the postsecondary pipeline, and what factors influence persistence and eventual completion? This has been the focus of the higher education literature. While the popular conception of the college student, and indeed, the focus of much of the extant research is of "the traditional-aged student attending a four-year institution," there are in fact various types of college students, and diverse pathways they take through postsecondary education. Today, the traditional picture of college entry as occurring immediately after completion of high school, schooling taking place at the same postsecondary institution on a full-time, continuous basis, and completion occurring in four years after entry only applies to a fraction of the population. As Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner (this volume) note, "Students are moving in, out, and among colleges and universities at higher rates than ever before."

In Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner's essay, they discuss the numerous descriptors being used to capture the increasing complexity of the postsecondary education experience, with words like rebounding, reverse transfer, transfer swirl; in essence, these pathways are characterized by attendance at multiple institutions (both two- and four-year) for various lengths of time, including time out of the educational system altogether. Moreover, there are "subtle forms of tracking" that exist even among students who start off at a four-year institution, and overall, students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to suffer negative consequences from particular attendance patterns, as compared to their high-income counterparts.

That said, much of the transfer literature has focused on the route from a two-year to a four-year institution. As discussed earlier with regards to preparation and to access, academic preparation is key to college completion. However, students from minority and low-income backgrounds often lack access to curriculum that would prepare one for college, and they are also disproportionately represented in the ranks of community colleges. Thus, remedial education in community colleges is a key piece of the completion puzzle. As this has been an under-examined domain of inquiry, we still do not have a firm grasp of what an effective remedial program would look like (Dougherty, 2002). Data on the commensurate payoffs to a community college education (no degree earned as opposed to an associate's degree, and an associate's degree v. a bachelor's degree) have complicated ongoing debates about the overall mission of community colleges; whether they should be vocational, academic, or a combination of the two. Relatedly, some have highlighted the role of purveyors of information about community colleges as a way of facilitating better-informed decisions among students. Schneider and Stevenson (1999), for example, have argued that high school students should be better served in getting information about the two-year community college option and what it involves.

Just as the transfer literature focuses on community colleges, studies of completion have centered on four-year colleges. Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner provide a fine discussion of the changing definitions of completion, and then a demographic portrait of who is and who is not completing the undergraduate degree. Some key themes emerge: The first year is crucial, especially for students that are the first members of their families to attend college and/or are low-income. Similar to the sense of belonging that was found to be important to academic preparedness among high school students, social and academic integration are vital to persistence and completion of the college degree. An important model in this vein is Tinto's (1987; 1993) theory of academic and social integration, which posits that students strongly embedded within college are more likely to stay within. As Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner (this volume) point out, Tinto himself and a number of other researchers have sought to elaborate on his model by attending to the needs of minorities and older/community college students, for example. The incorporation of these diverse groups has highlighted the different academic needs of college students. Similar to the research on the different learning styles of young children, the literature on higher education emphasizes the same learning styles, including cooperative learning and meaning-making among adults (Evans, 1994). Other academic factors related to persistence include smaller class sizes and faculty support for students, both of which facilitate persistence for women and minority students.

The means of achieving social integration among college students prove similar to those identified as key to fostering student engagement within the high school climate. College students need to experience a connection to the institutional community through exchanges with other students within the classroom and without, in school organizations and with faculty. One means of achieving this is through cognitive mapping of the institution, affording students a sense of ownership of their experiences in college (Attinasi, 1989; Rodriguez, 2001). Students, particularly those from traditionally under-represented groups, also respond well to mentoring relationships with faculty, who provide not only academic support but also social support, relating to the particular socio-cultural aspects of students' lives, and serve as role models.

Policy implications vis-à-vis completion

Although we know that a student's integration into the college community is a key factor in the likelihood of persistence and degree completion, the typical structure of student services on most college campuses, two- and four-year, remains balkanized. Each college office maps onto a crucial piece of a student's socialization into the institution. For example, the admissions office has the most comprehensive knowledge of each entering student's family, social, and academic background; counselors at the dormitories, where students actually live, if it is a residential institution, have knowledge of the students' everyday social lives; student affairs is responsible for coordinating cultural and social outreach programs; the academic departments serve as intellectual homes for students; and the office of career services provides counseling for students as they transition from college into the labor market or postgraduate education. Yet there is little sense in the existing literature of the extent to which and the ways in which these various stakeholders collaborate. If we are indeed serious about providing students a crucial sense of social integration at the college level, there needs to be a linking of the institutional offices that serve them. In this way, the student's entire development can be brought to bear and traced over time towards the goal of completion. However, as I will elaborate in the next section in different domains, the process of creating linkages between areas with shared interests remains under-examined, although its importance is quite clear.

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL: A K-16 INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE

The extensive corpus of research notwithstanding, a key theme across the review essays is that we need an integrative model designed to bridge domains and disciplines that will allow us to address the key gaps in our knowledge. In short, there is a need to integrate research, policy, and practice between K-12 schooling and higher education (Gándara, 2002). This can be described as a K-16 perspective. Price (2005) thus suggests that K-12 and postsecondary schools, which now relate to one another as distant kin, become part of what he terms "one system;" such an integrative model would mean that K-12 schools have a better understanding of what students need to be prepared for postsecondary education, and postsecondary schools would have a clear picture of the particular skill sets with which their students are arriving. This is particularly important because the existing research of how K-12 experiences are associated with student academic outcomes and retention in college, while scarce, does suggest the following: pre-college curriculum and high school graduation requirements do not map well with requirements of college admissions offices and the labor market; the more rigorous high school curriculum one takes, the better chance a person has of not only enrolling in but also being prepared for college.

This integration can occur at various levels: state policies that encourage linkages between K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions; formal K-12/university partnerships; and further collaborations between higher education researchers and non-governmental and non-university research organizations that disseminate information about the transition from high school to college, the so-called Fifth Sector organizations2. (Price, 2005). As Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner (this volume) point out, there are also obstacles. For example, there are currently no incentives for K-12 institutions and colleges and universities to develop partnerships as they share no accountability mechanisms or funding streams . One of the few exceptions is the Early College High School, a collaborative effort between a public school district and a postsecondary institution, which receives funding from the Gates Foundation. The schools are designed to serve students, who are low-income, minority, and/or the first in the family to go to college, by bridging the gap between K-12 and college.

Additionally, there is the need for researchers themselves to adopt a K-16 perspective, rather than staying within the boundaries of the K-12 literature or alternatively, higher education. Scholars in both realms have emphasized, for example, the importance of institutional belonging to persistence and the role of different learning styles. Yet, few studies have looked at such issues from a long-term perspective, and our knowledge base is consequently lacking for it. Equally important is the need to adopt an interdisciplinary lens. Just as researchers tend to stay bound to one piece of the transition to higher education, they also tend to view research questions from a disciplinary lens. As the authors in this volume have noted, however, each discipline only speaks to a part of the puzzle. In her review of anthropology, Koyama (this volume) points out the need to pay attention to college access and retention from all its many varied dimensions—financial, academic, social, and cultural. That said, anthropology as a discipline is better suited to investigating the relations of students within schools. Thus, our knowledge can be expanded if researchers move beyond the disciplinary lens to incorporate research findings culled from other disciplines. As Koyama posits, such an integrative strategy would help us attend to the "multiple factors required to enter and succeed in college." In this vein, Long (this volume) notes that economists have paid little attention to the role of financial aid and the decision-making of nontraditional, older students. She observes that "the growth in loans may affect career decisions and the timing of marriage and having kids." This is precisely the kind of area that would benefit from both a demographer's and economist's expertise—the former to investigate the role of age, and timing, and other life-course decisions, and the latter, the role of cost.

METHODOLOGICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATIONS

In this concluding section, I synthesize where we need to push further in methodology, and the areas to which we need to pay further attention. As the review essays demonstrate, the existing research draws on multiple methods, including qualitative methods emphasizing social processes and the ways in which they are experienced and understood, quantitative analyses of large-scale educational data sets, legal cases, and archival data. That said, a key theme that emerged, and that I wish to elaborate on here, is how to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods, and what we gain from this; how to develop more sophisticated tools for establishing causal inferences, rather than correlations, using quantitative methods; and how to create quantitative datasets that speak to the kinds of questions we wish to investigate. I close with a look at the broad substantive gaps that the authors have identified.

Qualitative and historical methods: Contributions and challenges

As Koyama (this volume) points out, the emphasis in educational research, particularly funded studies of the U.S. Department of Education, has been on quantitative methods, with a recent focus on testing, given the mandates of No Child Left Behind. What we gain in terms of representativeness, however, we lose in complexity. In the absence of qualitative methods like interviews and participant observations, we do not have the tools to understand the meanings individuals attach to events and situations, and how they frame their decisions. Given the fact that these understandings and decisions are situated in the complex social contexts in which individuals are embedded, themselves shaped by broader historical, social, and economic trends,

the findings made possible by qualitative methods are crucial. As one example, we have much data suggesting that Black males are under-represented in higher education. However, we still lack an understanding of why and how this is occurring (Deil-Amen & López-Turley, this volume).

In historical research, Gelber (this volume) points out that the inclusion of student voices would complement our existing knowledge of structure and "intellectual life," which is typically gained from the artifacts of administrators and professors in higher education. The inclusion of student voices would strengthen our understanding of topics that remain under-examined in history, such as "student choices, cultural tensions, or family expectations." Further, methodologically speaking, there are also tensions in how historians approach their research that can work against the formulation of policy. He identified this as a fundamental tension between the need of historians to maintain the "discipline's humanistic aspects" while at the same time, following the scientific approach with "reproducible" data and conclusions that can be further tested in other situations, and also provide implications and/or clear lines for policy. As an example, Gelber cites Mattingly, Anderson, Church, Curran, & Tobias' (2004) finding that in historical analyses of college access, researchers typically situate their studies within particular campuses and neglect to pay attention to more macro questions surrounding higher education. Or as Gelber writes: "In general, historians are trained to produce histories of policy rather than histories as policy."

In the next section, I investigate challenges that quantitative methodologists confront.

Quantitative methods: Challenges and possible solutions

Educational researchers using large-scale data sets have typically turned to those collected and maintained by the federal government, including the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS72), the High School and Beyond (HSB), the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88), the Beginning Postsecondary Study (BPS), and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). In this volume, Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner, and Long carefully map out the benefits and limitations of quantitative analyses of these various datasets. A strength of quantitative methods is the ability therein to establish a causal relationship. However, as Long argues with regards to economists, the challenges to doing so in higher education research are many, as "one must develop an appropriate strategy to isolate the effect" and to "deal with possible endogeneity between variables, reduce estimation biases, and refute other possible explanations of their results."

In her chapter, Long provides two examples—affirmative action and the relationship between financial aid and persistence—that bear discussion here. With regards to affirmative action, particularly at elite institutions, a core problem is that certain measures used in the college admissions process are not available to quantitative researchers. It follows that quantitative researchers rely on test scores and high school GPA. However, even if criteria such as student essays, teacher recommendations, and extracurricular activities were available, they are subjective in nature and, consequently, do not lend themselves to quantitative analyses. Without them, however, one cannot demonstrate a casual relationship between racial preferences and admissions decisions. A different kind of challenge lies with scholarly inquiries into financial aid and persistence. In Long's words: "The characteristics that are positively correlated with receiving aid (i.e., being from a low-income family or having high test scores) are also likely to be related with educational outcomes." As a result, it becomes difficult to parse out which is driving persistence.

In Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner's essay (this volume), it becomes apparent that such challenges and limitations are shared among researchers, regardless of discipline, as they seek to establish causal relationships employing quantitative data. In addition to endogeneity, point out Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner, higher education research is characterized by a lack of attention paid to selection bias, reliability and validity, response rates and missing data, and attrition. The strategies for addressing these thorny methodological issues exist, for example, hierarchical linear modeling can address institutional versus individual level effects, but they are not used often enough. In addition, logistic regression techniques, event history analysis, and survival analysis are effective strategies for establishing attribution of causality. While the first two are increasingly being used, survival analysis remains sparsely employed by leading analysts of higher education, despite the recent publication of a textbook on its application to education research (Singer & Willett, 2003).

There are also limitations posed by the currently available measures and the large-scale datasets themselves. In particular, Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner (this volume) note the disjuncture between the widespread attention paid to Tinto's (1987; 1993) theory of academic and social integration, which practically speaking, maps onto such institutional services as student advising and study skills courses, and the relatively few studies that test the effects of these services on persistence. One difficulty has been that the variables do not necessarily accurately capture what they are designed to measure. Another issue lies with the datasets. Put simply, there is a need to track students for longer periods of time, and to investigate the many steps of their diverse pathways. Longitudinal studies are crucial, but most do not measure student aspirations following matriculation and, thus, we cannot see with much clarity how aspirations change in the postsecondary process, a relevant question given the many pathways taken by students

Further, databases typically do not follow high students for more than eight to ten years after graduation, reducing our ability to track them over their life course. The coverage in some databases such as the Beginning Postsecondary Student Longitudinal Study (BPS) and the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) is limited to first-time and full-time enrolled students, an approach that misses out on the rest of the college-going population. Additional insights offered by Goldrick-Rab, Carter, and Wagner speak to the need for an overall integrative model, in this case, one that follows students "across school systems, and indeed state lines, in order to gather complete data on their schooling trajectories." Along similar lines, the link between postsecondary education and mobility would be more fully elucidated if secondary and higher education databases were linked along with employment and earnings data.

1. Where to go next

Such an overall integrative model and more refined methods will allow us to attend to notable substantive gaps in our coverage, and move towards telling a more nuanced story of the transition to college. A key substantive gap across disciplines is variation along the lines of race, ethnicity, immigrant status, gender, and age across domains. For example, while we know that individual background characteristics affect how financial aid affects enrollment decisions, we need to pay further attention to the relationship between financial aid and the choices made by those groups that have increasingly joined the ranks of higher education, namely members of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and older students (Long, this volume).

The continuing large-scale immigration to the United States intersects with some of these dimensions in complex and to date, little-understood ways (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995, 2001; Louie, 2004, 2005; Mollenkopf, Waters, Holdaway, & Kasinitz, 2005). The education of immigrant children presents a distinct set of challenges that may also map onto the existing ones of native students, in such domains as social capital to a sense of belonging (Rong & Preissle, 1997; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Gibson et al., 2004; Kao, 2004; Louie 2005; Noguera, 2004). Future studies, for example, should investigate how immigrants map onto the traditional Black-White racial paradigm in the transition to higher education. A New York Times article (Rimer & Arenson, 2004) suggests that Black college students are more likely to be the children of immigrants, rather than African-Americans of several generations. In what ways does this complicate our understandings of the experiences of Blacks and the transition to higher education? We know from the extant literature that being Black and immigrant might represent a distinct experience among immigrant newcomers themselves, presenting both shared challenges with African-Americans and ones particular to migration and ethnicity (Waters, 1999; Stepick, Stepick, Eugene, Teed, & Labisierre, 2001; Butterfield, 2004). In the case of Latinos, Trillo (2004) documents how the children of South American immigrants are incorporated into the institutional culture and curriculum at LaGuardia Community College in New York City, both of which center around the civil rights struggles that led to greater inclusion of African-Americans and Puerto Ricans at CUNY. How does this complicate Tinto's model of social and academic integration?

We also need to consider how immigrant status matters, if at all, in postsecondary aspirations and outcomes, and the processes that shape them (Louie, in press). Is it meaningful to speak of a phenomenon as immigration and education, and in what ways? Additionally, there appears to be a gender gap, or at least gendered experiences in K-12 academic achievement favoring immigrant girls (López, 2003; Suárez-Orozco & Qin, 2006; Suárez-Orozco & Qin-Hillard 2004; Holdaway, 2005). How does this map onto overall patterns of parity for women in postsecondary enrollment and attainment? Gender itself merits additional investigation. Now that the challenges of access and completion have been met, are there other, more hidden barriers that remain for women (Goldrick-Rab, Carter, & Wagner, this volume)?

Finally, what do we mean by the term postsecondary education? To some, vocational training is included in this term, and yet, little research focuses on this domain. Further, the review essays point to a strong research emphasis on elite, four-year institutions of higher education, particularly private schools. Economists have typically focused on these institutions as they have historically provided the most financial aid. What this means is that our knowledge of financial aid packages offered to students, a measure that can improve our understanding of access but one that is rarely available, generally comes from elite institutions (Long, this volume). Historians have focused on this group of institutions, also partially due to methodological reasons, as elite schools have had the financial resources to maintain their archival records in ways that less selective schools have not. As Gelber (this volume) notes, what this means is that "a synthesis of the expansion of regional public colleges and universities has not yet been written."

It is only with more focused attention, using an integrative model and a combination of methods, to the educational problem of who is prepared for, gets access to, obtains financing for, and completes college that the many accounts that have not yet been written will be. The stakes are high. Depending on whether we take the lead, or alternatively, remain where we are, the transition to college will represent either the promise, or the decline of the American future.

I wish to thank the editors of this special issue: William Trent, Margaret Orr, and Sherri Ranis. I am especially appreciative of Sherri Ranis' very thoughtful and insightful expertise throughout the process, and of Jennifer Holdaway's always welcome guidance when she joined the project.

I also wish to extend many thanks to the Transitions to College Committee members for their very discerning and generous comments on this essay: Kevin Dougherty, Luis Fraga, Margaret Gibson, Patricia King, Barbara Lee, Jamie Merisotis, David Mustard, Michael Nettles, Margaret Orr, Julie Reuben, Barbara Schneider, Claude Steele, Vincent Tinto, and William Trent. I gained many insights from the individual essays written by: Jill Koyama, Vida Maralani, Bridget Terry Long, Scott Gelber, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Deborah Faye Carter, Rachelle Winkle Wagner, Regina Deil-Amen, Ruth López Turley, and Derek Price. I am indebted to the services of Laura Stein and Jeppe Wohlert, of the Social Science Research Council, who helped me negotiate the mechanics of writing an essay based on the contributions of so many.

Notes

1. Post-1960s large-scale immigration to the United States has also been characterized by arrivals of large numbers of migrants with few skills and relatively low levels of formal schooling. Please see Portes and Rumbaut (1980; 2001), Portes and Zhou (1993), Bean and Stevens (2003), Alba and Nee (2003), and Fix and Passel (2003) for a discussion of overall immigration trends, and the implications for incorporation into the nation's labor market.

2. Price (2005) defines the Fifth Sector as non-governmental and non-university based research groups that disseminate reports on the transition from high school to college and the labor market.

References

Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Alexander, K. L., Pallas, A. M., & Holupka, S. (1987). Consistency and change in educational stratification: Recent trends regarding social background and college access. In R. V. Robinson (Ed.), Research in social stratification and mobility. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Allen, W. R., Teranishi, R., Dinwiddie, G., & Gonzalez, G. (2000). Knocking at freedom's door: Race, equity and affirmative action in U.S. higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 69, 3–11.

Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans' perceptions of University attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 247–277.

Avery, C., & Hoxby, C. (2004). Do and should financial aid packages affect students' college choices? In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of which college, when college, and how to pay for it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baum, S. (2003). The role of student loans in college access. New York: National Dialogue on Student Financial Aid, College Board.

Bean, F. D., & Stevens, G. (2003). America's newcomers and the dynamics of diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bowen, W., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brittain, C. (2002). Transnational messages: Experiences of Chinese and Mexican immigrants in American schools. New York: LBF Scholarly Publishing.

Butterfield, S. 2004. "We're just Black:" The racial and ethnic identities of second generation West Indians in New York. In P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, & M. Waters (Eds.). Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the new second generation (pp. 288–312). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Deil-Amen, R., & López Turley, R. N. A review of the transition to college literature in sociology. Teacher's College Record.

Dougherty, K. (1987). The effects of community colleges: Aid or hindrance to socioeconomic attainment? Sociology of Education, 60(2), 86–103.

Dougherty, K. (2002). The evolving role of the community college policy: Issues and research questions. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research.

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts. New York: Columbia University Press.

Evans, N. (1994). Experiential learning for all. London, New York: Cassell.

Fix, M., & Passel, J. (2003) U.S. Immigration: Trends and Implications for Schools. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410654_NABEPresentation.pdf

Gándara, P. (2002). Meeting common goals: Linking K-12 and college interventions. In W. G. Tierney, & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 81–103). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ganderton, P. T. (1992). The effect of subsidies in kind on the choice of a college, Journal of Public Economics, 48(3), 269–292.

Gelber, S. Pathways in the past: Historical perspectives on access to higher education. Teacher's College Record.

Gibson, M. A., Bejínez, L. F., Hidalgo, N., & Rolón, C. (2004). Belonging and school participation: Lessons from a migrant student club. In M. A. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. P. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U. S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement (pp. 129–149). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goldrick-Rab, S., Carter, D. F., & Winkle Wagner, R. What higher education has to say about the transition to college. Teacher's College Record.

Grissmer, D. (2005, May 12). Closing the Nation's Racial Achievement Gaps. Paper presented on panel, Harvard University, Graduate School of Education.

Hilmer, M. J. (1998). Post-secondary fees and the decision to attend a university or a community college. Journal of Public Economics, 67(3), 329–348.

Hochschild, J. (1995). Facing up to the American Dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Holdaway, J. (2005, May 4–5. Ethnic Diversity. Paper presented at the ETS Achievement Gap Symposium on the Progress and Challenges of Women and Girls in Education and Work. Princeton, N.J.

Kane, T. (1999). The price of admission. Washington, DC: Brookings Institutional Press.

Kao, G. (2004). Social capital and its televance to minority and immigrant populations. Sociology of Education 77(2), 172–175.

Karabel, J. (1999). The rise and fall of affirmative action at the University of California. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 25, 109–112.

Karen, D. (1991). The politics of class, race, and gender: Access to higher education in the United States, 1960–1986. American Journal of Education, 75, 208–237.

Koyama, J. P. (2006) Transitions to college: Anthropological and ethnographic accounts. Teacher's College Record.

Johnstone, B. D. (2003). Fundamental assumptions and aims underlying the principles of federal financial aid to students. New York: National Dialogue on Student Financial Aid, College Board.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73–85.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53.

Lavin, D. E., & Hyllegard, D. (1996). Changing the odds: Open admissions and the life chances of the disadvantaged. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Long, B. T. (Forthcoming). How have college decisions changed overtime? An application of the conditional logistic choice model. Journal of Econometrics.

Long, B.T. (2006). Contributions from the field of economics to the study of college access and success. Teacher's College Record.

Long, B. T. (2004). Does the format of an aid program matter? The effect of in-kind tuition subsidies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(3), 767–782.

López, N. (2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Gender and race disparity in urban education. New York: Routledge Press.

Louie, V. (2004). Compelled to excel: Immigration, education and opportunity among Chinese Americans. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Louie, V. (2005). Immigrant student populations and the pipeline to college: Current considerations and future lines of inquiry. Review of Research in Education, 29. 69–106.

Louie, V. (in press, Fall 2006). Second generation pessimism and optimism: How Chinese and Dominicans understand education and mobility through ethnic and transnational orientations. International Migration Review, 40(3), 537–572.

Manski, C., & Wise, D. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maralani, V. (2006). The transition to college from a demographic perspective: Past findings and future possibilities. Teacher's College Record.

Maralani, V. (2004). From GED to college: The role of age and timing in educational stratification (working paper #005-03). California Center for Population Research. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.ccpr.ucla.edu/ccprwpseries/ccpr_005_03.pdf

Mattingly, P., Anderson, J., Church, R., Curran, E., & Tobias, M. (2004). Renegotiating the historical narrative: The case of American higher education. History of Education Quarterly, 44(4), 577–596.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

McLanahan, S., & G. Sandefur. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mollenkopf, J., Waters, M., Holdaway, J., & Kasinitz P. (2005). The ever-winding path: Ethnic and racial diversity in the transition to adulthood. In R. A. Settersten Jr., F. F. Furstenberg Jr., & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy (pp. 454–497). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Morgan, S. L. (1996). Trends in black-white differences in educational expectations: 1980­–92. Sociology of Education, 69, 308–319.

Newman, K. 1999. No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city. New York: Alfred A. Knopf and the Russell Sage Foundation.

Noguera, P. A. (2004). Social capital and the education of immigrant students: Categories and generalizations. Sociology of Education, 77, 180–183.

O'Brien, P. M. (1992). Enrollment in higher education: The role of information about college costs and financial aid. Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard University.

Persell, C. H., & Cookson, P. W. (1985). Chartering and bartering—Elite education and social reproduction. Social Problems, 33, 114–129.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (1980). Immigrant America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy, 520, 74–96.

Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (1989). The liability of having brothers—Paying for college and the sex composition of the family. Sociology of Education, 62, 134–147.

Price, D. (2005). "Fifth-sector" reports on the transition from high school to college: 1998–2004. Report to the Social Science Research Council.

Reuben, J. A. (2001). Merit, mission, and minority students: The history of debate over special admissions programs. In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A faithful mirror: Reflections on the College Board and education in America (pp. 195–243). New York: College Board.

Rimer, S., & Arenson, K.W. (2004, June 24). Top colleges take more Blacks, but which ones? New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Rodriguez, S. (2001). Giants among us: First-generation students who lead activist lives. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Rong, X. L., & Preissle, J. (1997). Educating immigrant students: What we need to know to meet the challenge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rouse, C. (1994). What to do after high school? Two-year vs. four-year college enrollment decisions. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education (pp. 59–88). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America's teenagers, motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Scott, J., & Leonhardt, D. (2005, May 15). Class in America: Shadowy lines that still divide. New York Times, Section 1, p. 1.

Sewell, W. H. (1971). Inequality of Opportunity for Higher Education. American Sociological Review, 36, 793-809.

Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R.M. (1975). Education, occupation, and earnings: Achievement in the early career. New York: Academic Press.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stepick, A., Stepick, C., Eugene, E., Teed, D., & Labisierre, Y. (2001). Shifting identities and intergenerational conflict: Growing up Haitian in Miami. In R. Rumbaut, & A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America (pp. 229–266). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C. and Suárez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life & achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Qin-Hillard, D. B. (2004). The cultural psychology of academic engagement: Immigrant boys' experiences in U.S. schools. In N. Way, & J. Chu (Eds.), Adolescent boys: Exploring diverse cultures of boyhood. New York: New York University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Qin, D. B. (2006). Gendered perspectives in psychology: Immigrant origin youth. International Migration Review: Special Issue on Gender and Migration Revisited, 40(1), 165–198.

Tienda, M., Leicht, K. T., Sullivan, T., Maltese, M., & Lloyd, K. (2003). Closing the gap? Admissions & enrollments at the Texas public flagships before and after affirmative action. Princeton, NJ, Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project.

Tienda, M., & Niu, S. (2004). Capitalizing on segregation, pretending neutrality: College admissions and the Texas top 10% law. Princeton, NJ: Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

Trillo, A. (2004). Somewhere between Wall Street and El Barrio: Community college as a second chance for second-generation Latino students. In P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. Waters (Eds.), Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the new second generation (pp. 57–78). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U. S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. L. (2003). Betraying the college dream. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Waters, M. (1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 109 Number 10, 2007, p. 2-3

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12569, Date Accessed: 11/6/2006 12:42:18 PM

by Scott Gelber — 2007

Background/Context

Although increasing numbers of scholars have begun to focus on student experiences, research on the history of underrepresented populations' transition to college is still in its formative stage. The classic histories of higher education have tended to focus on university infrastructure and intellectual life rather than on student experiences. In addition, historians studying college enrollment generally have not used the policy frameworks of preparation, access, finance, and completion as their central analytical categories. Instead, most historians have organized their work around individual institutions and the categories of race, gender, and class.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This article explores the question of what historical scholarship might contribute to current campaigns for equal access to higher education.

Research Design

This study was a literature review of all historical scholarship on college access produced in the last twenty five years. Literature was identified by searches on ERIC, Academic Search Premier, and JSTOR, and by consulting the references of the most commonly cited works in this field. For purposes of analysis, the review is divided into sections on "Preparation," "Admissions," "Finance," and "Retention." Each section highlights potential implications for contemporary thinking about college access and recommends future areas for historical inquiry. This essay does not claim to be an exhaustive survey of all historical scholarship on college access. Instead, the article focuses on work representing broad themes and major debates in the historiography as well as scholarship which touches most directly on transitions to college.

Conclusions/Recommendations

First, evidence from the nineteenth century suggests that even elite liberal arts colleges can take an active role in providing college preparation while still remaining true to other aspects of their academic mission. Secondly, although the increasing interest in "merit" once served to expand access to college by opening admissions to academically skilled but socially or economically marginalized students, it became a hurdle for equal access by the final third of the twentieth century. Since colleges have struggled to articulate a consistent measurement of student merit, it is unclear if it is possible to determine a coherent or constructive college mission based on this concept. Third, market forces have occasionally motivated institutions to expand access to underrepresented populations, state intervention has generally been necessary to increase access to college. Finally, the most powerful lesson that history can provide may be reminding politicians that experts have typically underestimated the extent of the demand for higher education by both students and employers.

As part of their preparation for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the NAACP asked several historians to determine whether the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to desegregate public schools. During the summer of 1953, Horace Mann Bond, C. Vann Woodward, and John Hope Franklin conducted research on the amendment's political and social context. By demonstrating that the original spirit of the amendment was broad and egalitarian, these historians contributed to the formulation of the NAACP's legal strategy (Kluger, 1975, 2004). Rather than marking the beginning of a sustained relationship between historians, lawyers, and policy-makers, this episode stands out as an exceptional case. Fifty years later, historians have still not fully documented the ways in which prior discrimination have shaped current inequalities in educational access and achievement. According to James Anderson, historians of higher education have remained "disconnected" from political questions, despite the fact that law and public policy are frequently based upon historical assumptions (Mattingly, Anderson, Church, Curran, & Tobias, 2004).

This disconnect is not a simple case of apathy within the ranks of historians. Unlike activists, historians tend to be wary of drawing overt connections between past and present policy debates. Even as Woodward was assisting the Brown plaintiffs, he advised the NAACP that his advocacy was "constrained" by the nature of his craft. Reflecting decades later upon the pressures faced by historians who relate their scholarship to current events, Woodward cautioned academics "to stay out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat" (Vinovskis, 1999).

Sensitive to Woodward's warnings, this essay explores what historical scholarship might contribute to advocates for equal access to higher education. This essay divides the issue of the transition to college for students from underrepresented populations into subtopics of "preparation," "admissions," "retention," and "finance." Each section of the essay summarizes what historians already know, highlights potential implications for contemporary thinking about college access, and recommends future areas for historical inquiry into college access.

Prior to the 1970s, historians had conducted very little research into college access that would have been useful to policy-makers. Most classic histories of higher education were narratives of institutional and academic expansion which made scant reference to the changing demographics of student bodies. While increasing numbers of historians have begun to focus on student experiences, our understanding of the expansion of college enrollments still pales in comparison to our knowledge of other aspects of higher education's infrastructure and intellectual life. Whereas administrators and professors tend to leave vast paper trails, student voices are more difficult to locate in the archives. Historians have also generally focused on broader structural forces affecting students rather than on attitudinal or informational factors. Few historians have probed the significance that student choices, cultural tensions, or family expectations may have had on the growth of higher education. In addition, historians generally have not used the policy lenses of preparation, access, finance, and completion as their central analytical categories for understanding higher education. Instead, most historians have organized their work around individual institutions and the categories of race, gender, and class.

The value of historical research for policy-makers is also complicated by the discipline's humanistic aspects. While historical research aspires to be scientific by citing data that is "reproducible" and applicable to similar circumstances, historians also often emphasize the particularity of their subject matter (Shavelson, 2002). Historical research on college access, for example, often focuses on specific campuses without exploring connections with broader principles of higher education (Mattingly et al, 2004). Even when historians ask questions about a single campus, they typically provide ambiguous findings. In fact, scholarship that reveals ambiguity and subtlety is often more respected by the historical profession than work that yields clear-cut "lessons." In general, historians are trained to produce histories of policy rather than histories as policy. According to John Rury (1999), the discipline's interest in exploring unanswerable questions and moral dimensions may make the historian "closer to the philosopher than to the policy analyst." Historians seeking to produce work that might be relevant to policy-makers often find themselves caught between these conflicting frameworks (.Donato & Lazerson, 2000; Rury, 1999).

COLLEGE PREPARATION OF WORKING CLASS AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS 1

With regard to college preparation, historical nuances and ambiguities can be instructive for the politicians, officials, and administrators who shape contemporary higher education. Historical research can inform current policy discussions by demonstrating that the division between secondary and higher education has always been blurry. Institutions of higher education have almost always been compelled to take some responsibility for college preparation. Since access to public high schools was not widely available in the nineteenth century, most students seeking entrance to higher education relied upon private academies or tutors. The relatively small number of public high schools which did manage to provide high quality pre-college training primarily served a small and affluent constituency. Since colleges maintained a variety of different entrance requirements and examination formats, even graduates of these high schools were not necessarily prepared to enter the college of their choice. Even though nineteenth-century colleges enrolled a relatively small portion of the population, most still struggled to identify sufficient numbers of adequately prepared students. Many colleges invested heavily in remedial education in order to increase their pool of students. Schools routinely issued conditional acceptances to students who were not proficient in one or two subjects and then provided basic non-credit coursework in these areas. In order to meet this need, most colleges formed their own academies and preparatory departments. Enrollment in these departments often matched or surpassed enrollment in standard college courses. While institutions of higher education generally regarded these programs as necessary evils and dismantled them as soon as possible, this history challenges contemporary notions that gaps between secondary and higher education are not primarily the responsibility of colleges and universities (Brier, 1984; Labaree, 1988; Reese, 1995; Wechsler, 1977).

By the 1880s, public high school enrollment in the north had surpassed enrollment in private academies. As a result of its lower population density, the disruption of the Civil War, and elite opposition to broad educational opportunity, public high schools grew more slowly in the South. In all regions of the nation, however, many colleges sought to increase the quality and quantity of applicants from the expanding public school system by guaranteeing admission to graduates of high schools that had been certified by states or regional accreditation agencies. However, as large numbers of previously underrepresented students entered secondary education during the twentieth century, education professionals tended to reduce the academic content of curricula for all students except those in explicitly college preparatory tracks. Since high schools tended to guide working-class students and students of color into less academic tracks, the demographics of students prepared for college did not radically change despite increasing numbers of high school graduates. During the era of rapid immigration around the turn of the twentieth century, some immigrants formed private or parochial schools in order to reduce the likelihood of academic or religious discrimination, while others fought to make the public schools more responsive to their interests.

While high school graduation rates have remained under fifty percent for most of U.S. history, educators expressed relatively little concern about secondary school attrition until the 1960s. Over the past several decades, however, concern over the "dropout" problem has become widespread. Until recently, educators have tended to blame students for their academic failure rather than institutional policy or structural forces. Yet dropout prevention programs and the development of the General Education Diploma (GED) have generally failed to significantly increase retention rates. Despite the inequity of secondary education, once colleges have become able to attract enough students, they have generally made fewer interventions into the preparation of potential applicants or the remediation of students with weaker academic skills (Angus, 1999; Brumberg, 1986; Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001; Dorn, 1997; Fass, 1989; Labaree, 1988; Perlman, 1988; Peterson, 1985; Reese, 1986, 1995; Wechsler, 1977). Historians have not yet adequately addressed the question of why inequities in preparation persisted even after the formal ideologies supporting inequality had been rejected. Although it seems unlikely that historians will discover any smoking guns, additional historical research might help to illuminate the influence of structural factors, such as institutional diversity and suburbanization, and cultural factors, such as teacher expectations and prejudices.

COLLEGE PREPARATION OF FEMALE STUDENTS

Although women are no longer underrepresented in higher education, the history of this transition may help scholars to better understand the experiences of other populations.2 For example, the history of the education of young women illustrates the extent to which preparation may be a necessary precondition for the expansion of college access. In particular, antebellum female academies with rigorous academic curricula lay the foundation for the growth of women's colleges in the Gilded Age. This history also highlights the manner in which dominant ideologies can work to expand or restrict access to schooling. While White girls were generally not viewed as equal in ability with White boys, a significant amount of education was seen as consistent with prevailing nineteenth-century ideas about White gender roles. According to the discourse of republican motherhood, education was necessary to prepare White girls for their future duties as mothers and wives in a democratic society. In contrast, beyond a small degree of religious literacy, the education of Black Americans was more likely to be viewed as an assault on prevailing notions of nineteenth-century notions of racial hierarchy. Additionally, the history of girls' education underscores the significance of social class. Girls from affluent families have tended to be at the forefront of breaking through sex barriers in education.

Although most founders of public high schools were not interested in educating young women and some single-sex high schools remained along the northeastern seaboard and in the South, public high schools rapidly became coeducational. High school curricula in the nineteenth century were generally not differentiated by gender and young women tended to outnumber and outperform young men. In the early twentieth century, however, curricula became increasingly gendered as schools added vocational courses specifically intended for boys and home economics courses intended for girls. By the 1920s, boys began to outnumber girls in math and science classes while girls were overrepresented in commercial courses such as typing and bookkeeping. Nevertheless, scholars have concluded that these curricular distinctions remained relatively superficial. Even though many educators hoped to differentiate high school curricula by sex, girls and boys generally enrolled in similar proportions of available courses. Despite attempts to increase the retention rates of boys and discourage the academic achievement of girls, young women continued to graduate in higher numbers than young men (Angus, 1999; Beadie, 1993; Graves, 1998; Reese, 1995; Schwager, 1987; Tyack, & Hansot, , 1992).

COLLEGE PREPARATION OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS

Research on the primary and secondary school experiences of African-Americans may represent the most powerful example of the policy relevance of historical scholarship. Historians of education have thoroughly documented the twists and turns of school segregation and have begun to explore the implications of these findings.

In the first half the nineteenth century, some free Black students enrolled in church-affiliated schools or public high schools in the north. However, northern Whites demonstrated little formal commitment to equal educational access and many northern schools excluded African-Americans altogether. A few Black communities were able to sustain African Free Schools, but they typically did not prepare students for higher education. Some Black and White abolitionists advocated for the integration of northern schools. Although many northern states outlawed segregation by the late nineteenth century, local prejudice and residential segregation generally obstructed the implementation of these laws. Since school integration tended to entail the dismissal of all Black teachers as well as the grouping of Black students in separate classrooms within White schools, African-Americans did not always mount vigorous protests against segregation. Formal schooling for African-Americans was prohibited in most southern states for free and enslaved African-Americans alike. Nevertheless, as many as five percent of enslaved persons may have obtained literacy by 1860. During Reconstruction, African-American communities and northern philanthropists established schools throughout the South. Primary schools rapidly increased literacy while academies prepared African-Americans to enter new public and private institutions of Black higher education (Durham, 2003; Homel, 1984; Reese, 1995; Tyack & Lowe, 1986).

With powerful implications for contemporary school policy, historians have been debating the extent to which these segregated schools prepared students for higher education between 1900 and 1970. Many historians have argued that despite the heroic efforts of Black educators, Black schools in both the north and the south were severely hamstrung by discrimination and unequal resources (Anyon, 1997; Dentler & Willie, 1991; Patterson, 2001; Pratt, 1992; Valencia & San Miguel, Jr., 1988). For example, Anderson (1988) criticizes the triumph of the "Hampton Model" for secondary vocational school curricula. Anderson argues that White philanthropists developed a second-class system of education by promoting this model contrary to wishes of most African-American students and teachers. While Homel (1984) argues that many of these schools managed to provide relatively equal educations to African-Americans before the 1920s, he concludes that they were crippled by persistent discrimination and economic depression before the onset of the Second World War.

In recent years, however, several historians have begun to challenge this portrait of mid-century Black schools. In particular, Celcelski (1994) and Walker (1996, 2000) both have highlighted the commitment of Black teachers, parents, and administrators as well as the strength of the curriculum and extra-curriculum. While they acknowledge the severely unequal distribution of resources, Celcelski and Walker suggest that segregated schools may have performed more valuable service to Black communities than post-Brown integrated institutions. Since quantitative data is scarce from this period, Cecelski and Walker rely substantially on the perceptions of teachers and administrators. Both historians have acknowledged the limitations of these sources, but they also urge readers to expand their definitions of school quality to include community cohesion and student identity formation. Census data revealing that Black educational attainment surpassed that of Whites in the 1950s among families with similar income levels has also been used to bolster this portrait of effective pre-Brown schooling (Bauman, 1998).

Historians who are enthusiastic about the strength of segregated Black schools tend to be skeptical about the educational benefits of the Brown decision. As a result of school integration, the Black teaching force was decimated as White administrators tended to hire teachers of their own race. It seems likely that the reduction of the numbers of Black teachers had a detrimental impact on African-American academic achievement. Segregated schools may also have been more likely to encourage Black students to prepare for college and professions. Higginbotham (2001) suggests that discriminatory college counseling at predominantly White high schools may have reduced the numbers of Black graduates who moved on to higher education. While she notes that Black students in White high schools may have received a superior academic education, Higginbotham questions whether the social and emotional costs outweighed the benefits of this experience. The backlash to school integration also may have intensified the use of testing and tracking in elementary and secondary schools in order to replace inter-institutional segregation with intra-institutional segregation (Baker, 2001; Hudson & Holmes, 1994).

Although most scholars now acknowledge the setbacks which followed the Brown decision, many still dispute the charge that school integration caused more harm than good (Klarman, 1994; Kluger, 1975, 2004; Patterson, 2001). Although they argue that desegregation improved school quality only between 1966 and 1976 and emphasize that the costs of desegregation were borne disproportionately by African-Americans, Dentler and Willie (1991) still maintain that desegregation has proven to be the most effective plan for large-scale school improvement.

Since many predominantly White colleges in the post-WWII era claimed that it was difficult for them to find enough qualified Black applicants, additional evidence of effective mid-century African-American secondary education would raise important new questions about the dynamics of integration and admissions at selective institutions of higher education. If Black high schools were effectively preparing their graduates for college-level work, it would indicate that racial discrimination and financial obstacles may have been even more significant barriers to the transition to college than has been previously assumed.

COLLEGE PREPARATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN, LATINO/A, AND ASIAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS

Historical scholarship on Native American education has focused most specifically on boarding schools in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Established by private philanthropy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), these schools tended to be vocationally oriented and disrespectful of native cultures. Beginning slowly in 1890s, the federal government began to pay local schools that enrolled Native American students. By the 1920s, seventy-five percent of Native American children attended schools. The majority of these students enrolled in local public schools rather than BIA day schools or boarding schools. While ever greater numbers of Native Americans enrolled in schools, student retention rates remained low as students experienced great difficulty reconciling their schooling with the economics and culture of their reservations. In the 1960s, Native American educators began a concerted campaign for community control, bicultural education, and a greater emphasis on college preparation. While the cultural and political success of the community control movement is clear, these schools continued to face financial and academic challenges (Adams, 1995; Lomawaima, 1994; Mihesuah, 1993; Riney, 1998; Szasz, 1974, 1999; Trennert Jr., 1988).

Substantial research has also been conducted on the segregation and stratification of schooling for Chicanos/as. Most of this work notes the expansion of high school attendance, but highlights the persistence of cultural and academic bias. Most historians agree that racial segregation served the economic interests of the dominant society. At the same time, however, many Chicano/a parents and educational leaders were more interested in community control and school quality than in integration with Whites. Since historians of education have yet to concentrate on more recent immigration since the reforms of 1965, scholarship on Latino/a education has focused almost exclusively on Chicanos/as (Donato, 1997; Gonzalez, 1990; Salinas, 2000; San Miguel, 1987, 2001; Theobald & Donato, 1990; Valencia & San Miguel, Jr., 1988).

In contrast to scholarship on Native American and Latino/a secondary education, relatively little recent work has been completed on the history of Asian-American secondary education. Tamura (1994) and Morimoto (1997) have provided fine monographs detailing the tensions between acculturation and language maintenance among Japanese-American students in Hawaii and California. Both authors profile the struggle of Nisei students to preserve their cultural identity while joining the American middle class. These efforts were obstructed by Americanization activists who promoted total assimilation and limited educational opportunities for immigrants. James (1987) has also addressed the period of Japanese-American education within the concentration camps of the Second World War. Each of these works on secondary school experiences of Asian-Americans focus on Japanese-Americans. We know even less about the educational experiences of other early Asian immigrant populations, such as Filipino-Americans and Chinese-Americans. Given the rise of the term "non-Asian minorities," it is especially important to compare and contrast Asian-American experiences with other ethnic minority populations in terms of educational issues such as biculturalism, community control, and integration.

COLLEGE ACCESS FOR WOMEN STUDENTS

Women were the first underrepresented population to gain access to college in substantial numbers, and this transition has been thoroughly documented by historians. With the exception of a few female seminaries, antebellum institutions of higher education generally did not provide equal educational opportunity for women students. During the second half of the nineteenth century, however, elite women's colleges offering high quality academic training were founded across the nation. Many graduates of these institutions remained single and pursued careers in fields such as health and education.

Although a substantial number of private male colleges became coeducational in the late nineteenth century, these transitions were generally motivated by economic pressure or a desire to replace a fraction of weak male students. While most leaders in the women's rights movement regarded coeducation as a crucial step on the road to social and economic equality, opposition to coeducation remained widespread. Many public intellectuals predicted that coeducation would blur essential boundaries between the sexes and weaken the moral and religious fabric of the nation. Some professors and administrators also worried about the "feminization" of subjects when women began to outnumber men in some courses. Others worried about impending "race suicide" due to the lower marriage rates of female college graduates.

While many public land grant institutions initially resisted coeducation, most normal schools and state universities in the north and west admitted women by the 1870s in response to sustained pressure by aspiring women scholars. Southern states were slower to become coeducational, and, following the example set by Mississippi, often opted to found public women's colleges instead. Public and private colleges alike tended to differentiate their curricula and treat female students as second-class citizens well into the twentieth century. Despite this chilly reception, women students and scholars worked to broaden their access to academic departments at coeducational schools and to establish their own institutional space in programs such as Home Economics. This discipline, which remained linked to traditional gender roles yet provided new professional status for many female scholars, illustrated the complexity of women's early access to higher education. Opposition to women's professional and graduate training also remained widespread. Although many medical schools became coeducational in the late nineteenth century, female enrollment actually decreased as the doctors increasingly emphasized gendered definitions of professional expertise. A late nineteenth-century California court case outlawing discrimination against women in law school admissions marked the start of a trend towards equal access to professional education, and a significant increase in women's participation in Ph.D. programs occurred during the 1920s and 1930s (Bordin, 1999; Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Gordon, 1990; Langdon, 2001; Lasser, 1987; Miller-Bernal, 1999; Nerad, 1999; Schwager, 1987; Solomon, 1985; Tyack & Hansot, 1992).

Beginning with the rush of predominantly male veterans onto college campuses after the Second World War, women's proportional gains in higher education stalled. By the 1960s, though, women resumed their increase in access to all levels of advanced schooling. During the 1960s and 1970s, a second wave of college conversions to coeducation was motivated by a familiar mix of financial pressures and desires to raise admissions selectivity. In the decade of the 1960s alone, the number of women's colleges decreased by half. Many former men's colleges also went coed, though some retained female quotas. Between 1966 and 1986, the proportion of single-sex colleges decreased from twenty five to six percent of the total number of institutions of higher learning. By 1980, only two percent of women attending college were enrolled in single-sex schools. Although unevenly enforced, the 1972 Title IX amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned gender discrimination of any kind in schools receiving federal funding and has since been employed to attack inequality particularly in the realm of college athletics. Women's college enrollment rapidly increased and surpassed male enrollment in 1979. By the 1980s, studies of young women revealed that their professional and educational aspirations equaled or surpassed those of young men. However, women remained underrepresented in professional schools in fields such as law and medicine (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Solomon, 1985; Tyack & Hansot, 1992).

Although the historiography of women's access to college is incredibly rich, scholars of gender and higher education have tended to focus on the initial barriers to admission, curricular inequity and assets, and student culture. Relatively little historical work has analyzed the relationships between gender and socioeconomic status on college campuses. For example, Solomon (1985) briefly notes that more scholarship money was available for men than for women at the turn of the century. She also argues that the population of college women diversified in this same period Vandenberg-Daves (2001) has stated that working-class women began to attend college in the same proportions as affluent women sometime between the 1960s and the 1980s, and that their achievements challenged patriarchy as much as the better publicized women's rights movement of this era. How might additional research into the intersection of gender and class complicate our understanding of college access and retention?

COLLEGE ACCESS FOR WORKING-CLASS AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

Although the broad timeline of the transition to college for working-class youth has been established, this area has not received sufficient attention in recent years. For the past fifteen years, historians of higher education have paid more attention to race and gender than to class (Nidiffer, 1999). Yet, class remains an important area for further research especially in light of proposals to reconsider the criteria for affirmative action.

Burke (1982) and Allmendinger (1975) have demonstrated that the nineteenth-century college population was not entirely homogenous, while Herbst (1989) and Ogren (2005) have argued that normal schools were the first providers of mass higher education. Nevertheless, relatively few working-class or immigrant youth attended college during this era. While any student who could pass a series of entrance examinations could enroll in college, tuition and the scarcity of quality public secondary schooling were formidable hurdles throughout the century. In particular, college entrance exams in Latin and Greek excluded large numbers of students whose high schools did not offer adequate instruction in these subjects (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Jarausch, 1983; Leslie, 1992; Synnott, 1979; Wechsler, 1977).

Between the First and Second World Wars, rising rates of high school graduation and increasing employer interest in college credentials translated into a dramatic expansion of the number of college applicants. Most east coast colleges responded to this increase by raising their admissions requirements and becoming increasingly selective. Admissions officers began to consult standardize test scores and grade point averages in order to determine applicants' eligibility. However, non-academic variables were also considered and often relied upon in order to reduce the numbers of Jewish and working-class students who were beginning to matriculate in large numbers. Many contemporary and subjective elements of the college admissions process originated in this period, such as interviews, letters of recommendations, and essay questions. On campus, ethnic and working-class students were often excluded from fraternities and other campus activities and tended to form their own extracurricular communities. By the 1930s, it was not uncommon for selective colleges to enforce specific quotas in order to limit the enrollment of Jewish students (Greenberg & Zenchelsky, 1993; Horowitz, 1987; Lemann, 1999; Markowitz, 1990; Oren, 1985; Synnott, 1979; Wechsler, 1977, 1984).

At this time, private Catholic colleges were important sites for the higher education of students who desired to maintain their culture or who were unable to attend other institutions. DePaul University, for example, enrolled large numbers of students from families of modest means (Rury, 1997). Yet, there has been little systematic research into the impact of Catholic institutions on underrepresented populations' transition to college or social mobility. Gleason (1995), Leahy (1991), and Gallin (2000) have written the institutional, intellectual, and cultural histories of Catholic higher education. Yet, none of these authors primarily concentrate on student socioeconomic status. Since some scholars have suggested that parochial secondary schools might provide a model for effective urban education, the dearth of research on the egalitarian aspects of Catholic higher education is somewhat surprising.

Historians have also paid insufficient attention to how institutions of public higher education responded to the increasing demand for college during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Most studies repeat the conventional wisdom that public and land grant universities, especially in the Midwest and West, offered vocationally-oriented curricula to a somewhat broader range of students. In contrast, private universities focused on providing liberal arts education to small numbers of elite students and valued their independence from external social and economic forces. Yet, by the 1920s, some state flagship universities such as Michigan and Minnesota debated whether they should imitate selective private schools or continue to focus on the education of the largest possible number of high school graduates. Dennis (2001) suggests that administrators of southern public universities tempered their interest in selective admissions in order serve a broader segment of state residents. In contrast, Levine (1986) argues that state universities generally emulated private schools, charged increasingly high fees, and did not educate significantly numbers of students from previously underrepresented populations. While the University of California pledged to expand access to higher education beyond the privileged classes, poor students were never proportionately represented at the state's flagship campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles. In the case of Massachusetts, Freeland (1992) agrees that the state's Amherst campus contributed little to the cause of educational opportunity (Douglass, 2000; Jewell, 2000; Wechsler, 1977).

While private colleges were free to limit their enrollments, public systems of higher education could be pressured to accommodate larger numbers of students. Skeptical of the ability and the commitment of the majority of high school graduates, most state administrators responded to higher demands for higher education by sorting students into a variety of educational settings, ranging from two-year community colleges to four-year state colleges and universities. Most states devoted substantial resources to flagship campuses while the majority of students from previously underrepresented working-class populations enrolled in two-year or regional colleges. While most states lacked the level of coordination embodied by California's 1960 "Master Plan," most regional state colleges, which generally evolved out of public normal schools, encountered administrative or legislative opposition whenever they sought to duplicate academic programs offered by flagship universities. When public and private schools occupied the same locale, similar sorts of stratification has occurred. In New York City, for example, Columbia University staked out a position at the top of the region's higher education hierarchy and relied upon nearby public colleges to ease political pressure by accommodating the large numbers of aspiring students which Columbia excluded. While schools such as City College and New York University could provide high quality education, their graduates had less access to power and prestige (Bender, 1987; Glazer, 1988; Jarausch, 1983; Levine, 1986; Link, 1995; Wechsler, 1977).

Scholars specializing in two-year community colleges have made important contributions to this analysis of institutional stratification. Established in the early twentieth century, these colleges were charged with a dual mission: to provide vocational training for high school graduates who were uninterested or unable to earn a bachelor's degree, and supply the general education necessary to enable students to transfer to four-year colleges. Brint and Karabel (1989) argue that community colleges have tended to gravitate from liberal arts to vocational courses, thereby decreasing students' opportunities to complete their bachelor's degrees at four-year colleges. Similarly, Frye (1992) argues that the national proponents of two-year colleges promoted occupational training while most students and local boosters were more interested in liberal arts curricula. Dougherty (2001) stakes out a middle ground between the proponents and critics of community colleges. He asserts that community colleges increased access to education, but ultimately reduced enrollments in four-year colleges. Dougherty also argues that the efficacy of two-year vocational programs has been more complicated than its critics and champions have been willing to acknowledge. Especially since community colleges have accounted for nearly half of all enrollments in institutions of higher education since the Second World War, additional research is required to better test generalizations about the extent to which they have satisfied the aspirations of their students. Further studies of this question might also help to clarify the extent to which the concentration of working-class students in two-year colleges was a product of public policy, financial constraints, or student choice.

Following the Second World War, the scale and speed of the increase in college enrollment was unprecedented. Initially, most scholars believed that the G. I. Bill dramatically helped to redefine the collegiate population by introducing large proportions of working-class students. Olson (1974), however, notes that the soldiers who were most likely to benefit from the G. I. Bill were veterans who already had financial resources. Olson estimates that the majority of recipients could have paid their college tuition without the government's assistance before the war. Although it seems certain that the G. I. Bill was instrumental in enlarging administrators' and policy-makers' sense of the college-going percentage of the population, it is less clear whether the late 1940s were a watershed in terms of working-class access to college (Bennett, 1996; Clark, 1998). Scholars do agree that anti-Semitism in higher education subsided after the Second World War as result of the reaction against Nazism, the contributions of Jewish veterans and refugees, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Oren, 1985; Synnott, 1979).

At the highest levels of administration, a crucial reexamination of higher education had occurred by the late 1940s. Debates over who should go to college and why had been intensifying since the First World War. A cohort of university presidents, including Lotus Coffman of Minnesota and George Zook of Akron, lobbied for the development of institutions of mass higher education that might balance utilitarian curricula and traditional forms of liberal arts. These administrators believed that colleges could introduce a broad swath of American youth to the virtues of what Coffman called "intelligent followership." Other prominent figures in higher education, such as Robert Hutchins, continued to argue that college education should remain selective and focused on pure academic pursuits. Eventually, the Truman administration endorsed the concept of mass higher education. Chaired by Zook, a Presidential Commission on Higher Education recommended that forty-nine percent of 18–21 year olds could benefit from some form of college. Since less than sixteen percent of this age group attended college in 1940, this report endorsed not only an expansive definition of higher education, but also an emerging confidence in the intellectual capabilities of the American population (Levine, 1986). Freeland (1992) attributes this radical shift to the growth of bureaucracy and technology in the workplace combined with the emergence of democratic ideology in the wartime and postwar period.

By the 1960s, a period of economic growth and civil rights activism, the notion of "universal" higher education regardless of social class was first promulgated as a national goal. College enrollment more than doubled during the 1960s, reaching a total of 7.9 million students. The value of a college credential in the bureaucracies of both the public and private sectors helped per-capita enrollment rise to a new peak in 1975. While financial need continued to prevent many working-class high school graduates from attending college, overtly discriminatory admissions policies decreased. However, an increasing prestige gap between schools during this period of expanding enrollments may have exacerbated existing gulfs between haves and have-nots. Freeland (1992) argues that a postwar "golden age" of government funding may have increased the stratification of higher education by dramatically increasing the resources of elite universities. In addition, leaders of American higher education may have prioritized competition for institutional prestige over attention to access. On the other side of the prestige spectrum, enrollments in community colleges and public colleges have expanded rapidly in the past fifty years. Whereas enrollments in public and private institutions were nearly equivalent in 1950, the public sector of higher education enrolled three-quarters of all students by 1970 (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Grobman, 1988).

As the baby boom ebbed, colleges vied with each other to fill seats during the 1970s and 1980s. Competition with neighboring institutions encouraged elite colleges to bolster their images by reducing their class sizes and increasing their selectivity. In this atmosphere, colleges' average SAT scores became a public indication of college rank and helped to illustrate the growth of a substantial gap between selective and non-selective colleges (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Freeland, 1992). Some historians have argued that this dramatic stratification among institutions of higher education has betrayed the promise of democratic education throughout the twentieth century. While enrollments in colleges and universities expanded, increasing inter- and intra-institutional stratification may have preserved the status of students in prestigious programs and denied equal opportunity to working-class students who were most likely to enroll in less selective schools. While most historians who have written about college access have been critical of this trend towards greater institutional stratification, some scholars have come to its defense. Kabaservice (2001) and Douglass (2000), for example, argue that scientific research and academic quality at elite schools depend on selective admissions and high levels of state funding. While noting that Minnesotans protested against a proposal to limit access to the state's Twin Cities campus in the 1980s, Vandenberg-Daves (2003) has argued that rural residents were more interested in founding local public colleges from the 1950s through the 1970s. Further research is needed to sharpen our understanding of the social costs and benefits of institutional stratification. For example, to what extent were low-status institutions such as normal schools, agricultural schools, and community colleges effective means of expanding educational opportunity? To what extent did this institutional differentiation obstruct or otherwise mediate the increase in access to higher education for working-class students?

COLLEGE ACCESS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS

Similarly, historians are still in the process of exploring the implications of racial segregation in higher education. In the antebellum era, a small number of African-Americans graduated from northern and mid-western institutions of higher education. Although most antebellum colleges and universities did not maintain formal racial barriers, limited secondary schooling and financial constraints functioned as de facto restrictions on the number of Black applicants (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Jewell, 2000; Waite, 2002). Between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, few Black students graduated from predominantly White colleges and institutions. Perkins concludes that the handful of affluent Black women at the Seven Sister Colleges encountered a relatively tolerant environment and proceeded to successful professional careers. For the most part, however, segregated colleges founded during Reconstruction were the only opportunity for African-Americans to pursue higher education during this period. Most of these historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) were founded by White missionaries or philanthropists and generally came under Black leadership during the first half of twentieth century (Anderson, 1988; Drewry & Doermann, 2001; Levine, 1986; Lucas, 1994; Perkins, 1997).

Although Black college enrollment increased steadily, only one percent of Black Americans had gone to college by 1940 compared to five percent of White Americans. The Second World War provided some increase in access to higher education as Black soldiers took advantage of educational opportunities provided by the military. However, many Black veterans did not have enough academic preparation to qualify for the scholarships provided by the G. I. Bill. In addition, thousands of Black veterans who possessed high school diplomas were still unable to find a space at overflowing HBCUs. Furthermore, Black veterans who graduated from segregated institutions of higher education enjoyed relatively modest economic benefit from their degrees (Cohen, 2003; Fass, 1989; Levine, 1986; Turner & Bound, 2003).

Debate over the academic quality of HBCUs has been as extensive as disagreements over the quality of segregated secondary schools. Many historians have described the small budgets of most HBCUs and celebrated the movements to integrate White flagship universities in southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi (Levine, 1986; Pratt, 2002; Sansig, 1990). Scholars have also noted that the White philanthropists who supported the founding of Black colleges typically promoted vocational training instead of programs in the liberal arts. Yet, Wolters (1975) and Anderson (1988) argue that Black college students rebelled against this paternalism and worked to increase offerings in traditional academic and professional subjects. Even more enthusiastic, Drewry and Doermann (2001) conclude that private HBCUs promoted the growth of the African-American middle class. They also note that only half of the private HBCUs established between 1900 and 1915 were primarily focused on agricultural or vocational subjects. While Drewry and Doermann acknowledge that HBCUs had less money, fewer credentialed faculty, and lower standardized test scores, they argue that these schools served as invaluable sources of cultural pride and excelled at providing higher education to students with weak secondary schooling. They also assert that HBCUs successfully trained several generations of Black professional leaders and cultivated a lifelong commitment to community service amongst graduates. In contrast to the standard narrative of integration, some Black leaders, such as Kentucky State's Rufus King, sought increased funding for HBCUs as alternative to integration (Smith, 1994). Shabazz (2004) illustrates a similar conflict in Texas and highlights the persistence of racism in predominantly White colleges and universities (PWCUs) after integration.

African-American college enrollments grew substantially beginning in the mid-1950s, and by the 1970s, half of Black college students were attending PWCUs. Although a few predominantly White colleges voluntarily desegregated, outside pressure was generally required in order to expand access to African-American students. Most segregated public systems of higher education sought to resist federal authority through policies of passive resistance. It seems clear that consistent pressure from the national government was necessary to compel the gradual desegregation of state universities. Even though there were small gains during the late 1950s and early 1960s, significant increases in African-American access to higher education did not occur until after the implementation and enforcement of civil rights legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Equal Opportunity Program (EOP) (Cross & Slater, 1999;Synnott, 1989). Rebutting recent doubts about the government's ability to promote integration, Williams (1997) attributes the persistence of low Black enrollment to the weak and inconsistent enforcement of these laws. Williams notes that there were no specific federal guidelines for the desegregation of higher education until 1977. Federal officials also tended to evaluate state processes, rather than discrete outcomes or timetables for increasing Black enrollments. In Georgia, for example, state resistance and litigation delayed the implementation of substantial desegregation measures until 1982. Instead of adopting structural changes such as merging academic departments of neighboring segregated colleges or increasing funding for retention programs, Georgia managed to appease federal authorities by initiating relatively superficial recruitment programs.

Beginning in the early 1960s, many northern and western colleges initiated their own programs designed to increase access to African-Americans. Summer enrichment, upward bound, and scholarships achieved only modest success at elite liberal arts colleges. By 1968, despite relative gains in enrollment, Black students still represented a disproportionately small percentage of the student body at most PWCUs. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, many colleges took additional steps to overcome the financial and academic obstacles to integration. Colleges expanded their admissions criteria, increased financial aid, made recruiting trips to predominantly Black high schools, and instituted remedial education programs (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Higginbotham, 2001). Several schools experimented with more radical policies. Rutgers accepted applicants who scored over 400 on the SAT verbal and ranked in the top half of their high school class. Rutgers also instituted the Urban University Program, a non-credit remedial school designed to serve as a bridge to regular undergraduate status. This program, however, struggled to achieve its goals and was eventually scaled back and subsumed by a less ambitious equal-opportunity program (McCormick, 1990). The City University of New York (CUNY) made the most dramatic efforts to increase minority enrollments. CUNY experimented with programs to enroll disadvantaged high school graduates and adopted a policy of open admissions in 1970. Although CUNY's open admissions era has attracted much attention from historians, they remain divided over the efficacy of this policy. Traub (1994) notes CUNY's dropping graduation rates and academic performance, although he is more cautiously enthusiastic about ESL programs and pockets of high-level academic achievement in engineering and the liberal arts.

According to Reuben (2001), these programs for increasing the enrollments of African-American students were always vulnerable to criticism. Instead of redefining their definitions of student merit or rearticulating the social mission of higher education, university and college administrators had justified minority recruitment in the traditional terms of a national search for talented youth. These recruitment programs were always susceptible to charges of reverse-discrimination because administrators never reconciled their stated goals of locating talented students of color with their policies of altering academic requirements. Increasing attention to standardized tests, proposals for open admissions, and the need for academic remediation put most recruitment programs on the defensive. Administrators might have avoided these conflicts either by redefining student merit in a more inclusive fashion or by acknowledging and seeking to reform blatant inequalities in secondary and elementary education.3

The patchwork of policies designed to increase access to higher education was very effective for a small number of academically successful and predominantly middle class African-American students. However, access to high-status institutions of higher education remained out of reach for a large proportion of Black students. Increasing selectivity at the top tier of colleges and universities has worked at cross purposes with the goal of achieving equal access to higher education. In addition, increasing reliance on standardized testing may have widened the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged African-Americans. After 1975, political momentum ebbed and Black enrollment in colleges and universities actually declined despite the fact that high school graduation rates remained constant. Disproportionate numbers of African-American students continued to enroll in unselective institutions. Backlash against earlier policies pressured higher-status colleges and universities to limit their recruitment of students of color to a limited pool of high-scoring candidates. By the 1990s, the most radical policies, such as those implemented at CUNY and the University of California, were scaled back or rejected altogether (Baker, 2001; Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Jewell, 2000; Karen, 1991; Reuben, 2001).

COLLEGE ACCESS FOR NATIVE AMERICAN, LATINO/A, AND ASIAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS

While the history of Native American boarding schools has been well documented, Native American access to higher education still awaits thorough historical treatment. After unsuccessful experiments at Harvard College and Henrico College in the seventeenth century, a small number of Native Americans gained access to college during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some attended HBCUs such as the Hampton Institute, while others attended PWCUs. Most White reformers and policy-makers in the nineteenth century opposed the formation of separate tribal colleges because they believed that all Indians should assimilate into White culture.4 As late as the early 1930s, only a few hundred Native American students attended college. The 1960s and 1970s, however, were decades of substantial growth for Native American higher education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 provided federal funding to colleges sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Many BIA boarding schools were converted into junior colleges, shifting the BIA's emphasis from secondary vocational training to post-secondary vocational training. In 1968, the Navajo Community College (later renamed Diné College) became the first college founded and controlled entirely by tribal authorities. Inspired by schools such as Diné, the Indian Education Act of 1972 authorized federal funding for Native American community colleges and facilitated the spread of these autonomous institutions of higher education. Private foundations also began to make substantial contributions. Still, tribal colleges have generally not provided four years of higher education. In 1997, 27 out of 30 American tribal colleges were two-year programs with emphases on cultural preservation and vocational preparation. Native American college attendance has grown consistently since the 1970s and represented almost one percent of total student enrollment by the mid-1990s (Szasz, 1974, 1999; Wollock, 1997).

Research on early Latino/a and Asian-American enrollment in college has been hampered by the fact that most institutions did not keep data on students representing these underrepresented populations prior to the 1980s. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Latinos/as benefited from federal policies such as the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Educational Opportunities Program. During the 1980s, despite persistent discrimination in the arena of secondary schooling, Latino/a enrollment in colleges and universities doubled (Bernal, 1999, MacDonald & García, 2003). Between the conclusion of the Spanish-American War and the 1930s, small numbers of Filipino students sought professional credentials from American colleges. Although most of these students intended to return to the Philippines after graduation, many were unable to work their way through college and formed a permanent Filipino-American community. During the Second World War, thousands of Nisei students left the concentration camps and attended college. In the 1960s and 1970s, Asian-American students gained visibility in institutions of higher education by joining protests for civil rights, ethnic studies, and admissions reform. Although Asian-American academic achievement has been subjected to a great deal of stereotyping, Asian-Americans have become well represented at many elite American colleges and universities. By 1984, for example, the University of California no longer considered Asian-Americans to be an underrepresented population. Activists have suspected that some schools initiated unofficial quotas in order to limit Asian-American enrollment. Despite the relative success of Asian-American students as a whole, certain ethnic communities remain underrepresented in higher education (Lemann, 1999; Okihiro, 1999; Posadas & Guyotte, 1990).

FINANCING POSTSECONDARY SCHOOLING

Although colleges have granted scholarships, especially for students training for Protestant ministries, since the earliest era of American higher education, formal financial aid programs did not proliferate until the end of the nineteenth century. However, many public universities charged little or no tuition. Still, subsistence expenses and opportunity costs remained serious barriers to college for students with modest means. Private colleges and universities began to offer merit scholarships in order to attract academically gifted students who had limited means or who hailed from faraway regions. By the Second World War, institutions also offered need-based aid, motivated in part by concerns that admissions solely based on academic merit would erode schools' extracurricular vitality. By the 1960s, the College Board helped to reduce competition between schools by standardizing the formula used to calculate student need.

During the 1930s, the federal government began providing financial aid for the first time. The National Youth Administration provided grants and work study opportunities to students across the country (Bower, 2004). In addition, the Indian Reorganization Act included a loan program that served 1,900 Native American students between 1935 and 1944. In 1948, after it had become clear that debt-burdened recipients were dropping out in relatively high proportions, these loans evolved into cash grants (Szasz, 1974, 1999; Wollock, 1997). The G. I. Bill provided financial aid for higher education on an unprecedented scale in the years following the Second World War, while the National Defense and Education Act of 1958 offered loans to gifted students interested in studying science or foreign languages. The Higher Education Act of 1965 provided the first federal source of need-based funding. A component of the Johnson administration's War on Poverty, this act authorized tuition grants, low-interest loans, and federal work-study opportunities.

Despite this new source of government assistance, most institutions could not afford to provide sufficient financial aid for all qualified applicants. Since it had become socially unpalatable to reject a portion of applicants solely because of their financial status, many schools adopted "admit/deny" policies which admitted qualified students regardless of need, but denied financial aid to students whose grades, scores, and applications fell below certain cutoff points. Need-based federal financial aid was eventually boosted by the Pell Grant provision of the Higher Education Act of 1972. Nevertheless, the available aid was still not sufficient to equalize access to higher education. The proportions of poor high school graduates attending college remained significantly lower than the enrollment rates of wealthy high school graduates. Since 1961, college enrollment rates for low-income students with high academic achievement have remained close to sixty percent. Family income levels have also continued to correlate to the type of institution that students attend (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; McPherson & Schapiro, 2001; Wilkerson, 2001; Wollock, 1997).

The early 1970s were the peak era of per-capita financial aid targeted to students from previously underrepresented populations. During this period, politicians began to express concern about a "middle income squeeze" of college financing. As a result, the federal government recalibrated Pell grants in order to provide more funding for middle-class students and for private college tuition. Individual schools and the College Board also relaxed their financial aid formulas. As a result, a larger proportion of funding began to flow towards populations who were already well represented in institutions of higher education. Rising costs during the 1980s and 1990s also served to decrease the proportions of tuition typically covered by federal and state aid. Federal financial aid appropriations decreased during the 1980s and student loans became larger components of financial aid packages as colleges were generally unable to pick up the slack. As a result, working-class youth have become less likely to attend prestigious institutions over the course of the past few decades. Working-class African-Americans may have suffered from the decline in student aid more than working-class Whites. One study concluded that college enrollment of low-income Black students fell twenty-nine percent between 1979 and 1984, while enrollments of low-income White students remained constant. In general, working-class students have been unable to organize as a distinct interest group in order to pressure politicians and university administrators to reverse these trends (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Harcleroad & Ostar, 1987; Karen, 1991; McPherson & Schapiro, 2001; Wilkerson, 2001).

The rise of merit-based financial aid constitutes another significant historical trend. As schools competed for high-achieving students during a post-baby boom slump in college-aged youth, merit-based aid began to rival need-based aid as the main form of financial assistance. Awarded disproportionately to affluent students, merit aid packages do not appear to have been an effective means of increasing the enrollment of students from underrepresented populations. Once on the cutting edge of egalitarian reforms of access to higher education, admissions committees evolved into offices of "enrollment management" that balanced competing demands for diversity, tuition, and institutional prestige. In this climate, financial aid was more likely to be regarded as a tool to build a desirable freshman class instead of as a mechanism for achieving social justice. The extent to which increases in merit-based aid may or may not have impacted the availability of need-based aid or the enrollment of students from underrepresented populations is not yet clear (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; McPherson & Schapiro, 2001; Wilkerson, 2001). Duffy and Goldberg (1998) have suggested, for instance, that the relationship between merit-based and need-based aid was not necessarily zero-sum. They also speculate that merit-aid may have been necessary for ensuring academic quality and institutional survival in a competitive marketplace.

Perhaps because the quantitative nature of financial aid seems to mesh more directly with other social science disciplines such as economics, there has been a lack of historical research on this topic. Nevertheless, historians can deepen their examination of the political debates and discussions of college mission which informed financial aid policy. Historians can also evaluate the relationship between the intentions of financial aid and outcomes as measured by other social scientists. Historians can explain the shifting emphases on need-based aid, merit-based aid, and student loans. Has there indeed been a zero-sum game between the various forms of aid? What were the perceived and actual relationships between financial aid, college competitiveness, and academic quality? What was the relationship between public policy and institutional policy?

RETENTION AND OUTCOMES

Higher education generally paid dividends for women graduates. Although their job options were limited and they were typically underpaid for their work, women college graduates became more likely to obtain financial independence. Women with college degrees have always been more likely to work and to remain employed even after marriage or childbirth. At first, the majority of female college graduates became teachers or social workers. During the twentieth century, however, the occupational outcomes of female graduates began to more closely mirror those of male graduates. Perkins has argued that Black women in college during the nineteenth century tended to view higher education as a strategy for "race uplift." In contrast, White women were more likely to approach higher education in order to elevate their traditional domestic roles or to train for a specific vocation. While most Black female graduates could find work as schoolteachers, Black male graduates were more likely to have difficulty finding jobs that required college degrees (Noble, 1988; Perkins, 1983, 1990, 1997; Sicherman, 1988; Vandenberg-Daves, 2001).

Black students attending predominantly White colleges have generally encountered either veiled or overt forms of hostility. Many of these students have reported feelings of social isolation and expressed ambivalence about the value of their sacrifices. While small colleges achieved social integration more quickly, the first Black students at large predominantly White universities tended to remain separate from many extracurricular and social activities. Those students who entered college with unequal academic preparation also found little or no compensatory tutoring programs. This pioneering cohort of students arrived on campus with high expectations and was generally surprised by the lack of respect for their cultural backgrounds. In response to this environment and in concert with a broader movement for Black power, this generation of students worked to create a more welcoming atmosphere on campus. Black fraternities, initially founded in HBCUs, spread to most major research universities and provided valuable support networks. This generation of Black college students advocated for the establishment of Black student unions, cultural centers, Black studies programs, and academic support services. On many campuses, Black student activists made radical demands for more active recruitment and hiring of Black professors, reforms of admissions policies for students of color, and substantial increases in financial aid (Exum, 1985; Higginbotham, 2001; McCormick, 1990; Morris, 1995; Ross Jr., 2000; Williamson, 1999, 2005).

These protest movements forced colleges and universities to weigh their interest in preserving their elite status against their interest in providing equal opportunity. Some of these reforms were achieved, Black enrollments increased, and predominantly White campuses became somewhat more hospitable to Black students. Nevertheless, race relations on campus were still strained and the retention rate for Black college students remained significantly lower than that of Whites. For example, the 1979 graduation rate of students participating in the predominantly-Black Rutgers Equal Opportunity Fund was twenty-seven percent, less than half of the overall Rutgers graduation rate (McCormick, 1990). Drewry and Doermann (2001) suggest that the track records of historically Black colleges compare favorably to predominantly White colleges. They note that, since the 1970s, graduates of HBCUs have been more likely to earn advanced degrees than Black graduates from PWCUs. Despite the persistence of a gap in college retention rates between Black and White students, many scholars argue that this generation of Black college students worked to redefine the meaning of collegiate success. Similar to Perkins' (1983, 1990) discussion of elite nineteenth-century African-American women, they suggest that Black students at PWCUs during the 1960s and 1970s measured success in terms of social and racial justice rather than in purely academic and professional terms.

Compared to the body of historical scholarship addressing the experiences of Black students on predominantly White campuses, very little has been written about other minority groups or White working-class students. The work of social scientists has found that the unselective institutions that enroll disproportionate numbers of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have tended to have lower graduation rates in the past few decades (Monkturner, 1995). Yet, historians have not yet explored the extent to which this dynamic also explains earlier patterns of college retention. Historians also do not seem to have been particularly effective at supporting their analysis of college outcomes with available quantitative studies of the economic returns to college. To what extent have lower-status colleges and universities provided quality academic instruction? While historians have debated whether credentials or academics were the driving force behind the expansion of secondary education, no such debate has taken place with regards to higher education. Historians should begin to compare the post-graduation outcomes of students from low- and high-status colleges and universities.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the state of historical research on higher education, scholars should be cautious about drawing definite conclusions about how to best to expand contemporary access to college. This essay has indicated several key areas in which additional research would be required before historians of higher education could be confident about their contributions to public policy. In particular, historians still do not have a sufficient understanding of the extent to which institutional differentiation and stratification has promoted or prevented equal access to higher education. In other areas, however, it is possible to describe some tentative recommendations based on what we know of the past. In terms of preparation, the experience of the nineteenth century suggests that even elite liberal arts colleges can take an active role in providing college preparation while still remaining true to other aspects of their academic mission. While consensus has not been reached about the merits of the most ambitious remedial programs, college resources may have to play a significant role in bridging current gaps between high schools and post-secondary education.

Along with inequalities in preparation, the evolving concept of meritocratic admissions has been another historical barrier to equal access to higher education. Although the increasing interest in "merit" once served to expand access to college by opening admissions to academically skilled but socially or economically marginalized students, it became a hurdle for equal access by the final third of the twentieth century. Standardized test scores have long since ceased to be a means of increasing access to college. Since colleges have struggled to articulate a consistent measurement of student merit, it remains unclear if it is possible to determine a coherent or constructive college mission based on meritocratic principles. History suggests that admissions committees can and should continue to explore ways to reform and expand their definitions of merit. For example, although student test scores were originally conceived as a means of measuring the likelihood of a student's academic success in college, administrators should recognize that scores have been increasingly viewed in aggregate as measurements of institutional quality and prestige.

While the history of financial barriers to college is still somewhat speculative, it is clear that the introduction of need-based aid in the 1960s and 1970s correlated with a dramatic spike in enrollment. However, historians are not certain if this policy was a more important variable than civil rights activism, economic growth, or the cultural impact of the G. I. Bill.

Although the deregulated U.S. system of higher education has been favorably compared to colleges and universities in other industrialized nations, history suggests that equal access may require state action. On occasion, market forces have motivated institutions to expand access to underrepresented populations. The move towards coeducation, in particular, benefited from institutional interest in expanding their pool of potential applicants. However, government intervention has generally been necessary to increase access to college. In addition to specific acts of legislation, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965, state sponsorship of public colleges and universities has been crucial. The public sector of higher education has accommodated the majority of students from underrepresented populations. While skeptics have often questioned the need for additional capacity, history can teach us that experts have routinely underestimated the extent of the demand for higher education by students and employers alike. This simple lesson may be history's most powerful contribution to current conversations about college access.

This manuscript was prepared as part of the Social Science Research Council's Transition to College project. I would especially like to thank Julie Reuben for her guidance throughout the process of researching and writing this paper.

Notes

1 This essay does not provide an exhaustive survey of all historical scholarship on transitions to college. The "Preparation" section, in particular, only discusses work representing broad themes and major debates in the historiography as well as scholarship which touches most directly access to college.

2 It is also important to consider whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students should be considered underrepresented populations during the eras in which these identities were generally suppressed on college campuses. Aside from D'Emilio's preliminary essays about the college experiences of GLBT students, very little historical work has been conducted on this subject (D'Emilio, 1992).

3 Widespread embrace of meritocratic ideals also complicated efforts to increase class heterogeneity in colleges and universities. According to Jencks and Riesman (1969), reliance on standardized tests actually rendered institutions of higher education more stratified by class during the 1960s than during the 1930s and 1940s.

4 The Croatan Normal School in Robeson County, North Carolina is an important exception. Established by act of the North Carolina legislature in 1887 in response to a petition by Lumbee Indians, this school was arguably the first American institution of higher education subject to a substantial degree of Native American governance. This school has evolved into the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. A boarding school founded by Baptist missionaries in the Indian Territories (OK) also evolved into Bacone College by the 1920s (Reyhner & Eder, 2004).

References

Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Allmendinger Jr., D. F. (1975). Paupers and scholars: The transformation of student life in nineteenth-century New England. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Angus, D., Mirel, J.. (1999). The failed promise of the American high school, 1890–1995. New York: Teachers College Press.

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Baker, R. S. (2001). The paradoxes of desegregation: Race, class, and education, 1935–1975. American Journal of Education, 109(3), 320–343.

Bauman, K. J. (1998). Schools, markets, and family in the history of African-American education. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 500–531.

Beadie, N. (1993). Emma Willard's idea put to the test: The consequences of state support of female education in New York, 1819–67. History of Education Quarterly, 33(4), 543–562.

Bender, T. (1987). New York intellect: A history of intellectual life in New York City, from 1750 to the beginnings of our own time. New York: Knopf.

Bennett, M. J. (1996). When dreams came true: The GI Bill and the making of modern America. Washington, DC: Brassey's.

Bernal, D. D. (1999). Chicana/o education from the civil rights era to the present. In J. F. Moreno (Ed.), Elusive quest for equality: 150 years of Chicano/Chicana education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Bordin, R. (1999). Women at Michigan: The 'dangerous experiment,' 1870s to the present. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bower, K. (2004). 'A favored child of the state': Federal student aid at Ohio colleges and universities, 1934–43. History of Education Quarterly, 44(3), 364–387.

Brier, E. M. (1984). Bridging the academic preparation gap: An historical view. Journal of Developmental Education, 8(1), 2–5.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS), 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brumberg, S. F. (1986). Going to America, going to school: The Jewish immigrant public school encounter in turn-of-the-century New York City. New York: Praeger.

Burke, C. B. (1982). American collegiate populations: A test of the traditional view. New York: NYU Press.

Cecelski, D. S. (1994). Along freedom road: Hyde county, NC, and the fate of Black schools in the South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Clark, D. A. (1998). 'The two Joes meet – joe college, joe veteran': The G.I. Bill, college education, and postwar American culture. History of Education Quarterly, 38(2), 165–189.

Cohen, L. (2003). A consumers' republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. New York: Knopf.

Cross, T., & Slater, R. B. (1999). Only the onset of affirmative action explains the explosive growth in Black enrollments in higher education. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (23), 110–115.

D'Emilio, J. (1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university. New York: Routledge.

Dennis, M. (2001). Lessons in progress: State universities and progressives in the new South, 1880–1920. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Dentler, R., Willie, C. V. (1991). Elementary and secondary education and desegregation. In C. V. Willie, A. M. Garibaldi, W. L. Reed, (Eds.), The education of African-Americans (pp. 93–99). New York: Auburn House.

Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and students who don't fit them. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 525–547.

Donato, R. (1997). The other struggle for equal schools: Mexican Americans during the civil rights era. Albany: SUNY Press.

Donato, R., & Lazerson, M. (2000). New directions in American educational history: Problems and prospects. Educational Researcher, 29(8), 4–15.

Dorn, S. (1997). Creating the dropout: An institutional and social history of school failure. Westport: Praeger.

Dougherty, K. (2001). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Douglass, J. A. (2000). The California idea and American higher education: 1850 to the 1960 master plan. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Drewry, H., & Doermann, H. (2001). Stand and prosper: Private Black colleges and their students. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Duffy, E. A., & Goldberg, I. (1998). Crafting a class: College admissions and financial aid, 1955–1994. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Durham, J. T. (2003). The other side of the story: The world of African-American academies in the South after the Civil War. Negro Educational Review, 54(1/2), 3–16.

Exum, W. (1985). Paradoxes of protest: Black student activism in a White university. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Fass, P. (1989). Outside in: Minorities and the transformation of American education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Freeland, R. (1992). Academia's golden age: universities in Massachusetts, 1945–1970. New York: Oxford University Press.

Frye, J. H. (1992). The vision of the public junior college, 1900–1940: Professional goals and popular aspirations. New York: Greenwood Press.

Gallin, A. (2000). Negotiating identity, Catholic higher education since 1960. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.

Glazer, N. (1988). Facing three ways: City and university in New York since World War II. In T. Bender (Ed.), The university and the city: From medieval origins to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gleason, P. (1995). Contending with modernity: Catholic higher education in the twentieth century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gonzalez, G. G. (1990). Chicano education in the era of segregation. Philadelphia: Balch Institute Press.

Gordon, L. D. (1990). Gender and higher education in the progressive era. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Graves, K. (1998). Girls' schooling during the progressive era: From female scholar to domesticated citizen. New York: Garland.

Greenberg, M., & Zenchelsky, S. (1993). Private bias and public responsibility: Anti-Semitism at Rutgers in the 1920s and 1930s. History of Education Quarterly, 33(3), 295­–319.

Grobman, A. (1988). Urban state universities: An unfinished national agenda. New York: Praeger.

Harcleroad, F., & Ostar, A. (1987). colleges and universities for change: America's comprehensive public state colleges and universities. Washington, DC: AASCU Press.

Herbst, J. (1989). And sadly teach: Teacher education and professionalization in American culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Higginbotham, E. (2001). Too much to ask: Black women in the era of integration. Chapel Hill: UNC Press.

Homel, M. W. (1984). Down from equality: Black Chicagaons and the public schools, 1920-–1941. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth century to the present. New York: Knopf.

Hudson, M. J., & Holmes, B. J. (1994). Missing teachers, impaired communities: The unanticipated consequences of Brown v. Board of education on the African American teaching force at the precollegiate level. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 388–393.

James, T. (1987). Exile within: The schooling of Japanese Americans, 1942–1945. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jarausch, K. H. (Ed.). (1983). The transformation of higher learning, 1860–1930: expansion, diversification, social opening, and professionalization in England, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jewell, J. O. (2000). An unfinished mission: Affirmative action, minority admissions, and the politics of mission at the University of California,1868–1997. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1-2), 38–48.

Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1969). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Kabaservice, G. (2001). 'Something special to offer': Meritocracy in the universities. History of Education Quarterly, 41(1), 80–88.

Karen, D. (1991). The politics of class, race, and gender: Access to higher education in the United States, 1960–1986. American Journal of Education, 99(2), 208–237.

Klarman, M. (1994). How Brown changed race relations: The backlash thesis. Journal of American History, 81(1).

Kluger, R. (1975, 2004). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's struggle for equality. New York: Knopf.

Labaree, D. F. (1988). The making of an American high school: The credentials market and the Central High School of Philadelphia, 1838–1939. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Langdon, E. A. (2001). Women's colleges then and now: Access yhen, equity now. Peabody Journal of Education, 26(1), 5–30.

Lasser, C. (Ed.). (1987). Educating men and women together: Coeducation in a changing world. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Leahy, W. P. (1991). Adapting to America: Catholics, Jesuits, and higher education in the twentieth century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Leslie, W. B. (1992). Gentlemen and scholars: College and community in the age of the university, 1865–1917. University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Levine, D. O. (1986). The American college and the culture of aspiration, 1915–1940. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Link, W. A. (1995). William Friday: Power, purpose, and American higher education. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lomawaima, K. T. (1994). They called it prairie light: The story of Chilocco Indian School. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Lucas, C. J. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York: St. Martin's Press.

MacDonald, V. & García, T. (2003) Historical perspectives on Latino access to higher education, 1848–1990. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Ed.), The majority in the minority. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.

Markowitz, R. J. (1990). Subway scholars at concrete campuses: Daughters of Jewish immigrants prepare for the teaching profession, New York City, 1920–1940. History of Higher Education Annual, 10, 31–50.

Mattingly, P., Anderson, J., Church, R., Curran, E., , Tobias, M. (2004). Renegotiating the historical narrative: The case of American higher education. History of Education Quarterly, 44(4), 577–596.

McCormick, R. (1990). The Black student movement at Rutgers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (2001). The end of the student aid era? Higher education finance in the United States. In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A faithful mirror: reflections on the College Board and education in America (pp. 335–376). New York: College Board.

Mihesuah, D. A. (1993). Cultivating the rosebuds: the education of women at the Cherokee Female Seminary, 1851–1909. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Miller-Bernal, L. (1999). Separate by degree: Women students' experiences in single-sex and coeducational colleges. New York: Peter Lang.

Monkturner, E. (1995). Factors shaping the probability of community vs 4-year college entrance and acquisition of the BA degree. Social Science Journal, 32(3), 255–264.

Morimoto, T. (1997). Japanese Americans and cultural continuity: Maintaining language and heritage. New York: Garland.

Morris, G. (1995). Head of the class: An oral history of African-American achievement. New York: Twayne.

Nerad, M. (1999). The academic kitchen: A social history of gender stratification at the University of California, Berkeley. Albany: SUNY Press.

Nidiffer, J. (1999). Poor historiography: The 'poorest' in American higher education. History of Education Quarterly, 39(3), 321–337.

Noble, J. (1988). The higher education of Black women in the twentieth century. In J. M. Faragher, & F. Howe (Ed.), Women and higher education in American history. New York: Norton.

Okihiro, G. (1999). Storied lives: Japanese American students and World War II. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Ogren, C. (2005). The American state normal school: An instrument of great good. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Olson, K. (1974). The G.I. Bill, the veterans, and the colleges. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Oren, D. A. (1985). Joining the club: A history of Jews and Yale. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Patterson, J. T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A civil rights milestone and its troubled legacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Perkins, L. (1983). The impact of the 'cult of true womanhood' on the education of Black women. Journal of Social Issues, 39(3), 17–28.

Perkins, L. (1990). The National Association of College Women: Vanguard of Black women's leadership and education, 1923–1954. Journal of Education, 172(3), 65–75.

Perkins, L. (1997). The African American female elite: The early history of African American women in the seven sister colleges, 1880–1960. Harvard Educational Review, 67(4), 718–756.

Perlman, J. (1988). Ethnic differences: Schooling and social structure among the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Blacks in an American city, 1880–1935. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, P. (1985). The politics of school reform, 1870–1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Posadas, B. M., & Guyotte, R. L. (1990). Unintentional immigrants: Chicago's Filipino foreign students become settlers, 1900–1941. Journal of American Ethnic History, 9(2), 26­48.

Pratt, R. A. (1992). The color of their skin: Education and race in Richmond, Virginia, 1954­89. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Pratt, R. A. (2002). We shall not be moved: The desegregation of the University of Georgia. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Reese, W. (1986). The power and the promise of school reform: Grassroots movements during the progressive Eera. New York: Teachers College Press.

Reese, W. (1995). The origins of the American high school. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Reuben, J. A. (2001). Merit, mission, and minority students: The history of debate over special admissions programs. In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A faithful mirror: Reflections on the College Board and education in America (pp. 195–243). New York: College Board.

Reyhner, J., & Eder, J.. (2004). American Indian education: A history. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Riney, S. (1998). "I like the school so I want to come back": The enrollment of American Indian students at the Rapid City Indian School. American Indian Culture & Research Journal, 22(2), 171–192.

Ross Jr, L. (2000). The divine nine: The history of African American fraternities and sororities. New York: Kensington.

Rury, J. L. (1997). The urban Catholic university in the early twentieth century: A social profile of DePaul, 1898–1940. History of Higher Education Annual, 17, 5–32.

Rury, J. L. (1999). Historians and policy making. American Journal of Education, 107(4), 321–328.

Salinas, C. (2000). El Colegio Altamirano (1897–1958): New histories of Chicano education in the Southwest. Educational Forum, 65(1), 80–86.

San Miguel, G. (1987). "Let all of them take heed": Mexican Americans and the campaign for educational equality in Texas, 1910–1981. Austin: University of Texas Press.

San Miguel, G. (2001). Brown, not White: School integration and the Chicano movement in Houston (pp. 19–34). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Sansig, D. G. (1990). Making haste slowly: The troubled history of higher education in Mississippi. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.

Schwager, S. (1987). Educating women in America. Signs, 12(2), 333–371.

Shabazz, A. (2004). Advancing democracy: African Americans and the struggle for access and equity in higher education in Texas. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Shavelson, R., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sicherman, B. (1988). College and careers: Historical perspectives on the lives and work patterns of women college graduates. In J. M. Faragher, & F. Howe (Ed.), Women and higher education in American history. New York: Norton.

Smith, G. (1994). A black educator in the segregated South: Kentucky's Rufus B. Atwood. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Solomon, B. M. (1985). In the company of educated women: A history of women and higher education in America. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Synnott, M. G. (1989). Federalism vindicated: University desegregation in South Carolina and Alabama, 1962–1963. Journal of Policy History, 1(3), 292–318.

Synnott, M. G. (1979). The half-opened door: Discrimination and admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900–1970. Westport: Greenwood.

Szasz, M. C. (1974, 1999). Education and the American Indian: The road to self-determination since 1928. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Tamura, E. (1994). Americanization, acculturation, and ethnic identity: The Nisei generation in Hawaii. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Theobald, P., Donato, R. (1990). Children of the harvest: The schooling of dust bowl and Mexican migrants during the depression era. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(4), 29–45.

Traub, J. (1994). City on a hill: Testing the American dream at City College. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Trennert Jr, R. A. (1988). The Phoenix Indian School: Forced assimilation in Arizona, 1891–1935. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Turner, S., & Bound, J. (2003). Closing the gap or widening the divide: The effects of the G.I. Bill and World War II on the educational outcomes of Black Americans. Journal of Economic History, 63(1), 145–178.

Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. New York: Russell Sage.

Tyack, D., & Lowe, R. (1986). The constitutional moment: Reconstruction and Black education in the South. American Journal of Education, 94(2), 236–256.

Valencia, R. R., San Miguel, Jr., G. (1988). From the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to "Hopwood": The educational plight and struggle of Mexican Americans in the Southwest. Harvard Educational Review, 68(3), 353–412.

Vandenberg-Daves, J. (2001). 'There's got to be more out there': White working-class women, college, and the 'better life,' 1950–1985. International Labor and Working-Class History, 62, 99–120.

Vandenberg-Daves, J. (2003). A look at the total knowledge of the world: the University of Minnesota, the land-grant ideal, and the politics of US public higher education, 1950–1990. History of Education, 32(1), 57–80.

Vinovskis, M. (1999). History and educational policymaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Waite, C. L. (2002). Permission to remain among us: Education for Blacks in Oberlin, Ohio, 1880–1914. Westport: Praeger.

Walker, V. S. (1996). Their highest potential: An African American school community in the segregated South. Chapel Hill: University of N.C. Press.

Walker, V. S. (2000). Valued segregated schools for African American children in the South, 1935–1969: A review of common themes and characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 253–285.

Wechsler, H. S. (1977). The qualified student: A history of selective college admission in America. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Wechsler, H. S. (1984). The rationale for restriction: Ethnicity and college admission in America, 1910–1980. American Quarterly, 36(5), 643–667.

Wilkerson, R. (2001). Plural ends, contested means: Student financial aid in American history. In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A faithful mirror: reflections on the College Board and education in America (pp. 305–334). New York: College Board.

Williams, J. B. (1997). Race discrimination in public higher education: Interpreting federal civil rights enforcement, 1964–1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Williamson, J. A. (1999). In defense of themselves: The Black student struggle for success and recognition at predominantly White colleges and universities. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 92–105.

Williamson, J. A. (2005). Black power on campus: The University of Illinois, 1965–75. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Wollock, J. (1997). Protagonism emergent: Indians and higher education. Native Americas, 14(4), 12–23.

Wolters, R. (1975). The new negro on campus: Black college rebellions of the 1920s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 109 Number 10, 2007, p. 3-4

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12566, Date Accessed: 11/6/2006 12:43:51 PM

by Larry Cuban — October 31, 2006

Most professors have yet to use laptops and other computers in their teaching as often as they use overhead projectors or textbooks. And that is the take-away lesson for K-12 policymakers, practitioners, and parents. In higher education, where students willingly choose to attend (in K-12 they are compelled by law to go to school), where students have already achieved 1:1 computing capacity, teachers and students mainly use these powerful machines to reinforce existing ways of teaching and learning. Much about how laptops will be used in K-12 schools can be learned simply by peeking into university classrooms.

From time to time, stories of professors telling students in their classrooms not to use their laptops during class lectures and discussions appear in the media. Such stories often cause readers to snicker since the very machines promised to transform teaching and learning seem to get in the way.

No snickering yet in K-12 classrooms where policymakers and administrators seek to make these machines standard equipment just like in university classrooms. Massive outlays of public dollars have sent laptops to individual students (sometimes called 1:1 programs) in individual states (e.g., Maine) and many districts (e.g., Henrico County, Virginia). Public funds, unlike in higher education, where families buy laptops for their college-going sons and daughters, fuel the current effort to bring 1:1 laptops to every child.

The argument K-12 policymakers use for each student having a laptop goes like this: Each student has a textbook, each has a pen and notebook; each student, therefore, should have a computer. In what business, in what hospital, in what police precinct, in what university, advocates of 1:1 ask, do four or five employees, doctors, officers, or professors have to compete for one computer? None. If you want productive employees, give each one a computer or hand-held device to use in school.

The uncritical embrace of 1:1 laptops by elites, parents, and many educators is similar to earlier responses to new technologies that promised increased teacher and student productivity, transformed teaching and learning, and improved academic achievement. Before there were computers, school policymakers had introduced film and radio in the 1920s, and instructional television in the 1950s as technological innovations to make teaching and learning faster and better.

After they entered classrooms, researchers found there was initial excitement over how the innovation would revolutionize teaching and learning. Equipment was purchased and put into schools. Then researchers went into schools to see how often and in which ways teachers were using these technologies in lessons. They found very limited and unimaginative classroom use by teachers.

So it comes as little surprise that as laptops become available to each and every student, their champions paint utopian pictures of transformed teaching and learning unlike anything that existed before. In these scenarios, students work alone or in small groups at home and at school using laptops. Students consult occasionally with a teacher, but are mostly independent learners.

I question these rose-tinted educational utopias where learning is 24/7 because policymakers have ignored what has happened in university classrooms, where desktop computers and 1:1 laptops are common.

Based on my research, direct observation, and careful reading of the recent literature on classroom uses of technology in higher education, I can make the following statements about the use and outcomes of computers:

1. Professor and student use of new technologies is widespread in doing assignments, preparing lessons, Internet searches, and email, but lags far behind in daily classroom use. Academics are hardly technophobes. Many are involved in online instruction. At home and in the office they use computers to write, analyze data, communicate with colleagues, and draft syllabi and handouts for courses.

Personal accounts and surveys report again and again that most academics are enthusiastic about using computers and other technologies for routine tasks in laboratories, lecture halls, and for data analysis. Moreover, PowerPoint presentations are ubiquitous among professors. Although these colorfully illustrated and jazzed-up bullet points slide in from the side of the screen, these presentations are, more often than not, gussied-up versions of lectures, since students either take down the bullet-points or take notes on the printed out slides professors make available to students. Furthermore, adventurous faculty members have designed software for particular courses; they have been the first to sign up for especially equipped "smart" classrooms. But these pioneers are a tiny minority. I estimate that this small band of serious users among professors is less than 5 percent of the faculty on most campuses.

2. Even with abundant access and slowly increasing use among professors, few marked changes in pedagogy have occurred. Champions of laptops see these machines overhauling the dominant lecture-based form of instruction. Yet, as faculty surveys have shown repeatedly, in classroom instruction they use computers to reinforce existing ways of teaching (e.g., PowerPoint as illustrated lectures) producing few changes in how they teach and how their students learn. Current and past data reveals clearly, however, that the introduction of computers—even with coaching and technical support—has not altered mainstream pedagogies of more than 5 to 10 percent of current professors.

Repeatedly in these surveys, faculty members displayed strong interest, and even enthusiasm, for using new technologies. Still, professors noted constant personal conflicts between their interest in learning how to use computers in their teaching and squeezing out time to do that in an already packed schedule of doing research, writing, securing grants, committee work—all of which had more pay-off in promotion and tenure than learning how to use ICT in their classrooms.

Thus, most professors have yet to use laptops and other computers in their teaching as often as they use overhead projectors or textbooks. And that is the take-away lesson for K-12 policymakers, practitioners, and parents. In higher education, where students willingly choose to attend (in K-12 they are compelled by law to go to school), where students have already achieved 1:1 computing capacity, teachers and students mainly use these powerful machines to reinforce existing ways of teaching and learning. Much about how laptops will be used in K-12 schools can be learned simply by peeking into university classrooms.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: October 31, 2006

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12818, Date Accessed: 11/27/2006 1:58:41 PM

by Frederic Stutzman — October 31, 2006

As academics, we are educators and communicators. For this reason, the ongoing debate over the role of blogs in academia is both illustrative and confounding. Fundamentally, blogs are communication tools—ones that when used in context become powerful tools for digital learning. Many in academia have effectively leveraged blogs to share their work and connect with students and colleagues, all the while spurring conversation and research. Why is it that so many of us are apprehensive about the role blogs play in academia, and particularly, the role blogging may play in our careers?

As academics, we are educators and communicators. For this reason, the ongoing debate over the role of blogs in academia is both illustrative and confounding. Fundamentally, blogs are communication tools—ones that when used in context become powerful tools for digital learning. Many in academia have effectively leveraged blogs to share their work and connect with students and colleagues, all the while spurring conversation and research. Why is it that so many of us are apprehensive about the role blogs play in academia, and particularly, the role blogging may play in our careers?

It might be useful to first parse the overarching value-laden notion of blogging. A blog is simply a piece of software that lets an individual publish content to the Internet with the click of a button. In this sense, a blog is little more than a populist follow-on to the self-maintained HTML page—one that often grew stagnant due to the complexity of the update process. As we discovered blogs, we socially constructed uses for the software. Popular themes that have emerged include personal blogging and political blogging, while many other bloggers have picked up areas like food, sports, or literature. Consistent among bloggers is that they are using their voice to share information about a topic in which they are interested or have expertise.

While it is effective to separate the software from the act of blogging, the unfortunate reality is that many observers are not able to understand that a blog has many uses. Because we gossip on the telephone does not mean that all phone conversations are gossip; unfortunately, the notion pervades that all blogs are simply pulpits for one to spill mundane details from one's personal existence. Perhaps nowhere was this line of thinking more obvious than the Chronicle of Higher Education's article "Bloggers Need Not Apply." In it, the professor Ivan Tribble (pseudonym) drew upon a small sample of job applicants to raise a specter of fear–that in the job application process, "more often than not, however, the blog was a negative." (Tribble, 2005)

We all have digital identities. When we are researched in search engines, a wide range of information comes up. Our identity is constructed not only of the work we create and public discussions we have, but also of what others say about us (see http://RateMyProfessors.com). Clearly, our digital identity is becoming more important, valuable, and robust. As we well know, there is more about us online than ever before. As we move forward into this digital millennium, we are faced with a fundamental decision: do we embrace our digital identity, or do we hide from our digital identity?

When we blog, we produce and control our digital identity by having a strong say in the matter. Of course, what we say online reflects upon our real-world identity—and the things we say online can have real-world consequences. Mindful of this, many academics choose to blog. In fact, a great number of academics, and many members of the vast network of invaluable professionals that support higher education, have decided to employ blogs in a number of ways. In doing so, this collective is changing academia.

What motivates academics to blog? First and foremost, it might be useful to understand why blogging feels right to academics. Blogging, in any form, is a communicative process; the ability to communicate effectively is a fundamental requirement for teaching and learning. Blogs have been shown to be effective ways to promote literacy (Huffaker, 2005) and increase engagement in the classroom (Du & Wagner, 2005). Many academics also see it as a responsibility not to be laggards on the information technology adoption curve–it is their duty to adopt new technologies and critically explore their uses. The natural desire of an academic to explore and communicate drives adoption; as a result of this adoption, we have seen many different types and uses of blogs emerge.

Looking at the state of blogging on a modern university campus, one will see the fruit of this exploration. Libraries, academic departments, and campus information technology services have all adopted blogs as ways to share information and to better engage customers. Students have personal blogs on services like LiveJournal, Xanga, and Myspace. Classes—from the entry-level rhetoric courses to the most advanced graduate seminars—have adopted blogs as spheres of conversation. On many campuses, even athletic departments have blogs. In a short amount of time, blogs have become deeply engrained in the fabric of academia. With this remarkable adoption, one might be surprised that commentators like Tribble persist. It might be useful to look at some ways blogs are helping academics. To do so, I will draw on personal experience.

I am currently a doctoral student in an information science program, where my research explores a currently evolving topic: online social network websites. As social network websites are a fairly recent innovation, my school can provide me only limited internal resources. To help bridge this gap, I have turned to the blogosphere as a way to connect with other researchers, and to "hang a shingle" for researchers who are likely in similar situations. In doing so, I have had a transformative experience–the blogosphere has created a real-world support network of researchers and collaborators. In fact, it is hard to imagine what my research experience would have been like without the blogosphere. If I had relied on more traditional means for finding collaborators, it is likely that vast amounts of time would pass between meaningful connections–a troubling proposition in a fast-moving field. Indeed, by holding my tongue and constraining my identity, it is likely that I would have missed out on a great number of opportunities that are currently enabling my studies.

Aside from using my blog to connect with other academics, I have used it to present preliminary research findings from exploratory analyses I have conducted. Indeed, the notion of using a blog as a method for research dissemination is controversial; however, when contrasted with vast pre-print and white paper networks utilized in many fields, I wonder how different it is. Does the blog's form constitute something markedly different from a white paper? Just as with white papers, it is the responsibility of the academic to provide good information. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the audience to understand that the information does not come with a formal peer review. However, by publishing the research, I have been able to provide comparison data points for other researchers, thereby furthering exploration.

Interestingly, in posting research, it undergoes a public review that proves tremendously valuable. Feedback, by way of comments, provides me with new citations to track down, different ways of thinking about my data and theoretical perspective, and a general sense that I am taking part in an ongoing, geographically dispersed research conversation. Perhaps this is the key to understanding the value of blogging in academia. When we blog, we are conversing with an audience; in academia, this audience is often nameless and faceless (Do you know who reads your journal articles?). However, in the blogosphere, the audience joins in to structure the conversation, making it absolutely valuable to academics creating paths of knowledge.

Therefore, we must look at the blog as a tool. Like any tool, it can be used properly or improperly, and the effects can be either good or bad. A blog can help a career just as it can hurt a career. It is up to the academic to craft their digital identity in a way that will be of greatest assistance to their ultimate goals. Such a task is non-trivial, but as many academics are coming to find out, it is more valuable to embrace, rather than suppress, their digital identity. We must come to look beyond the notion of blogs as "shrines of self," but rather as the constructed identity that takes part in the collective conversation (Erwins, 2005). This conversation accretes value, so that future academics—those who will join the conversation at a later date—will be able to take advantage of the work that preceded them. In this sense, this creation of discourse is indicative of the true scholarly nature of academic blogging, and also of the fact that academic blogging will persist. We have come to this field because we want to connect and contribute; as blogs are a well-suited tool for meeting these goals, it only makes sense that we'll be using them for quite some time.

References

Du, H. & Wagner, C. (2005). Learning with weblogs: An empirical investigation. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Erwins, R. (2005). Who are you? Weblogs and academic identity. E-Learning, 2, 368-377.

Huffaker, D. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13(2), 91-98

Tribble, I. (2005, July 8). Bloggers need not apply. The Chronicle of Higher Education Online. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/07/2005070801c.htm.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: October 31, 2006

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12817, Date Accessed: 11/27/2006 1:59:17 PM

by Daniel Jacoby — November 09, 2006

This commentary updates Burton Clark's student "cooling out" function by showing that community colleges now also "cool out" aspiring faculty members, by placing them in part-time employment. This new cooling out function results in lower student graduation rates and thus aggravates the original student "cooling out" function posited by Clark.

Nearly 50 years ago, Burton Clark (1960) argued in a highly influential paper that community colleges had been delegated the crucial, if unflattering, function of "cooling out" those students whose ambitions had been overstimulated by the rise of open enrollment policies. Clark suggested that it fell to community colleges to replace students' lofty, but unlikely, aspirations with more achievable goals, perhaps even to push them out the college door altogether. This essay updates Clark's argument by suggesting that the student "cooling out" function is now aggravated by another "cooling out" function that operates with respect to faculty.

Clark's "cooling out" thesis is very controversial among educators (Dougherty, 1994; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, pp. 375-381) who see community colleges as places of otherwise unavailable opportunity, particularly for low income, minority, first generation, or poorly prepared students. Indeed, successful students are some of community colleges' most persuasive advocates. Moreover, many two-year students don't define success in terms of their graduation or transfer to a baccalaureate institution. Seen from the other perspective, however, it is clear that the chance of completing a BA or BS degree is lower for those who begin college in a two-year school than it is for those who commence higher education at four-year institutions (Lavin & Crook, 1990; Whitaker & Pascarella, 1994). Unfortunately, this finding is even stronger when community colleges rely upon part-time faculty who have been placed in the cold storage of temporary, insecure, and too often, dead-end positions.

With two part-time instructors employed for each faculty person working full-time, public community colleges now function to warehouse surplus instructors, becoming sites in which apparently untenable faculty aspirations for good faculty jobs are "cooled out."

During the year 2003, out of nearly 1.2 million U.S. faculty members, more than half a million were employed part-time. However, such aggregate data masks the telling comparison between public two and four-year schools. Of 451,000 faculty employed at public four-year schools, 316,000 were engaged on a full time basis. At public two-year colleges, by contrast, 110,000 were employed full-time with an additional 231,000 contracted on a part-time basis. The remaining faculty taught at private institutions where they are nearly evenly split among part- and full-time positions (NCES, 2004).

The point is that public community colleges clearly house a disproportionate number of the faculty hired outside the norms of security that were once considered hallmarks of academic life. No doubt, many part-time and temporary faculty prefer non-standard employment and view it as a way to accommodate other activities such as family or professional employment in another field. However, in a survey conducted at one suburban community college, 50 percent of the part-time faculty said they would prefer full-time positions, while another 20 percent sought more hours of employment than they were currently given. Job insecurity was also near the top of their concerns (Jacoby, 2005).

Given the current academic job market, it is difficult to see how most of these part time instructors can ever be accommodated with full-time secure positions. Instead, the community college cools them out through long years of disappointment, serving notice on part-time faculty that they must accept harsh conditions or move on. Many do precisely that. Others linger on in part-time jobs for five to 10 years hoping eventually to realize a full-time tenure track position only to find themselves increasingly demoralized in the knowledge that their current positions are likely to be as good as they will ever get. Many of those who do stay on within the community college system do so because they believe it is their calling. Sadly, their long service often becomes a stigma that reduces their opportunity to secure better academic positions.

It is legitimate to ask whether a faculty predominantly composed of underpaid and frequently mistreated individuals is likely to be able to rise up to the challenge of helping at-risk students to achieve the skills necessary to graduate, transfer, and otherwise fulfill their dreams. This challenge is especially hard because community college students often require high levels of support and care from their faculty. So it is perverse that their schools are disproportionately staffed by part-time instructors who themselves face immense pressure to husband scarce time in order to make their own financial ends meet.

The AAUP (2006) recently noted that pay for part-time faculty at the fiftieth percentile is just under $1700 per course, a sum that virtually dictates dependence upon other sources of income. Coupled with their ineligibility for most benefits, it can be no surprise that part-timers have been found to spend less time on office hours, on preparation, and on assignments in contrast with full-time faculty facing fewer monetary distractions.

As if this were not enough, additional impediments include a second-class status that makes part-time faculty unwelcome at departmental meetings or other functions where curriculum is discussed. It is common for part-time faculty not to have offices, or phones, and frequently, they are not even listed in their college directories, making it difficult for students to contact them.

Part-time faculty who want to construct rigorous and engaging classes may also be discouraged by last minute hires or by the fear that they may be discharged before their classes begin. Worse, given the short duration of part-time contracts, there is often little upon which to evaluate new part-time faculty other than student evaluations or complaints. Part-time instructors sense that their evaluations by students are likely to be lower if their grading is based upon rigorous standards.

So much of this would only sound like whining if the cooling out of faculty could not be demonstrated to interact negatively with community college students so as to further cool out their chances for success. In the accompanying chart for the year 2003, I assemble data from the National Center for Educational Statistics to show that those public two-year institutions having the highest part-time faculty ratios had substantially lower graduation rates.

Graduation Rates at Public Community Colleges Divided into Thirds According to their part-time faculty ratios in 2003

Best Third Middle Third Worst Third

Part-time Faculty Ratio 0.411 0.662 0.783

Graduation Ratio 0.302 0.255 0.215

 Source: Original Analysis Using Data from NCES IPEDS Data http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

On average, the worst third of community colleges hire 78 percent of their faculty on a part-time basis. These colleges graduated just 21.5 percent of their full-time, first year degree-seeking students in three years or less. Schools in the middle and best third had lower part-time faculty percentages, 66 percent and 41 percent respectively. Their collective graduation rates were much higher at 25.5 percent, and 30.1 percent.

Certainly, there is room in this data for refinements by examining the many factors that are known to affect student performance. Yet, controlling for the student, institutional, and economic factors typically believed to affect graduation rate, an analysis of data for the year 2001 (Jacoby, 2006) shows that the basic result that higher part-time faculty ratios are significantly and negatively correlated to student graduation rates remained true even after adjusting for students who transfer to another school.

By lurching toward a cheap part-time faculty system that "cools out" the legitimate aspirations of our future teacher scholars, we simultaneously create new barriers for students looking to the community colleges for a helping hand. Do we really want to tell community college faculty and students that they should simply, "chill?"

References

AAUP, Devaluing the profession: Annual report on the economic status of the profession 2005-06. Retrieved Oct 22, 2006 from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/About/committees/committee+repts/compensation/survey2005-06.htm

Clark, B. (1960). The ‘cooling-out' function in higher education American. Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 569-576.

Dougherty, K. (1994) The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

Lavin, D. & Crook, D. (1990). Open admissions and its outcomes: Ethnic differences in long term educational attainment. American Journal of Education, 98, 389-425.

Jacoby, D. (2005). Part-time or contingent community college faculty and the desire for full-time tenure track position. Community College Journal of research and Practice, 12, 1-16.

Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college graduation rates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), pp. 1081-1103.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2004), Digest of Educational Statistics, 2004. Retrieved November 1, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_224.asp

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, Volume 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Whitaker, D. & Pascarella, E. (1994). Two-year college attendance and socioeconomic attainment: Some additional evidence. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 194-210.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: November 09, 2006

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12834, Date Accessed: 12/5/2006 1:30:49 AM

by Frederick M. Hess & Andrew P. Kelly — 2007

INTRODUCTION

School leadership is the key to school improvement. School principals are the front-line managers, the small business executives, the team leaders charged with leading their faculty to new levels of effectiveness. In this new era of educational accountability, where school leaders are expected to demonstrate bottom-line results and use data to drive decisions, the skill and knowledge of principals matter more than ever. The rise of charter schooling, increasing school choice, and more flexible teacher compensation and hiring have granted thousands of principals new opportunities to exercise discretion and operate with previously unimagined leeway. In this environment, school improvement rests to an unprecedented degree on the quality of school leadership.

Superintendents make clear that they hold new and more demanding expectations for principals. Public Agenda notes that when today's superintendents "describe what they are trying to accomplish" they use the words "accountability, instructional leadership, closing the achievement gap, [and] teacher quality" (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003, p. 22). However, principals themselves suggest that they are not fully equipped for all of the challenges they face. Just 36 percent of principals report that tougher scrutiny of teachers is resulting in denied tenure for weak teachers and just 30 percent reported that students' assessed performance is being factored into the evaluation of teachers (Farkas et al., 2003, p. 21).

In this changing context, an array of scholars have asked whether traditional approaches to preparing and licensing principals are sufficient (Elmore, 2000; Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2003; Hess, 2003; Murphy, 2001a; Tucker, 2003). Leaders of the University Council for Education Administration have asserted that "in order to build programs that support leadership for learning—we must rethink and revise our practice in several areas" (Young & Kochan, 2004, p. 121). Theodore Kowalski (2004), an influential scholar of educational administration, has advocated "substantial reforms in administrator preparation, program accreditation, and state licensing standards" (p. 93).

Principals themselves are among the first to agree that they need to be more effectively prepared for their jobs. All but 4 percent of practicing principals report that on-the-job experiences or guidance from colleagues has been more helpful in preparing them for their current position than their graduate school studies. In fact, 67 percent of principals reported that "typical leadership programs in graduate schools of education are out of touch with the realities of what it takes to run today's school districts" (Farkas et al., 2003, p. 39).

A recent four-year study by the president of Teachers College at Columbia University, Arthur Levine (2005), raised the stakes in this debate by harshly assessing the quality of educational administration programs. Based on a survey of practicing principals and education school deans, chairs, faculty, and alumni, as well as case studies of 25 school leadership programs, Levine (2005) concluded that "the majority of [educational administration] programs range from inadequate to appalling, even at some of the country's leading universities" (p. 23). In particular, he found that the typical course of studies required of principal candidates was largely disconnected from the realities of school management, though Levine did not seek to analyze the content of these courses. In light of the Levine analysis, and given the increasing demands on school leaders, the question of what candidates are actually being taught in principal preparation has taken on heightened significance.

Unfortunately, there exists no systematic information addressing this question. In this study, we set out to examine what candidates are taught in the core courses that constitute principal preparation at established principal-preparation programs. In doing so, we hope to provide a first, imperfect, examination of this important topic.

This question includes a range of more specific queries and concerns, including:

• Are principals taught the fundamentals of management?

• Are principals trained in instruction and pedagogy?

• Is there evidence of a clear ideological direction in instruction?

• Is there notable variation among the preparation offered in the most prestigious, the largest, and more typical institutions?

Absent a clear understanding of just what principals are learning in the course of their preparation, debates about how we should change principal preparation or about the importance of preparation and licensure rest more on faith than fact. Inevitably, we approach the analysis with certain conceptions of the skills and knowledge that contemporary principals require. We believe that effective principal preparation ought to include considerable attention to accountability, managing with data, and utilizing research; to hiring, recruiting, evaluating, and terminating personnel; to overseeing an effective instructional program; and to exposing candidates to diverse views regarding educational and organizational management. The findings here do not provide clear-cut prescriptions as to what programs should teach, but can raise thought-provoking questions for educational administration researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers seeking to improve existing arrangements.

We examined the course units and required readings contained in 210 syllabi collected from a national cross-section of 31 principal-preparation programs. While some in the professional education community have argued that syllabi can tell us nothing about a course or, as David Labaree has suggested, are nothing more than "ideological portraits" (quoted in Keller, 2003, p. 8), this study presumes that university syllabi generally reflect the content and perspective of the courses being taught. While syllabi cannot convey the tone of classroom instruction, they enumerate what topics professors will cover and what students will read. Ultimately, this study rests on the notion that syllabi are like blueprints: they reveal structure and design, even if they do not fully reflect what real-life instruction looks like. Recognizing that blueprints necessarily lack context, we sought to avoid relying upon simple word counts. Rather, we gauged the emphasis of each lesson and coded each into one of seven areas of principal competency. Within each area, we then coded the various lessons based on their primary focus. This two-step approach allowed us to provide a broad take on the curricular landscape and to explore particular topics in some detail.

EXISTING RESEARCH

Almost no current research systematically documents the content studied in the nation's principal-preparation programs, the instructional focus, or the readings assigned to students. Beyond the 2005 Levine study, recent research and commentary has focused on the need to reshape the principal's role so that school leaders are more focused on increasing student achievement, driving school improvement, and meeting the challenges of standards-based accountability and charter schools (Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Portin, Schneider, DeArmond, & Grundlach, 2003). In this study, we document the attention devoted to seven areas of principal responsibility, each of which have been deemed vital to effective school leadership by at least some leading thinkers in the field. The seven are: managing for results, managing personnel, technical knowledge, external leadership, norms and values, managing classroom instruction, and leadership and school culture. Clearly, there are other ways to frame this list of skills and other skills that might be included, but we believe this a useful and constructive rubric for examining the attention devoted to important areas of knowledge.

Scholars of educational leadership have highlighted the importance of each of these seven categories. First, the "managing for results" category, as envisioned for this study, mirrors the skills set forth by Tucker and Codding (2002). They suggested that preparation should stress the "principal's role as the driver for results" and highlight "the crucial role of data in the drive for results, from the careful setting of targets to the collection, display, and analysis of implementation and outcome data to the use of data for setting goals, monitoring progress, allocating and reallocating resources, and managing the school program" (p. 37).

Second, the principal's role in "managing personnel" has taken on new significance as the pressures of accountability increase the expectations on school leaders to hire, induct, and evaluate personnel in a sensible manner. As the most commonly assigned human resources text states, "School districts are ethically bound to find the most talented and skilled people available to achieve their mandate of educating children" (Rebore, 2004, p. 93). Recent survey data from Public Agenda reveals that 78 percent of superintendents and 57 percent of principals believe that principals are evaluated based on their ability to "judge and improve teacher quality" (Farkas et al., 2003, p. 21).

Third, the longstanding emphasis on "technical knowledge" of school law, school finance, and facilities management in principal preparation has fallen out of favor of late. As Ferrandino and Tirozzi (2004) recently put it, "Yesterday's principal was often a desk-bound, disciplinarian building manager who was more concerned with the buses running on time than academic outcomes." Nonetheless, teaching aspiring principals this body of vocational knowledge remains an identifiable, significant element of instruction. Recent survey data reveal that 82 percent of principals report dealing with school facilities, resources, or procedures every day while only 40 percent say the same about driving student achievement ("Leading for Learning", 2004).

Fourth, issues of external leadership loom large in the educational administration discourse. Scholars of educational leadership have pointed out the importance of dealing with external constituencies and attending to school board relations, school-community partnerships, and school politics (Bagin & Gallagher, 2001; Kowalski, 1995). As Hoy and Miskel (2005) point out in one commonly assigned leadership text, "understanding the existing and budding environmental influences is of extreme importance to school administrators" (p. 241).

Fifth, educational administration thinkers and scholars have long argued for the centrality of "norms and values" in promoting equitable and effective schooling (Sergiovanni, 1992; Ryan & Bohlin, 1999; Meier, 1995; Cochran-Smith, 2004). Marilyn Cochran-Smith (2004) asserts that because schooling is inherently political, "participants" in the educational process "deliberately claim the role of educator as well as activist based on political consciousness and on ideological commitment to diminishing the inequities of American life" (p. 19).

Finally, receiving less attention in this analysis—in part because they are the most commonly discussed elements of leadership preparation—are the topics "instructional leadership" and "school culture." Instructional leadership, in particular, tends to encompass the many different facets of school management (DuFour, 2002; King, 2002; Murphy, 2001b Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001; Elmore, 2000). For the purposes of this study, we have adopted a focused conception of instructional leadership that emphasizes matters of pedagogy, curriculum, and classroom management.1 With regard to culture, leading scholars have observed, "School culture affects every part of the enterprise from what faculty talk about in the lunch room, to the type of instruction that is valued . . . to the importance of learning for all students" (Peterson & Deal, 1999, p. 7). While both sets of issues are important, this study focuses more upon the prevalence of skills that are newly significant in educational leadership.

To date, existing research has not scrutinized the attention devoted to each of these vital management questions in the course of principal preparation. The only previously published study to explore the content of administrator preparation using course syllabi was conducted by Nicolaides and Gaynor (1992). The authors analyzed 36 syllabi from doctoral programs at the 37 University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) programs to examine the focus of administrative theory courses and isolated five basic themes: theoretical and historical foundations, process and change, sociopolitical structures, leadership, and culture and symbols. A related effort by Norton and Levan (1987) surveyed UCEA doctoral programs and found that more than 60 percent of content addressed managing personnel, school administration, and technical knowledge of law and finance.

Two recent studies, conducted by Steiner and Rozen (2004) and Butin (2004), have examined the content of syllabi in teacher-preparation programs. Steiner's analysis examined 165 required-course syllabi from 14 elite teacher-preparation programs and two other programs, focusing specifically on the areas of foundations, reading instruction, and math instruction. Butin analyzed 89 education foundations syllabi from 85 teacher-preparation programs that had syllabi posted on the Internet. Steiner argued that the data showed that teacher-preparation courses were ideologically biased, while Butin disputed Steiner's finding.

The field of educational leadership has suffered from a general dearth of systematic scholarly inquiry. Leading authorities have pointedly observed that the overall landscape of educational administration research is "considerably bleaker than most would prefer" (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004, p. 11).2 In particular, educational administration scholars have termed the body of research on administrator preparation "scant" (Lashway, 2003). For instance, a recent effort to analyze the state of administrator preparation conducted by the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation (NCAELP) commissioned six papers which yielded essays on topics like the challenges of reforming administrator preparation (Young, Peterson, Short, 2002), the need to rethink the foundations of leadership preparation (Murphy, 2001b, promising training programs across the country (Jackson & Kelley, 2002), and a "self-evaluation" for preparation programs (Glasman, Cibulka, & Ashby, 2002). While useful, the NCAELP effort did not seek to present systematic data regarding what preparation programs do or what they teach.

The larger body of literature on educational administration preparation reflects the NCAELP effort; it consists primarily of essays or anecdotal descriptions of particular programs. According to Murphy and Vriesenga (2004), between 1975 and 2002, 296 articles on any facet of administrator preparation were published in academic journals. Of these, just 81 (or 27.4%) were empirical in some sense, and just 19 of those addressed any element of administrator preparation curricula.

Most of these 19 articles covered a particular curricular domain like technology (Garland, 1990, Bozeman & Spuck, 1991 , diversity (Parker & Shapiro, 1992; Herrity & Glasman, 1999), social justice (Lyman & Villani, 2002), counseling aptitude (Lampe, 1985), supervision and decision-making skills (Sweeney & Moeller, 2001; Roberts, 1991), or special education (Hirth & Valesky, 1990; Sirotnik & Kimball, 1994).3 The only two that were similar to the present inquiry have already been discussed above. Ultimately, Murphy and Vriesenga (2004) have concluded, "From the extant research, we know almost nothing about the traditional curricular domains of preparation programs . . . nor . . . the shape of curriculum in a post-theory era where issues around teaching and learning and community are reshaping the profession" (p. 24).

METHODS

This study sought to examine what skills and knowledge are being taught in principal-preparation programs and how that material was being approached.4 Ultimately, we were able to collect 210 syllabi from 31 programs. Data collection, coding, and analysis took place between February and December 2004, and participating scholars and institutions were promised anonymity. In all cases, we collected the most recently available syllabi from each institution. In the handful of cases where programs indicated that old syllabi were obsolete but new syllabi had not yet been constructed, no syllabi were collected.

Sample

In early 2004, The U.S. Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) listed 496 administrator-preparation programs. This study drew its sample from three categories of those programs: influential elite programs, large programs that train the most candidates, and more typical programs. This sampling strategy was designed so as to avoid the criticisms that have been made of the Steiner and Rozen (2004) study of teacher preparation syllabi which looked primarily at elite preparation programs, said by critics to be atypical of standard practice. Our sampling strategy allowed us to see whether practices varied between elite and non-elite, or between large and small programs.

The pool of elite programs included the 20 ranked by U.S. News & World Report in 2004 as the nation's top administration programs (two schools were tied for 20th position). Large programs included the 20 educational leadership preparation programs that awarded the largest number of M.Ed. degrees as reported by IPEDS in 2003.5 IPEDS is the only national source available on completion of administrator-preparation programs, and the 2003 data was the most recent available when the study commenced. A third group of 20 programs was randomly drawn from the remaining universe of IPEDS institutions.

From this initial pool of 61 programs, 56 qualified for analysis. The 21 "elite" programs yielded a total of 19. One program was excluded because it does not have a principal-preparation program and a second because it operates an unorthodox accelerated licensure track that does not have courses with syllabi. The 20 largest programs yielded 17 eligible for analysis. One program was incorrectly included in the IPEDS rankings. A second was dropped because its M.Ed. in educational leadership does not lead to licensure or certification in any state and requires candidates to take additional courses at other institutions to fulfill state guidelines. A third program offered only a nontraditional certification program without conventional courses.

From this sample of 56 eligible programs, we were able to collect at least four "core" course syllabi amenable to analysis from 31 (55% of the entire sample of 56).

Of the 19 eligible elite programs, we were able to retrieve at least four "core" syllabi from 13. Of the 17 eligible "large" programs, we obtained at least four syllabi from 11 that met our standards for coding. Of the approximately 450 other preparation programs, we randomly selected 20 for inclusion in the third group. Of these, we collected at least four syllabi from 12 of the programs, though only seven sets of syllabi met the standards for systematic coding.

Syllabi selection

For each program, we sought to collect syllabi for the courses that constituted the core of the principal-preparation program. For those schools that did not have a clearly delineated principal-preparation track, we contacted the institutions to determine which courses were required of principal candidates.

Generally, programs had five to ten core courses that were required of all aspiring principals. Beyond that, some programs required candidates to complete unspecified electives, while others offered candidates a menu of classes from which to choose. In the case of unspecified electives, we did not seek additional materials. In cases where schools required students to take a set number of electives from a specific list of eligible classes, we randomly sampled a number of syllabi from the list equal to the number of required electives.

The final analysis only includes programs from which we collected at least four syllabi from core courses and the specified menu of electives. Consequently, the analysis includes at least four syllabi from each of the 31 programs.

Syllabi collection

The retrieval process involved three steps. First the schools' websites were searched for target syllabi that were available online. At the handful of institutions where the majority of core course syllabi were available online, individual professors who taught the remaining courses were contacted to request additional syllabi. Each faculty member was contacted three times to request their participation.

At the vast majority of institutions, where few or none of the school's syllabi were available online, we contacted the department via email to request the materials. For schools that did not present a clearly delineated list of principal-certification classes, the email requested a list of required courses and the corresponding syllabi. Each program was contacted at least eight times. Occasionally, department chairs deferred to the individual professors to provide their syllabi. In these cases, individuals were contacted at least three times to request their cooperation.

Standards for including syllabi

We were able to collect 243 syllabi in accord with these collection rules.6 To be included in the sample, syllabi had to provide a clear course outline that enumerated specific topics for each week, class, or unit. Syllabi that listed only "course objectives" or that lacked any obvious weekly structure were not included. Ultimately, these restrictions dictated that we discard 33 deficient syllabi, producing a final total of 210 syllabi. Table 1 outlines how the collected syllabi and course weeks were distributed in terms of the initial sample frame.

Table 1: Distribution of Collected Syllabi and Course Weeks

Program Type Eligible Programs Programs Providing 4+ Suitable Syllabi Total Syllabi Total Course Weeks

Elite 19 13 84 972

Large 17 11 78 827

Typical 20 7 48 625

Total 56 31 210 2,424

Coding

The various course weeks of instruction were coded according to the seven categories: managing for results, managing personnel, technical knowledge, external leadership, norms and values, managing classroom instruction, and leadership and school culture. The handful of weeks that surveyed multiple topics or that encompassed other specialized topics that did not fit this rubric were coded "other".

The "managing for results" category encompassed course weeks dedicated to school-level program implementation, evaluation, and organizational change efforts that require an active principal role. The specific focus of the weeks that comprise this category typically included issues like "accountability," "evaluation," "assessments," "data management," "decision-making," "strategy," "organizational structure," and "change."

The weeks coded "managing personnel" entailed any course weeks that dealt with a principal's relations with school employees, primarily teachers but also assistant principals, specialists, and staff members. These weeks discussed issues like "recruitment," "selection," "induction," "teacher evaluation," "clinical supervision," "motivation," "conflict management," "professional development," and "termination" or "dismissal."

The "technical knowledge" category entailed all weeks that dealt with instruction on matters of law, finance, facilities, data and research training, or technology. These course weeks discussed "school funding," "budgeting," "due process," "church and state," "student and teacher freedoms," "tort law," "literature reviews," "sampling," "statistical analyses," and "database management."

Those weeks coded as addressing "external leadership" dealt with the instruction that focused on the principal's relations with external constituents. Lessons that covered school board relations, collective bargaining, public relations and marketing, parent and community relations, and politics and policy were coded as external leadership.

The "norms and values" category entailed weeks that exposed principal candidates to different educational and pedagogical philosophies, discussed debates about the nature and purpose of public schooling, and examined the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic context of education (the sociology of education). These weeks typically included lessons on "stratification," "multiculturalism," "diversity," "constructivism," "inequality," "equity," "social justice," and "gender."

The "leadership and school culture" weeks encompassed those lessons that discussed leadership theory and the principal's role in cultivating school culture. Typical topics in this category included "the frames of leadership," "symbolic leadership," "leadership versus management," "creating a school culture," "leading with vision," and "school climate."

Weeks coded as "managing classroom instruction" dealt with the principal's role and influence on what occurred in the classroom. Course weeks focused on "curriculum," "learning theories," "instructional leadership," "pedagogy," "classroom management," and "collaborative learning" were coded as managing classroom instruction.

FINDINGS

The primary unit of analysis for this study is the "course week"—or what principal candidates primarily studied during a week in a given course. Because the 210 syllabi averaged more than ten course weeks apiece, analysis of the full sample yielded a total of 2,424 course weeks.

The initial review sought to examine the amount of attention paid to the various areas of leadership across all coded syllabi. Table 2 shows the relative attention (measured in course weeks) that principal-preparation courses paid to the seven major strands of school leadership outlined above. Programs devoted more than a quarter of their time to technical knowledge, about 15 percent to managing for results and managing personnel, and less to other areas.

Table 2: What Leadership Programs Cover

School Type Managing for Results Managing Personnel Technical Knowledge External Leadership Norms and Values Leadership and School Culture Managing

Classroom

Instruction Survey/

Other

Elite 17.1%

(166/972) 13.3%

(129/972) 24.9%

(242/972) 9.5% (92/972) 14.9%

(145/972) 7.3%

(71/972) 11.8%

(115/972) 1.2%

(12/972)

Large 12.9%

(107/827) 15.2%

(126/827) 36.0%

(298/827) 7.1%

(59/827) 8.1%

(67/827) 4.1%

(34/827) 12.0 %

(99/827) 4.5%

(37/827)

Typical 17.3%

(108/625) 16.8%

(105/625) 28.5%

(178/625) 6.9%

(43/625) 13.0%

(81/625) 6.6%

(41/625) 8.0%

(50/625) 3.0%

(19/625)

Total 15.7%

(381/2424) 14.9%

(360/2424) 29.6%

(718/2424) 8.0%

(194/2424) 12.1%

(293/2424) 6.0%

(146/2424) 10.9%

(264/2424) 2.8%

(68/2424)

Striking in Table 2 are the broad similarities across the three kinds of programs. While the critiques of the Steiner study said that elite education school programs were atypical of common practice, we find little evidence of systematic variation among programs in the kinds of topics they address. There are noticeable differences in emphasis, but they are not nearly as distinct as some observers might have anticipated. While the figures in Table 2 should be interpreted with caution, they provide a rough sense of how time was allocated.

Managing for results

"Managing for results" included those weeks linking school management with issues of quality control, improved performance, and rethinking or restructuring practices and routines. Weeks addressing managing for results focused on school-level implementation, evaluation, and organizational change efforts that require an active principal role. In general, about 16 percent of course weeks were devoted to managing for results.

In an era of No Child Left Behind and aggressive state efforts to ensure that every child is well served, utilizing state assessments and leveraging accountability systems is a vital piece of effective school leadership. Public Agenda's 2003 survey of administrators asserts that 63 percent of superintendents report that raising student achievement is the biggest part of a principal's evaluation and that 47 percent have moved a successful principal to a low-performing school to help it improve (Farkas et al., 2003, p. 23). However, while 73 percent of today's superintendents also think holding principals accountable for student learning is a "good idea" and just 18 percent that it's a "bad idea," 45 percent of principals term the idea a "bad" one and just 41 percent a "good" one (Farkas et al., 2003, p. 38). Given that current principals express this kind of evident discomfort with accountability, how much attention are programs devoting to accountability in training principal candidates?

In practice, just 50 of 381, or about 13 percent, of "managing for results" course weeks linked school management to standards-based accountability systems, state assessments, or the new demands of No Child Left Behind. This means that only about 2 percent of all course weeks addressed accountability as it relates to school management. Accountability was mentioned fewer than five times in other contexts, such as those relating to school law or policy, but these instances only accounted for a fraction of the attention to the topic.

Table 3: Managing for Results with Accountability

Type of School Percentage of "Managing for Results" Course Weeks Linked to Accountability, State Assessments, or NCLB

Elite 13.3% (22 /166)

Large 14.0% (15 /107)

Typical 12.0% (13 /108)

Total 13.1% (50 /381)

Of course, as Theodore Creighton (2001) and others have noted, one precondition for using accountability as an effective management tool is that principals be equipped to make use of data, research, and the associated technology. How much attention are preparation programs devoting to these topics? Table 4 shows that the 381 course weeks devoted to "managing for results" involved "data, technology, or research" about 29 percent of the time. These course weeks addressed topics like "Data-driven decision-making . . . the process of data collection and analysis at the district level" (Syllabus 66, Week 7) and "The bottom line: The principal's impact on student achievement . . . [using] data analysis" (Syllabus 88, Week 15). There was much variation in how individual programs covered these topics.

Table 4: Managing for Results with Data and Research

Type of School Percentage of "Managing for Results" Course Weeks That Mention "Data, Technology, or Research"

Elite 28.3% (47/166)

Large 38.3% (41/107)

Typical 19.4% (21/108)

Total 28.6% (109/381)

Combining the results from Tables 3 and 4 reveals an estimate of the total amount of time devoted to using accountability, data, research, or technology as management tools. The bottom line is that perhaps 6–7 percent of instruction addressed one of these topics as it relates to managing school improvement. Course weeks that discussed managing for results without referencing accountability, data, or research often expressed a more spiritual approach to school improvement. One such course week asked, "How do we engage the moral and aesthetic imagination in the educational change process?" (Syllabus 57, Week 1).

Another way to characterize the attention paid to data and research is to ask what percentage of all course weeks included a description, reading, or assignment that referenced data or research. Overall, 263 out of 2,424, or 11 percent, of weeks referenced statistics, data, or empirical research in some context. In short, these results seem to reveal that issues of data and research receive very limited attention in principal-preparation programs.

Managing personnel

A critical role for any leader is hiring, evaluating, developing, and firing personnel. This category included course weeks addressing the hiring process (recruitment, selection, interviewing), employee motivation, teacher evaluation, and conflict management. About 15 percent of course weeks were devoted to personnel management.

While principals have always been limited in their ability to hire, remove, or reward personnel—due to state statutes, district procedures, staffing routines, collective bargaining provisions, and so on—they are now pressed both by expectations and by statute to play an increasingly aggressive role in ensuring teacher quality. In fact Education Week ("Leading for Learning", 2004) reports that 80 percent of principals believe they have a great deal of influence over evaluating teachers and that 74 percent say the same about hiring new personnel (p. S7).

In light of these developments, the question arises: How much are training programs doing to prepare principals for the challenges of personnel management? The importance of the issue is highlighted by a 1999 study of 54 U.S. companies which concluded that the cost of the average managerial "mis-hire" was 24 times the failed employee's starting salary (Smart, 1999). Table 5 illustrates that about 11 percent of the managing personnel course weeks addressed the various facets of the hiring process: recruitment, selection, interviewing, and placement. Coverage of the hiring process varied from program to program, with some paying no attention to recruitment, selection, or placement. In all, 21 of 31 programs, or 68 percent, covered the hiring process only once or not at all in all syllabi coded.

Table 5: Time Devoted to Recruitment and Hiring

School Type Percentage of "Managing Personnel" Course Weeks Addressing Hiring Process

Elite 7.0% (9/129)

Large 11.1% (14/126)

Typical 17.1% (18/105)

Total 11.4% (41/360)

While hiring good faculty is one challenge that principals face, a second critical task is evaluating personnel. How much time do various programs devote to helping principals learn to evaluate teachers? Table 6 shows that about 24 percent of the 360 course weeks that addressed managing personnel were devoted to teacher evaluation.

Table 6: Time Devoted to Evaluating Teachers

Type of School Percentage of "Managnng Personnel" Course Weeks Addressing "Teacher Evaluation"

Elite 31.8 % (41/129)

Large 20.6% (26/126)

Typical 17.1% (18/105)

Total 23.6% (85/360)

Table 6 suggests that a considerable percentage of personnel management is devoted to faculty evaluation. However, the obvious question that emerges is the degree to which principals are being equipped to make important decisions about tenure, compensation, and professional development based on those judgments.

Table 7 examines the focus of the 85 course weeks devoted to teacher evaluation. Weeks addressing teacher evaluation that encompassed the more agreeable, supportive elements of the process like "observation," "clinical supervision," "coaching," or "mentoring" were coded "supportive" evaluation. Meanwhile, weeks devoted to less genial topics, like linking evaluation to student performance, evaluating teachers using non-observational data, rewarding excellence, or "remediating" or dismissing low-performing faculty were coded "tough-minded" evaluation.

Table 7: Teacher Evaluation: Tough-Minded vs. Supportive

Type of School Teacher Evaluation Course Weeks Tough-Minded Supportive

Elite 41 26.8% (11/41) 73.2% (30/41)

Large 26 26.9% (7/26) 73.1% (19/26)

Typical 18 22.2% (4/18) 77.8% (14/18)

Total 85 25.9% (22/85) 74.1 % (63/85)

Table 7 shows that "tough-minded" evaluation received much less attention than did "supportive" evaluation. "Tough-minded" evaluation accounted for just 22 of 85 (26 percent) course weeks devoted to evaluation. This means that less than 1 percent of all instruction in the syllabi examined focused on aggressive efforts to identify, enhance, and reward teacher quality. Michael Fullan, one of the most frequently assigned authors in the syllabi, captured a common theme in the discussions of evaluation when he wrote, "Appraisal schemes that implicate 100 percent of the staff in order to detect a small percentage of incompetents are a gross waste of time . . . Any appraisal schemes should be decidedly focused on growth and development" (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996, p. 10–11). In fact, course weeks routinely focused on procedural questions (e.g., "Cycles of supervision: What's due when," Syllabus 59, Week 7) or finding ways to support problematic staff (e.g., "Supervising the marginal teacher" Syllabus 135, Week 7; "Working with difficult people," Syllabus 188, Week 10).

To further examine this finding, we looked at how often managing personnel course weeks mentioned "tough-minded" notions like "termination," "dismissal," "firing," "teacher compensation," or "salary." Table 8 shows that just 3 percent of the personnel management course weeks made mention of teacher dismissal and less than 3 percent made mention of teacher compensation. In all, just 21 of 360 course weeks devoted to managing personnel addressed employee compensation or termination—two subjects that typically receive extensive attention when personnel management is addressed in other venues. Many programs did not discuss termination or compensation at all: 20 of 31 programs never mentioned termination, and 23 of 31 failed to mention compensation. None of the 31 programs mentioned either topic more than once.

Table 8: Dealing with Termination/Dismissal and Compensation

Type of School "Managing Personnel" Course Weeks Addressing Teacher Dismissal "Managing Personnel" Course Weeks Addressing Compensation

Elite 3.1% (4/129) 4.7% (6/129)

Large 5.6% (7/126) 0.8% (1/126)

Other 1.0% (1/105) 1.9% (2/105)

Total 3.3% (12/360) 2.5% (9/360)

This mindset contrasts sharply with the conventional wisdom in public- and private-sector management regarding the benefits of the selective use of evaluation, compensation, and termination for quality control. As former General Electric CEO Jack Welch (2001)—identified in a 2003 survey as one of the 50 "most important" living management thinkers—has explained: "Making these judgments is not easy, and they are not always precise . . . but . . .This is how great organizations are built. Year after year, differentiation raises the bar higher and higher and increases the overall caliber of the organization" (p. 158). Of course, the Welch model is not how schools currently operate, leaving open the question as to whether principals ought to be introduced to such thinking.

Overall, the preparation programs in the sample approach personnel management with little attention to teaching new principals to hire, evaluate, reward, or terminate employees. In fact, some syllabi evince a peculiar take on these issues, as in the case of the course week that archly made reference to, "The symbolism of attempting to fire an incompetent teacher" (Syllabus 41, Week 8).

Technical knowledge

While reformers discuss how to help principals focus more on improving school performance, the data suggest that principals continue to spend most of their work day on administrative issues and the nuts and bolts of running a school. For instance, a 2004 survey by Education Week revealed that 86 percent of principals report spending time each day on ensuring the security of their school and 82 percent spend part of their day managing facilities and resources ("Leading for Learning", 2004). Presumably due to this reality, technical knowledge was the most frequently addressed topic in the syllabi examined. It encompassed 30 percent of the total course weeks—nearly twice the time devoted to any of the other six content areas.

The "technical knowledge" category included those course weeks which focused on topics like school law, school finance, facilities management, data training, research, technology, and related concerns like meeting coordination and food and transportation services. Data training and research were coded as technical knowledge when they were presented in the abstract rather than in a context linking them to schooling— in those weeks where use of data and research were linked to topics like assessment or program evaluation, "research" and "data" were coded as "managing for results" and included in Table 4.

What topics do preparation programs focus upon when teaching technical knowledge? Table 9 shows that nearly three-quarters of the time devoted to technical knowledge was spent on education law and school finance. Of 718 course weeks devoted to technical knowledge, 324 (about 45%) focused on education law, and 196 (27%) on school finance. The remaining course weeks addressed research skills (10%), data management and utilization (7%), technology (5%), and facilities (4%). There was some variation across different kinds of programs. Elite programs devoted more than 85 percent of their attention to law and finance but just 5 percent to data, research skills, and technology. Meanwhile, both large and typical programs spent 27–32 percent of their technical knowledge instruction on data, technology, and research skills and 62–68 percent of their time on finance and law.

Table 9: The Coverage of Technical Leadership Skills

Type of School Finance Law Facilities Data training Research

Skills Technology Other

Elite 37.6%

(91/242) 50.8%

(123/242) 4.1%

(10/242) 4.1%

(10/242) 1.7%

(4/242) 0%

(0/242) 1.7%

(4/242)

Large 16.1%

(48/298) 45.6%

(136/298) 4.7%

(14/298) 10.7%

(32/298) 14.4%

(43/298) 7.0%

(21/298) 1.3%

(4/298)

Typical 32.0%

(57/178) 36.5%

(65/178) 3.9%

(7/178) 6.2%

(11/178) 14.0%

(25/178) 7.3%

(13/178) 0%

(0/178)

Total 27.3%

(196/718) 45.1%

(324/718) 4.3%

(31/718) 7.4%

(53/718) 10.0%

(72/718) 4.7%

(34/718) 1.1%

(8/718)

The titles of the technical knowledge course weeks raise some questions about the body of skills regarded as essential to school operations. Some courses on law, finance, facilities, and so on seem to have straightforward value, as with the weeks titled, "Preparation and interpretation of financial statements…[including] managing the accounting and control function" (Syllabus 19, Week 4) or "Revisit[ing] basic data distributions…[including] percentiles, inter-quartile ranges, descriptive statistics" (Syllabus 78, Week 2). On the other hand, some syllabi appear less focused on useful expertise, particularly those with lessons on "Financial equity: Should all students have a constitutional right to an equal education? Should this require an equal or equitable allocation of funds to all schools?" (Syllabus 20, Week 9) or "Topics of silent, political, passive speech . . . valuing student speech, supporting versus tolerating speech . . . and civic and civil development of students" (Syllabus 51, Week 4). On the whole, however, a plain reading of the syllabi reveals that more than 85 percent of technical knowledge course weeks focused on operational and applied tasks.

Because topics like law, facilities, finance, and technology cover facts and formulas that principals are thought to need, we examined the extent to which courses teaching "technical knowledge" use final assessments to ensure mastery. We found that about 58 percent of 64 "technical knowledge" courses required students to take a final exam. Interestingly, while two-thirds of large and typical program courses in technical knowledge required exams, just 39 percent of the 23 elite courses examined did.

External leadership

We also considered how much instruction was devoted to "external leadership" responsibilities such as working with constituencies like parents and community organizations, negotiating local politics, understanding collective bargaining agreements, and developing small business skills like marketing and public relations. In the aggregate, external leadership was addressed in about 8 percent of course weeks.

Table 10: Allocation of Time Within "External Leadership"

School Type School Board Parental Relations Small Business Skills Community Relations Collective Bargaining Politics/Policy Other

Elite 4.3%

(4/92) 4.3%

(4/92) 6.5%

(6/92) 29.3%

(27/92) 13.0%

(12/92) 33.7%

(31/92) 8.7%

(8/92)

Large 6.8%

(4/59) 0%

(0/59) 23.7%

(14/59) 20.3%

(12/59) 22.0%

(13/59) 22.0%

(13/59) 5.1%

(3/59)

Typical 2.3%

(1/43) 2.3%

(1/43) 16.3%

(7/43) 11.6%

(5/43) 2.3%

(1/43) 34.9%

(15/43) 30.2%

(13/43)

Total 4.6%

(9/194) 2.6%

(5/194) 13.9%

(27/194) 22.7%

(44/194) 13.4%

(26/194) 30.4%

(59/194) 12.4%

(24/194

Within external leadership, Table 10 shows how much attention was devoted to specific topics of interest. The most attention was devoted to understanding politics and policy (30 percent of course weeks) and to community relations (23 percent). Small business skills and collective bargaining received a great deal of attention in large programs, accounting for almost half of their external leadership course weeks, but only a fraction of that in elite or typical programs. Parental relations and dealing with the school board received minimal attention across the board, together accounting for only about 7 percent of external leadership course weeks.

Norms and values

Education school critics assert that courses are often characterized by an ideological tilt that influences content (Steiner & Rozen, 2004). Does the evidence suggest such a bias in the case of principal-preparation courses? The data in Table 2 suggests that only about 12 percent of course weeks explicitly focus on promoting particular norms or values. In the instruction that does address norms and values, is there evidence to support the claim that instructors are failing to expose students to diverse points of view?

Obviously, gauging the ideological content inevitably requires the researcher to make judgment calls.7 All we can do here is assuage concerns by explaining the coding rules and providing examples to show how the coding metric was applied. Coded as "progressive" were course weeks that advocated concepts like social justice and multiculturalism, focused on inequality and race-based discrimination, emphasized notions of silenced voices and child-centered instruction, or were critical of testing and choice-based reform. Those weeks that critiqued notions of social justice and multiculturalism, critiqued a focus on inequality or discrimination as engaging in "victimhood," advocated phonics and back-to-basics instruction, or framed discussions of testing or choice-based reform in positive terms were coded as "conservative." Those weeks that did not display clear normative direction or that included a variety of normative views were coded "neutral."

For examples of how this metric was applied, some of the course weeks that were coded as progressive included:

• "The role of the curriculum in legitimating social inequality" (Syllabus 8, Week 10)

• "What role(s) do race and social class play in school reform? Is social Darwinism a useful reform concept?" (Syllabus 35, Week 9)

• "Other silenced voices? (females, gay, impaired, over/underweight, bullied, biracial, religion, homeless, transient, etc.). Sexism and gender roles? Equity? Heterosexism and gay issues?" (Syllabus 40, Week 11)8

• Course weeks that were coded as balanced/neutral/ or indeterminate included:

• "Are unions good or bad for public education? What does the evidence say?" (Syllabus 22, Week 2)

• "Educational productivity, assessing educational productivity, does money matter? Improving productivity . . . class size, vouchers, charter schools" (Syllabus 33, Weeks 8 & 9)

• "What should schools teach? Phonics vs. whole language; multicultural education/teaching for diversity" (Syllabus 161, Week 3).

The single course week coded "conservative" was titled "The state and local politics of education reform" (Syllabus 23, Week 12). It was coded as such because the week's primary reading was authored by a well-known scholar regarded as conservative.

Table 11 shows the distribution of normative perspectives during the "norms and values" course weeks.

Table 11: Distribution of Normative Perspectives

Type of School Norms and Values Course Weeks Progressive Conservative Balanced/Neutral/

Indeterminate

Elite 145 70.3%

(102/145) 0.6%

(1/145) 29.7%

(42/145)

Large 67 65.7%

(44/67) 0.0%

(0/67) 34.3%

(23/67)

Typical 81 54.3%

(44/81) 0.0%

(0/81) 45.7%

(37/81)

Total 293 64.8%

(190/293) 0.3%

(1/293) 34.8%

(102/293)

Table 11 suggests that there is a distinct progressive tilt in those weeks that address norms and values. Overall 65 percent of the norms and values weeks were coded as progressive, 35 percent as balanced, neutral, or indeterminate, and less than 1 percent as conservative. Contrary to earlier suggestions that elite programs were atypically biased, the progressive tendency was evident at all three kinds of programs. It was most marked at elite and large programs, but even at typical programs, the majority of course weeks were progressive and none were conservative. Interestingly, many of the issues of political correctness traditionally attacked by education school critics were not much in evidence. For instance, the words "diversity" and "diverse" and "multiculturalism" and "multicultural" appeared in only 3 percent of all course weeks.

In the end, however, the imbalance of ideological perspectives does raise cautionary flags about instructors' interest in entertaining competing schools of thought on leadership. For instance, courses titled "Leadership, diversity, and social justice" (Syllabus 174) or weeks labeled "Suturing together a conservative public agenda: markets, religion, standards, and inequality" (Syllabus 8, Week 9) raise doubts about whether the aim is to educate or to promote a particular point of view. Still, it is important to note that these principal-preparation programs only devote slightly more than 10 percent of instructional time to norms and values.

Most frequently read authors

One way to delve deeper into the content of instruction is to examine which authors are included on course reading lists in principal preparation programs. Answering these questions required a way to systematically assess assigned readings. Only "required readings" were tallied; "recommended readings," "supplementary readings," and "suggested readings" were excluded. Authorship was coded as follows: A reading was attributed to an individual if they were first or second author. In cases where there were more than two authors, if the scholar in question was not first or second author, the reading was not attributed to that author. Edited volumes themselves are not attributed, although chapters assigned within edited collections—including introductions or conclusions authored by the editor—are attributed to the author and tallied. The most commonly assigned authors are listed in Table 12.

Table 12: Most Commonly Assigned Authors

Author Number of Times Assigned

Terrence Deal 25

Allan Odden 25

Kent Peterson 24

Michael Fullan 15

Lee Bolman 14

Thomas Sergiovanni 13

David Schimmel 13

Richard Elmore 13

Linda Darling-Hammond 12

Wayne Hoy 11

Deborah Meier 9

N: 1,851 readings

The most commonly assigned authors were Terence Deal (University of Southern California) and Allan Odden (University of Wisconsin). Deal is a prolific scholar of school leadership; Odden a scholar of education finance, state funding systems, and related issues. Other commonly assigned authors were Kent Peterson (University of Wisconsin); Michael Fullan (University of Toronto), Lee Bolman (University of Missouri-Kansas City), Thomas Sergiovanni (Trinity University, TX), Richard Elmore (Harvard Graduate School of Education), Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford University), and Deborah Meier (founder of Central Park East school). These authors tend to focus on the "unique" challenges of school leadership. Sergiovanni (1996), for instance, argues that preparation for school leadership is unlike that for other leadership roles, declaring that "corporate" models of leadership cannot work in education and that, "We [must] accept the reality that leadership for the schoolhouse should be different, and . . . we [need to] begin to invent our own practice" (p. xiv).

It is worth noting that several of these thinkers—particularly Darling-Hammond, Meier, Sergiovanni, and Fullan—are unapologetic skeptics of test-based accountability systems, standardized assessments, pay-for-performance, competitive pressure, and other key elements of the new educational environment.9 While some of the authors are more balanced in their stance on such measures, nowhere on this list are there identifiable proponents of test-based accountability, expedited termination of poor teachers, educational competition, or related measures that are changing the managerial context.

To determine whether this impression may be an artifact of the list of most commonly read authors, Table 13 lists a number of influential education thinkers and how often their writings were assigned. While specialists in educational administration were frequently assigned, largely absent were influential scholars of education governance and productivity like Paul Hill, Larry Cuban, William Boyd, Michael Kirst, and Jim Guthrie.

Table 13: The Representation of 10 Key Education Governance/Productivity Thinkers

Author Number of Times Assigned

Eric Hanushek 6

Henry Levin 4

Richard Murnane 2

James Guthrie 2

Larry Cuban 2

Chester E. Finn, Jr. 2

Michael Kirst 1

William Boyd 1

Herbert Walberg 0

Paul Hill 0

N: 1,851 readings

Table 14 addresses the question of how frequently leading management thinkers were read in the courses studied. A 2003 survey of business leaders, business school professors, and MBA students by Bloomsbury Publishing and Suntop Media produced a list of the 50 "most important" living management thinkers (Thinkers 50, 2003). Of the individuals identified by the Thinkers 50 rankings, Table 13 shows that only nine were assigned at all, and they were assigned a combined total of just 29 times in all of the courses studied.

Table 14: Frequency of Thinkers 50 Management Theorists

Author Number of Times Assigned

Peter Senge 7

Stephen Covey 4

Edgar Schein 4

Rosabeth Moss Kanter 3

Peter Drucker 3

John Kotter 3

Henry Mintzberg 2

Warren Bennis 2

Daniel Goleman 1

N: 1,851 readings

In other words, of the 1,851 readings contained in the sample, a total of just 1.6 percent were authored by one of the 50 thinkers deemed most influential by management students, teachers, and practitioners. Influential thinkers including Michael Porter, Jim Collins, Clay Christensen, and Tom Peters—some of whom are widely cited in education circles and asked to address national educational conferences—were wholly absent from every syllabus in the sample. The omission of these scholars, along with the inattention to serious education management thinkers, raises questions about whether principals are adequately steeped in important thinking and research on management and productivity.

For instance, when addressing school culture and climate, the most commonly assigned readings tend to focus almost exclusively on the importance of creating warm, supportive, and nurturing school environments. One of the most commonly assigned texts on school culture declares, "The social climate and culture of a school influence the emotional and psychological orientation of its staff. . . . This is especially the case in schools that are optimistic, socially caring and supportive, and energetic" ( Peterson & Deal, 1999, p. 8). Offering a rather different take, Jim Collins, one of the Thinkers 50 who appears nowhere among the assigned readings, has argued that, "Visionary companies are not exactly comfortable places. . . visionary companies thrive on discontent. They understand that contentment leads to complacency, which inevitably leads to decline" (Collins & Porras, 1997, p. 186–87). The point is that both sets of authors offer valuable, even crucial, insights, but that one school of thought appears to be largely absent from the reading lists.

While educational leadership lies at the intersection of two vibrant and powerful bodies of learning and thought—education and leadership/management—instruction in the programs examined draws narrowly from a pool of "educational administration" specialists. This is particularly problematic because growth and advancement come not merely from new inventions or unearthing new resources but from entrepreneurial leaders and decision-makers configuring personnel, practices, operations, and existing resources in new and more effective ways. Of course, educational leaders will be far better equipped to do so if they are familiar with a broad body of knowledge on learning, technology, management, and productivity.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a comprehensive assessment of what aspiring principals are taught in a national sample of 31 preparation programs and reveals considerable consistency across a variety of institutions. Our research raises questions about whether preparation is well matched to the contemporary world of schooling and whether graduates of principal-preparation programs are being equipped for the challenges and opportunities posed by an era of accountability. As three professors of educational leadership have observed, "Leadership during this Age of Accountability has become more stressful, more political, more complex, and more time-consuming" but that school leaders have also been given unprecedented "clarity of mission" and "leverage to bring teachers into line" (Duke, Grogan, & Tucker, 2003, p. 212). The recent study by Arthur Levine (2005), President of Teachers College at Columbia, posed thoughtful structural remedies intended to address these needs. Among Levine's suggestions were to create an education management degree like the MBA, to eliminate the Ed.D, and to stop districts from offering pay raises for course credit. Such structural changes are certainly deserving of careful scrutiny, but Levine's study also raises a more fundamental question as to whether the content of preparation courses may also need to be rethought.

Ultimately, the question of instructional content is pivotal; yet we find that principals currently receive limited training in the use of data, research, technology, the hiring or termination of personnel, or evaluating personnel in a systematic way. The reading lists suggest that aspiring principals receive limited exposure to important management scholarship or sophisticated inquiry on educational productivity and governance. The vital question is whether the lack of attention to certain schools of thought regarding management may leave aspiring principals prepared for the traditional world of educational leadership but not for the challenges they will face in the 21st century. Principal-preparation programs that pay little attention to data, productivity, accountability, or working with parents may leave their graduates unprepared for new responsibilities. This system risks graduating new principals unprepared to exercise new freedoms or responsibilities—resulting in micromanagement, poor decisions, or the misuse of accountability instruments. Meaningful reform of principal-preparation programs must ensure that the content of these programs it is well suited for the challenges confronting principals in a new era of schooling. While these data cannot offer any definitive guidance with regard to these important questions, the queries are critical ones that demand more careful exploration.

This study represents an initial cut at understanding how aspiring principals are being prepared. Our work is intended as a provocative first look—not as the final word. Our hope is that scholars of educational administration and school leadership will refine, extend, and challenge our inquiry and analysis. In light of the numerous efforts to rethink principal preparation currently under way across the country, we hope that researchers will document and monitor the changes wrought by ongoing efforts to reform preparation. In particular, given the exploratory nature of this study, it will be appropriate for future research employing more comprehensive samples to assess the relative magnitude of the differences we find across program categories and within areas of instruction.

An important question raised by syllabi studies such as this is the degree to which syllabi actually reflect what takes place inside classrooms. While syllabi can be imperfect indicators of classroom instruction, whether they can serve as valuable proxies for what concepts are being taught is an open question. We hope that future inquiries will help to make clear how closely principal-preparation courses resemble the syllabi on which they are based. More importantly, such research could help shed light on what gets taught in principal-preparation courses. For instance, it would be most interesting to learn what instructional approaches are used, what topics are discussed, what kind of work is assigned, and how is performance assessed. Future research might also explore the distinction between what principals, assistant principals, and specialists need to know and how those differences are recognized or addressed in the course of preparation.

Of course, the content of instruction is only one component of more fully understanding the nature of principal preparation; it will also be equally useful for scholars to consider internships, program structure, and mentoring. Our hope is that scholarship on preparation will examine both program structure and content.

Currently, a number of preparation programs are considering redesign. This means that these findings may become dated as new training programs are launched in the years ahead. It also means that these findings could be of immediate value in helping principal-preparation providers to revisit their assumptions as they work to rethink their programs. That said, the Southern Regional Education Board, whose Leadership Initiative is driving preparation and certification reform in its 16 member states, has cautioned: "Redesigning leadership-preparation programs does not mean simply rearranging old courses—as staff at some universities and leadership academies are inclined to do. True redesign requires a new curriculum framework and new courses aimed at producing principals who can lead schools to excellence" (SREB, 2003, p. 7). Whether preparation programs are intent on answering that challenge remains to be seen, but the flurry of redesign efforts is a development worth watching in the years ahead.

Notes

1 Jamentz (2002) highlights this set of skills and asserts that principals must be actively engaged in constructing standards-based curricula, aligned assessments, and demonstrating and coaching effective teaching and learning practices.

2 While scholars have examined the link between the values and beliefs of administrators and effective schooling (Krug, Ahadi, & Scott, 1991), looked at "clusters" of leadership behavior and their relationship to school performance (Heck, Larson, & Marcoulides, 1990), and reviewed previous research to determine the importance of the principal's role in effective schooling (Hallinger & Heck, 1998), this work is regarded as more suggestive than conclusive.

3 Other studies analyzed the effect of extra training in "interpersonal management" on candidates' interpersonal skills like "physical attending, empathy, respect, and concreteness" (Smith, Montello, & White, 1992, p. 243) and surveyed administrators to identify skills that they report principals need (Schmeider, McGrevin, & Townley, 1994; Daresh, Gantner, Dunlap, & Hvizdak, 2000).

4 It is worth noting that principal-preparation programs do not solely serve aspiring principals. The classes in these programs also enroll assistant principal candidates, specialists (like special education administrators or school finance officials), and teachers seeking graduate credit. However, this fact should not confuse our line of inquiry. Since we sampled syllabi from core courses in each institution's principal-preparation track, the fact that these courses may enroll others does not alter the fact that they are the classes that future principals complete during their graduate preparation.

5 Because principal candidates will often take classes at two or more different institutions over the course of obtaining their credential, schools often do not keep records of the number of principals certified each year and the IPEDS database does not keep track of the number of certificates that are awarded by individual schools.

6 Three of the 210 syllabi included in the final sample did not have specific topics listed but did include assigned readings. Because the topic of the session could be gleaned from the readings, these syllabi were included.

7 It is, of course, theoretically possible for faculty to assign readings of one ideological perspective and then use instructional time to ensure balanced consideration. This analysis, however, proceeds on the premise that class instruction and course readings are important determinants of what students learn. We presume that courses in which students are exposed to a variety of perspectives are more likely to foster open inquiry and instruction.

8 Other examples include, "Transforming urban education with a social justice agenda: The role of the Brown decision in the fight for social justice in urban communities" (Syllabus 92: Week 2); Fomenting social change" (Syllabus 128: Week 6); and "Tools for change: Social reconstructionist schooling" (Syllabus 174: Week 4).

9 For instance, Linda Darling-Hammond and Deborah Meier are among the contributors to a recent volume that assails No Child Left Behind-style accountability entitled Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools (3Meier & Wood, 2004).

References

Bagin, D., & Gallagher, D. R. (2001). The school and community relations. 7th edition. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Bozeman, W. C., & Spuck, D. (1991). Technological competence: Training educational leaders. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(4), 514.

Butin, D. W. (2004). The foundations of preparing teachers: Are education schools really "intellectually barren" and ideological? Teachers College Record July 24.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins.

Creighton, T. (2001). Data analysis and the principalship. Principal Leadership, 1(9), 52–57.

Daresh, J. C., Gantner, M., Dunlap, K., & Hvizdak, M. (2000). Words from "The Trenches": Principals' perspectives on effective school leadership characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 10(1), 69–83.

DuFour, R. (2002) The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12–15.

Duke, D., Grogan, M., & Tucker, P. (2003). Educational leadership in an age of accountability. In D. Duke, M. Grogan, P. Tucker, & W. Heinecke, (Eds.), Educational Leadership in an Age of Accountability. New York: State University of New York Press.

Leading for Learning. (2004). Education Week, 24(3), S1–S7.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: The Albert Shanker Institute.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003) Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what's needed to fix public schools. New York: Public Agenda.

Ferrandino, V., & Tirozzi, G. N. (2004). School leadership's future. Principal's perspective. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved on September 12, 2006, at www.principals.org/s_nassp/bin.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=46536&CID=34&VID=2&DOC=FILE.PDF

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press.

Garland, V. E. (1990). Planning for the 1990's: Computer use in programs preparing school administrators. Planning and Changing, 20(4), 231–236.

Glasman, N., Cibulka, J., & Ashby, D. (2002). Program self-evaluation for continuous improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 257–288.

Gonzalez, M., Glasman, N., & Glasman, L. (2002). Daring to link principal preparation programs to student achievement in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 265–283.

Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233–256.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

Heck, R., Larson, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125.

Herrity, V. A., & Glasman, N. S. (1999). Training administrators for culturally and linguistically diverse school populations: Opinions of expert practitioners. Journal of School Leadership, 9(4), 235–253.

Hess, F. M. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America's schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Hess, F. M. (2004). Treating principals like leaders. American School Board Journal, 191(5), 32–35.

Hirth, M. A., & Valesky, T. C. (1990). Survey of universities: Special education knowledge requirements in school administrator preparation programs. Planning and Changing, 21(3), 165–172.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice, 7th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

Jackson, B., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192–212.

Jamentz, K. (2002). Isolation is the enemy of improvement: Instructional leadership to support standards-based practice. San Francisco: WestEd.

Keller, B. (2003). Education school courses faulted as intellectually thin. Education Week, 23(11), 8.

King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership,59(8), 61–63.

Krug, S., Ahadi, S., & Scott, C. K. (1991). Current issues and research findings in the study of school leadership. In P. Thurston & P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Advances in educational administration, Volume 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kowalski, T. (1995). Keepers of the flame: Contemporary urban superintendents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Kowalski, T. (2004). The ongoing war for the soul of school administration. Better leaders for America's schools: Perspectives on the manifesto (pp. 92–114). Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.

Lampe, R. E. (1985). Principals' training in counseling and development: A national survey. Counselor Education and Supervision, 25(1), 44–47.

Lashway, L. (2003). Transforming principal preparation. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. ERIC Digest, 160 (July).

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Teachers College, The Education Schools Project.

Lyman, L., & Villani, C. (2002). The complexion of poverty: A missing component of educational leadership programs. Journal of School Leadership, 11(4), 246–280.

Meier, D., & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas, lessons to America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Murphy, J. (2001a). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 58(10), Web edition.

Murphy, J. (2001b). Reculturing the Profession of Educational Leadership: New Blueprints. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, November 3, Cincinnati, OH.

Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2004). Research in preparation programs in educational administration: An analysis. Monograph prepared for the University Council for Educational Administration.

Nicolaides, N., & Gaynor, A. K. (1992). The knowledge base informing the teaching of administrative and organizational theory in UCEA universities: A descriptive and interpretive survey. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 237–265.

Norton, M. S., & Levan, F. (1987). Doctoral studies in educational administration programs in UCEA member institutions. Educational Considerations, 13(1), 21–24.

Parker, L., & Shapiro, J. P. (1992). What is the discussion of diversity in educational administration programs? Graduate students' voices addressing an omission in their preparation. Journal of School Leadership, 2(1), 7–33.

Peterson, K., & Deal, T. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Grundlach, L. (2003). Making sense of leading schools: A study of the principalship. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Rebore, R.W. (2004). Human resources administration in education: A management approach, 7th Edition. New York: Pearson-Allyn and Bacon.

Roberts, J. (1991). In preparation for the principalship: Initiates' problems in conducting instructional conferences. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2), 38–49.

Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. E. (1999). Building character in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlechty, P. C. (2000). Leading a school system through change: Key steps for moving reform forward. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 182–201.

Schmeider, J. H., McGrevin, C., & Townley, A. H. (1994). Keys to success: Critical skills for novice principals. Journal of School Leadership, 4(3), 272–293.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sirotnik, K A., & Kimball, K. (1994). The unspecial place of special education in programs that prepare school administrators. Journal of Educational Administration, 4(6), 598–630.

Smart, B. D. (1999). Topgrading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching, and keeping the best people. New York: Prentice Hall.

Smith, R. M., Montello, P. A., & White, P. E. (1992) Investigation of interpersonal management training for educational administrators. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 242–245.

Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Steiner, D. M., & Rozen, S. (2004). Preparing tomorrow's teachers: An analysis of syllabi from a sample of America's schools of education. In F. M. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, & K. Walsh (Eds.), A qualified teacher in every classroom? Appraising old answers and new ideas (pp. 119–148). Cambridge: Harvard Education Press

Suntop Media and Bloomsbury Publishing. (2003). Thinkers 50 2003. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Retrieved on September 1, 2004 from http://www.thinkers50.com/.

Supovitz, J. A., & Poglinco, S. M., (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Sweeney, J., & Moeller, L. (2001). "Decision training – The use of a decision curriculum with in basket simulation. Education, 104(4), 414–418.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2003). Better leaders for America's schools: A manifesto. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Tucker, M. (2003). Out With the Old. Education Next, 3(4), 20–24.

Tucker, M., & Codding, J. B. (Eds.) (2002). The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Welch, J. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Books.

Young, M., & Kochan, F. (2004). UCEA leaders respond: Supporting leadership for America's schools. Better Leaders for America's Schools: Perspectives on the Manifesto (pp. 115–129). Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.

Young, M., Peterson, G., & Short, P. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 130–136.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 109 Number 1, 2007, p. -

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12742, Date Accessed: 12/20/2006 3:48:20 PM

By Valerie Strauss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Did you know that despite all the criticisms leveled from coast to coast about K-12 public schools, most parents report being very satisfied with their child's school? Did you know that distance education courses are offered at more than half the country's two- and four-year postsecondary institutions?

These and other statistics are in the 2006 Condition of Education report published by the U.S. Department of Education. Each year, the department collects reams of data and statistically paints a portrait of where U.S. education stands. The following are some highlights from the latest report, available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

Figures used are the latest available.

PARTICIPATION

The percentage of children ages 3 to 5 who attended early childhood care and education programs -- including day care, Head Start, pre-kindergarten and nursery schools -- increased from 53 percent in 1991 to 60 percent in 1999. It then decreased to 57 percent in 2005.

Between 1972 and 2004, the percentage of racial or ethnic minority students enrolled in the nation's public schools increased from 22 to 43 percent, primarily because of growth in Hispanic enrollment. In 2004, Hispanic students made up 19 percent of public school enrollment, up from 6 percent in 1972.

The distribution of minority students in public schools differed across regions of the country. For example, minority public school enrollment in 2004 exceeded white enrollment in the West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming), 57 percent to 43 percent.

The number of children ages 5 to 17 who spoke a language other than English at home more than doubled between 1979 and 2004, from 3.8 million to 9.9 million.

SATISFACTION

In 2003, half of children in grades three through 12 had parents who reported that they were "very satisfied" with their child's school, teachers, the school's academic standards and the school's order and discipline.

The percentage of students in grades one through 12 whose parents enrolled them in a "chosen" public school -- a public school other than their assigned school -- increased from 11 to 15 percent between 1993 and 2003.

In 2003, the parents of 24 percent of students reported that they moved to their neighborhood to have their child attend a specific school.

From 1992 through 2003, the rate of crime against students at school declined by 53 percent for theft (95 to 45 crimes per 1,000 students) and by 42 percent for all violent crime (48 to 28 crimes per 1,000 students).

Total expenditures per student increased 23 percent in constant dollars, from $7,847 to $9,630 between the 1995-96 and 2002-03 school years.

In 2002-03, total per-student expenditures were highest in low-poverty districts ($10,768), next highest in high-poverty districts ($10,191) and lowest in middle-poverty districts ($8,839).

HIGHER EDUCATION

From 1972 to 2004, the rate at which high school graduates enrolled in college in the fall immediately after high school increased from 49 to 67 percent.

The number of bachelor's degrees awarded from academic years 1989-90 through 2003-04 increased by 33 percent; the number of associate's degrees increased by 46 percent.

In 2004-05, about 62 percent of public and private not-for-profit, two- and four-year institutions offered distance-education courses.

In 2003-04, the average cost of attendance (including tuition and fees, books and materials and living expenses) for full-time dependent students was:

-- $9,800 at public, two-year institutions

-- $15,100 at public, four-year institutions

-- $29,500 at private, not-for-profit four-year-institutions

-- $18,100 at private, for-profit less-than-four-year institutions

Although net access price (an estimate of the cash outlay families need to make in a given year to cover educational expenses) increased overall at public, four-year institutions between 1999-2000 and 2003-04, only middle-income students faced statistically significant increases; there was no measurable change for low- and high-income students.

In 2004, about 51 percent of low-socioeconomic status 12th-graders expected to earn a bachelor's degree or attend graduate school, compared with 65 percent of middle-socioeconomic status and 87 percent of high-socioeconomic seniors. (Socioeconomic status is based on income, occupation and education levels.)

The average reading scores of fourth- and eighth-graders evaluated by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test sometimes called the nation's report card, increased two points between 1992 and 2005.

The percentage of fourth-graders performing at or above proficient (meaning solid academic achievement) on the national assessment increased between 1992 and 2002 from 29 to 31 percent and has remained steady since. In 2005, 31 percent of eighth-graders performed at or above proficient.

The average NAEP math scores of fourth-graders increased 25 points from 1990 to 2005 (213 to 238), and the average score of eighth-graders increased 16 points (from 263 to 279.)

From 1990 to 2005, the percentage of fourth-graders who performed at or above proficient in math jumped from 13 to 36 percent, and for eighth-graders, the increase was from 15 to 30 percent.

NAEP results indicate that the achievement gaps in reading, from the first assessment in 1992 to 2005, between white and black and white and Hispanic fourth- and eighth-graders have shown little measurable change.

INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENTS

There has been a great deal of angst in recent years about the performance of U.S. students on international assessments, with some critics bemoaning that U.S. students trail their peers in other countries. Others argue that it is unfair to compare students in one country with those in another.

The Condition of Education notes in an analysis the difficulties in international comparisons, including the uneven distribution of students' economic and social factors across countries, which can affect outcomes of cross-national comparisons. The difference in educational systems, some of which strongly direct certain students toward higher education and others away from it, is a key factor as well. Still, all countries share similar educational challenges.

Although it does not make direct comparisons between studies, the report highlights key findings from the international assessments in which the United States participates. Three measure various reading skills, and three measure math skills.

Results vary by subject, grade or age and test. U.S. students do not lead in any assessment.

This article can be access at: Tuesday, November 21, 2006; Page A08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000943.html

By IAN F. HANEY LÓPEZ

How will race as a social practice evolve in the United States over the next few decades? The American public, and indeed many scholars, increasingly believe that the country is leaving race and racism behind. Some credit Brown v. Board of Education, the revered 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision pronouncing segregated schools unequal, and the broad civil-rights movement of which the decision was a part, with turning the nation away from segregation and toward equality. Others point to changing demographics, emphasizing the rising number of mixed-race marriages and the increasing Asian and Hispanic populations that are blurring the historic black-white divide.

My sense of our racial future differs. Not only do I fear that race will continue to fundamentally skew American society over the coming decades, but I worry that the belief in the diminished salience of race makes that more likely rather than less. I suspect that the laws supposedly protecting against racial discrimination are partly to blame, for they no longer contribute to racial justice but instead legitimate continued inequality. We find ourselves now in the midst of a racial era marked by what I term "colorblind white dominance," in which a public consensus committed to formal antiracism deters effective remediation of racial inequality, protecting the racial status quo while insulating new forms of racism and xenophobia.

The Jefferson County school district, in Kentucky, covers Louisville and surrounding suburbs. A target of decades of litigation to eradicate Jim Crow school segregation and its vestiges, the district has since 2001 voluntarily pursued efforts to maintain what is now one of the most integrated school systems in the country. But not everyone supports those efforts, especially when they involve taking race into consideration in pupil assignments. In 2004 a white lawyer named Teddy B. Gordon ran for a seat on the Jefferson County School Board, promising to end endeavors to maintain integrated schools. He finished dead last, behind three other candidates. Indifferent to public repudiation, he is back — this time in the courtroom. Gordon's argument is seductively simple: Brown forbids all governmental uses of race, even if designed to achieve or maintain an integrated society.

He has already lost at the trial level and before an appellate court, as have two other sets of plaintiffs challenging similar integration-preserving efforts by school districts in Seattle and in Lynn, Mass. But Gordon and the conservative think tanks and advocacy groups that back him, including the self-styled Center for Equal Opportunity, are not without hope. To begin with, over the past three decades the courts have come ever closer to fully embracing a colorblind Constitution — colorblind in the sense of disfavoring all uses of race, irrespective of whether they are intended to perpetuate or ameliorate racial oppression. More immediately, last June the Supreme Court voted to review the Louisville and Seattle cases — Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District.

Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, is thrilled. As he gleefully noted in The National Review, there's an old saw that the court does not hear cases it plans to affirm. The Bush administration, too, supports Gordon and his efforts. The U.S. solicitor general recently submitted a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to prevent school districts across the country from paying attention to race.

At issue is a legally backed ideology of colorblindness that could have implications beyond schools — for higher education and the wider society. Yes, in a narrowly tailored decision three years ago, the Supreme Court allowed the University of Michigan to consider race as one factor in law-school admissions. But since then, conservative advocacy groups have used the threat of lawsuits to intimidate many institutions into halting race-based college financial-aid and orientation programs, as well as graduate stipends and fellowships, and those groups are now taking aim at faculty hiring procedures. This month Michigan voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban racial and gender preferences wherever practiced. And looming on the horizon are renewed efforts to enact legislation forbidding the federal and state governments from collecting statistics that track racial disparities, efforts that are themselves part of a broader campaign to expunge race from the national vocabulary.

Gordon predicts that if he prevails, Louisville schools will rapidly resegregate. He is sanguine about the prospect. "We're a diverse society, a multiethnic society, a colorblind society," he told The New York Times. "Race is history."

But the past is never really past, especially not when one talks about race and the law in the United States. We remain a racially stratified country, though for some that constitutes an argument for rather than against colorblindness. Given the long and sorry history of racial subordination, there is tremendous rhetorical appeal to Justice John Marshall Harlan's famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case upholding segregated railway cars: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

Contemporary proponents of colorblindness almost invariably draw a straight line from that dissent to their own impassioned advocacy for being blind to race today. But in doing so, partisans excise Harlan's acknowledgment of white superiority in the very paragraph in which he extolled colorblindness: "The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time." That omission obscures a more significant elision: Harlan objected not to all governmental uses of race, but to those he thought would unduly oppress black people.

As viewed by Harlan and the court, the central question was where to place limits on government support for the separation of racial groups that were understood to be unequal by nature (hence Harlan's comfortable endorsement of white superiority). He and the majority agreed that the state could enforce racial separation in the "social" but not in the "civil" arenas; they differed on the contours of the spheres. Harlan believed that segregated train cars limited the capacity of black people to participate as full citizens in civic life, while the majority saw such segregation only as a regulation of social relations sanctioned by custom. The scope of the civil arena mattered so greatly precisely because state exclusions from public life threatened to once again reduce the recently emancipated to an inferior caste defined by law.

For the first half of the 20th century, colorblindness represented the radical and wholly unrealized aspiration of dismantling de jure racial subordination. Thus Thurgood Marshall, as counsel to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the late 1940s and early 1950s, cited Harlan's celebration of colorblindness to argue that racial distinctions are "contrary to our Constitution and laws." But neither society nor the courts embraced colorblindness when doing so might have sped the demise of white supremacy. Even during the civil-rights era, colorblindness as a strategy for racial emancipation did not take hold. Congress and the courts dismantled Jim Crow segregation and proscribed egregious forms of private discrimination in a piecemeal manner, banning only the most noxious misuses of race, not any reference to race whatsoever.

In the wake of the civil-rights movement's limited but significant triumphs, the relationship between colorblindness and racial reform changed markedly. The greatest potency of colorblindness came to lie in preserving, rather than challenging, the racial status quo. When the end of explicit race-based subordination did not eradicate stubborn racial inequalities, progressives increasingly recognized the need for state and private actors to intervene along racial lines. Rather than call for colorblindness, they began to insist on the need for affirmative race-conscious remedies. In that new context, colorblindness appealed to those opposing racial integration. Enshrouded with the moral raiment of the civil-rights movement, colorblindness provided cover for opposition to racial reform.

Within a year of Brown, Southern school districts and courts had recognized that they could forestall integration by insisting that the Constitution allowed them to use only "race neutral" means to end segregation — school-choice plans that predictably produced virtually no integration whatsoever. In 1965 a federal court in South Carolina put it squarely: "The Constitution is color-blind; it should no more be violated to attempt integration than to preserve segregation."

Wielding the ideal of colorblindness as a sword, in the past three decades racial conservatives on the Supreme Court have increasingly refought the battles lost during the civil-rights era, cutting back on protections against racial discrimination as well as severely limiting race-conscious remedies. In several cases in the 1970s — including North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, upholding school-assignment plans, and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — the court ruled that the need to redress the legacy of segregation made strict colorblindness impossible. But as the 1980s went on, in other cases — McCleskey v. Kemp, which upheld Georgia's death penalty despite uncontroverted statistical evidence that African-Americans convicted of murder were 22 times as likely to be sentenced to death if their victims were white rather than black, and City of Richmond v. Croson, which rejected a city affirmative-action program steering some construction dollars to minority-owned companies despite the fact that otherwise only two-thirds of 1 percent of city contracts went to minority companies in a city 50 percent African-American — the court presented race as a phenomenon called into existence just when someone employed a racial term. Discrimination existed only but every time someone used racial language. Thus the court found no harm in Georgia's penal system, because no evidence surfaced of a specific bad actor muttering racial epithets, while it espied racism in Richmond's affirmative-action program because it set aside contracts for "minorities."

That approach ignores the continuing power of race as a society-altering category. The civil-rights movement changed the racial zeitgeist of the nation by rendering illegitimate all explicit invocations of white supremacy, a shift that surely marked an important step toward a more egalitarian society. But it did not bring into actual existence that ideal, as white people remain dominant across virtually every social, political, and economic domain. In 2003 the poverty rate was 24 percent among African-Americans, 23 percent among Latinos, and 8 percent among white people. That same year, an estimated 20 percent of African-Americans and 33 percent of Latinos had no health insurance, while 11 percent of white people were uninsured. Discrepancies in incarceration rates are particularly staggering, with African-American men vastly more likely to spend time in prison than white men are.

Or forget the numbers and recall for a moment the graphic parade of images from Hurricane Katrina. Or consider access to country clubs and gated communities, in-group preferences for jobs and housing, the moral certainty shared by many white folks regarding their civic belonging and fundamental goodness. Or, to tie back to Louisville, reflect on what you already know about the vast, racially correlated disparities in resources available to public (and still more to private) schools across the country. Racial dominance by white people continues as a central element of our society.

What may be changing, however, is how membership in the white group is defined. The term "white" has a far more complicated — and fluid — history in the United States than people commonly recognize. For most of our history, whiteness stood in contrast to the nonwhite identities imposed upon Africans, American Indians, Mexican peoples of the Southwest, and Asian immigrants, marking one pole in the racial hierarchy. Simultaneously, however, putative "racial" divisions separated Europeans, so that in the United States presumptions of gross racial inferiority were removed from Germans only in the 1840s through 1860s, the Irish in the 1850s through 1880s, and Eastern and Southern Europeans in the 1900s to 1920s. The melding of various European groups into the monolithic, undifferentiated "white" category we recognize today is a recent innovation, only fully consolidated in the mid-20th century. Now white identity may be expanding to include persons and groups with ancestors far beyond Europe.

Perhaps we should distinguish here among three sorts of white identity. Consider first persons who are "fully white," in the sense that, with all of the racially relevant facts about them widely known, they would generally be considered white by the community at large. (Obviously, racial identity is a matter not of biology but of social understandings, although those may give great weight to purportedly salient differences in morphology and ancestry.) In contrast to that group, there have long been those "passing as white" — people whose physical appearance allowed them to claim a white identity when social custom would have assigned them to a nonwhite group had their ancestry been widely known. Of people of Irish and Jewish descent in the United States, for example, one might say that while initially some were able to pass as white, now all are fully white.

Today a new group is emerging, perhaps best described as "honorary whites." Apartheid South Africa first formally crafted this identity: Seeking to engage in trade and commerce with nations cast as inferior by apartheid logic, particularly Japan, South Africa extended to individuals from such countries the status of honorary white people, allowing them to travel, reside, relax, and conduct business in South African venues that were otherwise strictly "whites only." Persons who pass as white hide racially relevant parts of their identity; honorary whites are extended the status of whiteness despite the public recognition that, from a bioracial perspective, they are not fully white.

In the United States, honorary-white status seems increasingly to exist for certain people and groups. The quintessential example is certain Asian-Americans, particularly East Asians. Although Asians have long been racialized as nonwhite as a matter of law and social practice, the model-minority myth and professional success have combined to free some Asian-Americans from the most pernicious negative beliefs regarding their racial character. In part this trend represents a shift toward a socially based, as opposed to biologically based, definition of race. Individuals and communities with the highest levels of acculturation, achievement, and wealth increasingly find themselves functioning as white, at least as measured by professional integration, residential patterns, and intermarriage rates.

Latinos also have access to honorary-white identity, although their situation differs from that of Asian-Americans. Unlike the latter, and also unlike African-Americans, Latinos in the United States have long been on the cusp between white and nonwhite. Despite pervasive and often violent racial prejudice against Mexicans in the Southwest and Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic groups elsewhere, the most elite Latin Americans in the United States have historically been accepted as fully white. With no clear identity under the continental theory of race (which at its most basic identifies blacks as from Africa, whites from Europe, reds from the Americas, and yellows from Asia), and with a tremendous range of somatic features marking this heterogeneous population, there has long been relatively more room for the use of social rather than strictly biological factors in the imputation of race to particular Hispanic individuals and groups.

It seems likely that an increasing number of Latinos — those who have fair features, material wealth, and high social status, aided also by Anglo surnames — will both claim and be accorded a position in U.S. society as fully white. Simultaneously, many more — similarly situated in terms of material and status position, but perhaps with slightly darker features or a surname or accent suggesting Latin-American origins — will become honorary whites. Meanwhile, the majority of Latinos will continue to be relegated to nonwhite categories.

The continuing evolution in who counts as white is neither particularly startling nor especially felicitous. Not only have racial categories and ideologies always mutated, but race has long turned on questions of wealth, professional attainment, and social position. A developing scholarship now impressively demonstrates that even during and immediately after slavery, at a time when racial identity in the United States was presumably most rigidly fixed in terms of biological difference and descent, and even in the hyperformal legal setting of the courtroom, determinations of racial identity often took place on the basis of social indicia like the nature of one's employment or one's choice of sexual partners.

Nor will categories like black, brown, white, yellow, and red soon disappear. Buttressed by the continued belief in continental racial divisions, physical features those divisions supposedly connote will remain foundational to racial classification. The stain of African ancestry — so central to the elaboration of race in the United States — ensures a persistent special stigma for black people. Honorary-white status will be available only to the most exceptional — and the most light-skinned — African-Americans, and on terms far more restrictive than those on which whiteness will be extended to many Latinos and Asian-Americans.

Those many in our society who are darker, poorer, more identifiably foreign will continue to suffer the poverty, marginalization, immiseration, incarceration, and exclusion historically accorded to those whose skin and other features socially mark them as nonwhite. Even under a redefined white category, racial hierarchy will continue as the links are strengthened between nonwhite identity and social disadvantage on the one hand, and whiteness and privilege on the other. Under antebellum racial logic, those black people with the fairest features were sometimes described as "light, bright, and damn near white." If today we switch out "damn near" for "honorary" and fold in a few other minorities, how much has really changed?

In the face of continued racial hierarchy, it is crucial that we understand the colorblind ideology at issue in the school cases before the Supreme Court. "In the eyes of government, we are just one race here," Justice Antonin Scalia intoned in 1995. "It is American." That sentiment is stirring as an aspiration, but disheartening as a description of reality, and even more so as a prescription for racial policies. All persons of good will aspire to a society free from racial hierarchy. We should embrace colorblindness — in the sense of holding it up as an ideal. But however far the civil-rights struggle has moved us, we remain far from a racially egalitarian utopia.

In this context, the value of repudiating all governmental uses of race must depend on a demonstrated ability to remedy racial hierarchy. Colorblindness as a policy prescription merits neither fealty nor moral stature by virtue of the attractiveness of colorblindness as an ideal. In the hands of a Thurgood Marshall, who sought to end Jim Crow segregation and to foster an integrated society, colorblindness was a transformative, progressive practice. But when Teddy Gordon, Roger Clegg, the Bush administration, and the conservative justices on the Supreme Court call for banning governmental uses of race, they aim to end the efforts of local majorities to respond constructively to racial inequality. In so doing, they are making their version of colorblindness a reactionary doctrine.

Contemporary colorblindness is a set of understandings — buttressed by law and the courts, and reinforcing racial patterns of white dominance — that define how people comprehend, rationalize, and act on race. As applied, however much some people genuinely believe that the best way to get beyond racism is to get beyond race, colorblindness continues to retard racial progress. It does so for a simple reason: It focuses on the surface, on the bare fact of racial classification, rather than looking down into the nature of social practices. It gets racism and racial remediation exactly backward, and insulates new forms of race baiting.

White dominance continues with few open appeals to race. Consider the harms wrought by segregated schools today. Schools in predominantly white suburbs are far more likely to have adequate buildings, teachers, and books, while the schools serving mainly minority children are more commonly underfinanced, unsafe, and in a state of disrepair. Such harms acccumulate, encouraging white flight to avoid the expected deterioration in schools and the violence that is supposedly second nature to "them," only to precipitate the collapse in the tax base that in fact ensures a decline not only in schools but also in a range of social services. Such material differences in turn buttress seemingly common-sense ideas about disparate groups, so that we tend to see pristine schools and suburbs as a testament to white accomplishment and values. When violence does erupt, it is laid at the feet of alienated and troubled teenagers, not a dysfunctional culture. Yet we see the metal detectors guarding entrances to minority schoolhouses (harbingers of the prison bars to come) as evidence not of the social dynamics of exclusion and privilege, but of innate pathologies. No one need talk about the dynamics of privilege and exclusion. No one need cite white-supremacist arguments nor openly refer to race — race exists in the concrete of our gated communities and barrios, in government policies and programs, in cultural norms and beliefs, and in the way Americans lead their lives.

Colorblindness badly errs when it excuses racially correlated inequality in our society as unproblematic so long as no one uses a racial epithet. It also egregiously fails when it tars every explicit reference to race. To break the interlocking patterns of racial hierarchy, there is no other way but to focus on, talk about, and put into effect constructive policies explicitly engaged with race. To be sure, inequality in wealth is a major and increasing challenge for our society, but class is not a substitute for a racial analysis — though, likewise, racial oppression cannot be lessened without sustained attention to poverty. It's no accident that the poorest schools in the country warehouse minorities, while the richest serve whites; the national education crisis reflects deeply intertwined racial and class politics. One does not deny the imbrication of race and class by insisting on the importance of race-conscious remedies: The best strategies for social repair will give explicit attention to race as well as to other sources of inequality, and to their complex interrelationship.

The claim that race and racism exist only when specifically mentioned allows colorblindness to protect a new racial politics from criticism. The mobilization of public fears along racial lines has continued over the past several decades under the guise of interlinked panics about criminals, welfare cheats, terrorists, and — most immediately in this political season — illegal immigrants. Attacks ostensibly targeting "culture" or "behavior" rather than "race" now define the diatribes of today's racial reactionaries. Samuel P. Huntington's jeremiad against Latino immigration in his book Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity rejects older forms of white supremacy, but it promotes the idea of a superior Anglo-Protestant culture. Patrick J. Buchanan defends his latest screed attacking "illegal immigrants," State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, against the charge of racism by insisting that he's indifferent to race but outraged by those with different cultures who violate our laws. My point is not simply that culture and behavior provide coded language for old prejudices, but that colorblindness excuses and insulates this recrudescence of xenophobia by insisting that only the explicit use of racial nomenclature counts as racism.

Contemporary colorblindness loudly proclaims its antiracist pretensions. To actually move toward a racially egalitarian society, however, requires that we forthrightly respond to racial inequality today. The alternative is the continuation of colorblind white dominance. As Justice Harry Blackmun enjoined in defending affirmative action in Bakke: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way."

Ian F. Haney López is a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. New York University Press has just issued a 10th-anniversary edition of his White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race, with a new chapter on colorblind white dominance.

http://chronicle.com

Section: The Chronicle ReviewVolume 53, Issue 11, Page B6