This makes perfect sense to me, as I contemplate the Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) decision against “separate but equal” policy in public education. In my lifetime, I have always understood U.S. public schools legally integrated; or put another way, that segregation and discrimination by race and ethnicity should be considered illegal. Yet, a cursory review of demographics in any American community will display another self-emergent social force in public schools; socioeconomic class. If schools could be truly color-blind forces a different reality to emerge. The reality that even in the most racially and ethnically balanced or successful school districts, class and money talk. Segregation in public education is characterized by poverty. I would argue, however, that skin color has traditionally camouflaged the underlying problem of poverty prevalent to minor populations.
The socioeconomic demographics of a community are often reflected in the achievement levels of the neighborhood schools. Many families shop for residences based upon the quality of the schools in the neighborhood. Therefore, people who can afford to live in nicer neighborhoods will be able to send their children to richer schools, supported by the tax structure of that community. By contrast, families that cannot afford to live by the standards of higher socioeconomic communities will be relegated to poorer school districts, based upon a lower tax-base. Because racial minorities have historically suffered from a lack of opportunity and inquity in the workforce, racial minorities have had less opportunity to seek higher standards of living and better school districts. The achievement level of public schools, therefore, tends to reflect the economic make-up its community neighborhoods.
“Achievement scores are strongly linked to school racial composition and so is the presence of highly qualified and experienced teachers” (5). Some might call this a vicious cycle. Teachers do not typically choose to work in the most challenging school districts with the greatest adversity. Consequently, research has shown that the highest caliber teachers tend to be found in the highest achieving schools. Although this argument has many implications depending upon the comparison factors, it does stand to reason that keeping highly experienced and qualified teachers in highly stressed schools is difficult.
When I consider the characteristics of a complex adaptive system, it seems to me that the simple rule of emergent change within a society would suggest that one of the great forces of change in schools has to do with the socioeconomic status of its demographics. Race and ethnicity are related to poverty by forces of racial inequality in this country. It could be argued that they are inextricably linked, however, the numerous cases of white families who suffer from poverty would suggest that poverty is color-blind. Yet, as Orfield and Lee point out, the fact remains that “Minority children are far more likely than whites to grow up in persistent poverty” (5). The key lies in the concept of “concentrated poverty” (5). Research will show that minority students have a longer history of living in poverty than white families who experience temporary periods of economic downturn.
When I consider the students in my 7th grade middle school classes who enrolled in pre-AP English Language Arts through a policy of open enrollment, those who struggle less tend to reflect families with higher economic stability. But this isn’t the case for all my students. When I take a closer look at those who struggle the most, Latino children and those who qualify for free and reduced lunch, many of which are also white, stand out. Poverty seems to be the underlying factor, which tends to coincide with ethnicity. Of course many other factors can be found to contribute to their underachievement in school, but many indicators point to families that want their children to succeed as indicated by enrolling their children in pre-AP classes, living in a middle-income community, thereby availing their children to a higher socioeconomic community.
Orfield and Lee reminds us that Martin Luther King Junior’s work in the 1960s was about achieving equality through opportunity among minority populations. “The civil rights movement was never about sitting next to whites, it was about equalizing opportunity, (8). Segregation must be understood at deeper levels than an examination by skin-color might suggest. I think the legacy of poverty will become more color-blind as society becomes increasingly racially mixed and bicultural, as biracial children populate our schools in greater numbers, and as America’s demographic landscape continues to evolve. Poverty is a difference that makes a difference in public education.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment