<p>Not a fun read.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm[/url]”>http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm</a></p>
<p>The situation is not improving…</p>
<p>mini,
sad, provocative and must-read for anyone interested in education. I forwarded to my daughter who is college junior majoring in education. thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>I am a teacher, and the most chilling part of that whole thing for me was the description of the rules and protocols for “SFA.” It felt like the social strucure of the dystopia depicted in A Wrinkle in Time. </p>
<p>I’ve long thought that the marriage going on between the corporate world and the world of education had some very sick sides and was wholly inappropriate below the level of college. This article reinforces that judgment. Where I live, business has way too much influence on what goes on in education. The difference between “education” and “training” is being lost. And here, it has more to do with economic class than with race. Nevertheless, it is chilling and real.</p>
<p>good article. the section about the los angeles unified school district really hit home as i had just studied the education system there last quarter at my college. it’s very sad.</p>
<p>Thank you for posting the link. I found this part especially poignant:</p>
<p>“Dear Mr. Kozol,” wrote the eight-year-old, "we do not have the things you have. You have Clean things. We do not have. You have a clean bathroom. We do not have that. You have Parks and we do not have Parks.</p>
<p>You have all the thing and we do not have all the thing. Can you help us?"</p>
<p>The letter, from a child named Alliyah, came in a flit envelope of twenty-seven letters from a class of third-grade children in the Bronx. Other letters that the students in Alliyah’s classroom sent me registered some of the same complaints. “We don’t have no gardens,” “no Music or Art,” and “no fun places to play,” one child said. “Is there a way to fix this Problem?” Another noted a concern one hears from many children in such overcrowded schools: “We have a gym but it is for lining up. I think it is not fair.”</p>
<p>Yet another of Alliyah’s classmates asked me, with a sweet misspelling, if I knew the way to make her school into a “good” school"like the other kings have"and ended with the hope that I would do my best to make it possible for “all the kings” to have good schools.</p>
<p>The letter that affected me the most, however, had been written by a child named Elizabeth. “It is not fair that other kids have a garden and new things. But we don’t have that,” said Elizabeth. “I wish that this school was the most beautiful school in the whole why world.”</p>
<p>“The whole why world” stayed in my thoughts for days. When I later met Elizabeth, I brought her letter with me, thinking I might see whether, in reading it aloud, she’d change the “why” to “wide” or leave it as it was. My visit to her class, however, proved to he so pleasant, and the children seemed so eager to bombard me with their questions about where I lived, and why I lived there rather than in New York, and who I lived with, and how many dogs I had, and other interesting questions of that sort, that I decided not to interrupt the nice reception they had given me with questions about usages and spelling.</p>
<p>I left “the whole why world” to float around unedited and unrevised in my mind. The letter itself soon found a resting place on the wall above my desk."</p>
<p>This is so true and is why I get very frustrated when people solely focus on test scores of schools and districts. The issue is so much deeper. I spent the first three years of my teaching career in a public school system in Mississippi. It was not a rural area, but I only taught minority students. We faced so many challenges on a daily basis. Kids came to school without supplies, without being fed, and hardly ready to learn. Many of our kindergartners came to us at a developmental level of about 3 years old. Parents weren’t able to be very involved either because they had severe problems of their own (drugs, prison, etc.) or they were working 3 jobs just to get by and couldn’t spare the time to come for a parent conference. We struggled for supplies in that district, often limiting paper, copies, or other basic necessities because we simply couldn’t afford it. We had PTO meetings where there were more teachers in attendance than parents. We worked our tails off to teach these kids, but so many were starting behind that you felt like you never made up any ground. We also dealt with behavior issues like guns (and yes, this was an elementary school) and severe tantrums because many of our kids had been born addicted to drugs or simply needed attention. We couldn’t go on field trips unless they were free because we couldn’t ask the parents to pay for anything when our school had about 95% of its students on free or reduced lunch.</p>
<p>I contrast that to where I teach now in suburban Alabama. I’m in an upper middle class district. We have minorities, but it is a majority white district and race is irrelevant because all of the students are middle class at least. I have any and all supplies that I need. Parents are in the school every day volunteering and offering to buy things for your classroom. We run out of seating at PTO events and programs. Field trips are numerous and we actually have to turn down chaperones because we have too many. Most kids come to kindergarten knowing their colors, shapes, numbers, how to write their name, and some even knowing how to read. Behavior disruptions are minimal and usually involve a child talking too much. These kids are given the opportunity to travel during the summer and partake in outside educational opportunities.</p>
<p>Which district do you think had better test scores and results? The second, of course. There’s a TON of inequity and the system is broken at the core. Redistricting or forcibly integrating schools is not the answer. I grew up in Mississippi under a desegregation order and the first district I described is the one I graduated from…look how well that worked. What happened is that the middle class kids, both black and white, fled to the suburbs. Rather than trying to shuffle kids around, the needs of these inner city and rural districts need to be evaluated and people with experience in those environments need to be involved in developing a plan to fix them. If I had never taught in the district in which I began my career, then I would not have any concept of the fact that you can be an excellent teacher and still feel like a failure either.</p>
<p>It seems to me that before any plans, before any new testing procedures, before any new changes in the environment, there needs to be MONEY. Lots of it. For the past 3 generations, spending on white middle class public schools per student has been roughly double what it has been in predominantly minority ones. I don’t think we need any kind of reparations. Simply level the playing field over generations. In other words, whatever is being spent per student in predominantly white schools, just double it in minority ones, and make that commitment for three generations. Once haivng made such a commitment, there will be plenty of time to plan, re-evaluate, etc. Money isn’t the only thing - but money, over a period of generations, is what makes other things possible. If you don’t believe it, ask the trustees at Andover.</p>
<p>The most telling part of the story for me was that of the college-bound students who were forced to take sewing, and hairstyling - TWICE. I doubt it did much for their SAT scores, and as far as I know, the CollegeBoard has yet to develop an SAT II in braiding.</p>
<p>I sent the article to a friend. I thought his reply was quite insightful, so I’m sharing it.</p>
<p>I think it is pretty obvious by now that we never really had diversity in our public school system. It is just the fa</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Minnesota is an exception. For at least one whole generation (since the early 1970s), statewide funding equalization has meant that tax-subsidized spending per student is HIGHER in “majority-minority” districts than it is in ethnically “white” suburban districts. Of course children from wealthy households still have lots of advantages from growing up in those households. Money is one issue, but it is not the sole issue. Just-plain-bad educational practice is an important reason why learners at all income levels are achieving below reasonable expectations. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/finn200509200817.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/finn200509200817.asp</a> </p>
<p>I look forward to seeing you during your upcoming visit to Minnesota. Thanks for sharing the link; I give Jonathan Kozol a lot of credit for identifying problems that other writers ignore, but I do wish he would seek more accurate perspective on what would result in system improvement.</p>
<p>In reply to post #9, I am not a racist, and I have faith, from knowing the actual parents, that poor parents in majority-minority school districts would shop for better schools if only they could. If school funding followed students, rather than bureacracies, parents of all economic levels could use shopping power to get better education. I learned of this idea way back in 1972 from an article by Nat Hentoff, who I think cannot reasonably be labeled a “conservative” or a racist, but just a guy who cares about poor people.</p>
<p>Minnesota is an exception.</p>
<p>Point taken, though what percentage African-American students are there in Minnesota?</p>
<p>I agree about bad practices (hey, we are homeschoolers!) But the best way to improve practices is to FIRST guarantee monetary commitment over a period of generations, and then figure out how best to make use of the resource. </p>
<p>Works for Andover. ;)</p>
<p>It is also important to remember that not all students are able to shop for different school choices. I draw again on my experiences at my district in Mississippi. While tuition assistance might have helped some students afford an out of district school (since if out of district students were accepted they had to pay as if it was a private school) or one of the two private school choices in the city, transportation to those schools was difficult, if not impossible, since many parents at my school did not own cars. Public transportation in Mississippi is almost non-existent as we didn’t/don’t have enough people to warrant an extensive bus system. Therefore, you might be able to choose a different school, but getting to that school wasn’t feasible. In more rural parts of Mississippi than where I was teaching, the closest elementary or high school might be 30 or more miles away. I use Mississippi as an example just because I’m familiar with it. I’m sure this is the case in many other rural areas. School choice is not always an option for logistical reasons.</p>
<p>Let me start by saying that that I agree wholeheartedly with Kozol’s overall point, and that the story of the kids forced to take two levels of hairstyling when other kids in the same district got computer graphics was nightmarish.</p>
<p>But the subject of money, looking at it here in NJ, is dicey. It is necesary but not sufficient. The thirty low income districts (mostly the big cities) are by court order state-funded basically to the level of whatever the richest districts spend. So, for example, Newark’s funding is ~$16,000 a student. In my mostly lower middle class town, which borders Newark,and is a majority minority school system which doesn’t qualify for the special funds, the funding is ~9000 a student. For school systems in the 3500+ students category, Newark’s funding is the second highest in the state. Our is the 11th lowest (out of more than 100). Our test scores reflect our lack of money, but our SATs still average more than 100 points over Newark’s. There is a similar difference in passing of state-mandated tests. Do I think the students of Newark are less capable? Of course not. But I’d love to know where that money is going–it doesn’t seem to be getting to them.</p>
<p>“There is a similar difference in passing of state-mandated tests. Do I think the students of Newark are less capable? Of course not. But I’d love to know where that money is going–it doesn’t seem to be getting to them.”</p>
<p>No, what I think is that they need to receive double the funding of white districts, including voluntary donations, for three generations, and then we could have a really good discussion! (No, doubling the funding for three generations would not be sufficient, but it is amazing what you can do when you know the money is there, and is going to be, for a long time to come.)</p>
<p>Mini, I do hope we see that continuity, but I have to say, many kids from that system move to our town, and with about half the funding, do much better. I truly don’t have the answers of why, but I’m talking about minority, low-income kids. Believe me, we’re no “white suburb” and certainly not a rich one!</p>
<p>Oh, yes! Actually the research is very clear on that. Low-income, minority kids taught in majority schools do much better (that was one of the initial findings coming out of Brown v. Bd. of Ed.) But with white flight to the suburbs, and to the private schools, that’s really no longer an option for the overwhelming majority of minority kids (or, in California, MAJORITY kids), either within districts, or even crossing district boundary lines (which the Supreme Court says can’t be enforced.)</p>
<p>The money solution has never been tried, except, actually, it has. In white suburbs (as Kozol notes.) It works, too.</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand: we are not a majority white school system, and we are one of the lowest funded systems in the state.</p>
<p>Look, I agree with the same principles you do, just trying to outline a reality here.</p>
<p>If the schools in Newark are like the ones in L.A., the money is going heavily for building maintenance (older buildings more expensive to maintain), and heating/cooling. So the same amount of money “buys less” educationally. But by my suggestion, if Princeton Junction is spending (as Scarsdale does) $22k per student (not counting voluntary contributions), and has been for several generations), to catch up, Newark would need $44k per (plus equivalent doubling in voluntary donations), or roughly triple what they currently get. Not forever. Just three generations. Yes, there would be a lot of “waste”. So? Yes, some of it would be misspent. So? It’s amazing how many mistakes you can make and still provide a great education, when you’ve got the bucks.</p>
<p>You’re doing a pretty good job guessing from the other side of the country–so I’ll help you out. There are numerous working class, low income towns in NJ with hundred year old buildings–hey, we’re an old state. If you want to suggest an income tax on the folks in Princeton Junction, or some other very high income towns, sure, but the millions in the middle or lower level who send their kids to falling apart schools that make do with half what the richest or poorest districts can afford would be hardpressed to pay that 44,000. guess they’d have to close their schools.</p>
<p>Look, the schools are funded, and well, in Newark. The facilities have been upgraded everywhere, they’ve got artificial grass on their playing fields and all kinds of things that the other working class towns around them can’t afford. Their teachers are paid far higher. </p>
<p>More money in the schools won’t fix anything else there. Try better jobs for their parents, eradicating drugs and gangs, better housing, better medical care, better environmental conditions, and a different society in general.</p>